The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,

04-014 Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

COMPARISON OF THE ASSESSMENT RESULTS OF BREEAM, LEED, GBTOOL AND CASBEE

Yukihiro KAWAZU1
Nobuhiro SHIMADA 2
Noriyoshi YOKOO Dr. Eng1
Tatsuo OKA Dr. Eng1

1
Department of Architecture, Utsunomiya University, 7-1-2 Yoto, Utsunomiya, Tochigi 321-8585, Japan,
mt033409@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
yokoo@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
2
oka@cc.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp
Kansai Electric Power, 3-6-16 Nakanoshima, Kita-ku, Osaka 530-8270, Japan, K647997@kepco.co.jp

Keywords: Environmental assessment method, BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, CASBEE

Summary
The assessment results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE are compared in this study. The purpose
is to confirm the identity and the difference of the assessment methods.
Since the beginning of the 1990’s, environmental assessment methods have been developed and
implemented in many countries to enhance energy conservation buildings, green buildings, and high
performances buildings. While these assessment methods are used, the buildings are ranked by the original
assessment results of each method. In this study, the assessment results of a high performance building by
the four environmental assessment methods of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE are compared to
understand the similarities and the differences of the assessment methods. In addition, to compare the
assessment results in detail, three high performance buildings and one low performance building are
assessed by the four environmental assessment methods. Thereby, this study specifies the similarities and
differences of each assessment method.

1. Introduction
The assessment results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE are compared in this paper. The
purpose of this study is to understand the similarities and the differences of the assessment methods.
Since the beginning of the 1990’s, architectural environmental assessment methods came to be a focus of
attention as there began to be more interest in green and sustainable buildings. The main environmental
assessment methods are BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method),
which was developed in the U.K in 1990, LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design), which
was developed in the U.S.A in 1998, GBTool (Green Building Assessment Tool), which was developed by
National Resource Canada and combined 14 countries in 1998 and CASBEE (Comprehenxive Assessment
System for Building Environmental Efficiency), which was developed in Japan in 2003.
In this study, we compared the assessment results of one high performance building by four environmental
assessment methods (BREEAM, LEED, GBTool and CASBEE) to understand the similarities and the
differences of the assessment methods. In addition, to compare the assessment results in detail, three high
performance buildings and one low performance building were assessed by BREEAM, LEED, GBTool and
CASBEE. Through this study, the features of each assessment method will be made clear.

2. The Assessment Results Based on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE

In the following, the four high performance buildings and one low performance building are assessed by
BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE.

2.1 The Assessment Results of the Same Building Based on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE
One case study building (there after referred to as Building A) is an office building in Kobe city. It was
designed based on three concepts, which are ‘safety and reliance’, ‘energy conservation’, and ‘symbolism’.

- 1700 -
 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,
Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

Fig.1 shows Building A’s outline and environmental considerations. Fig.2 shows the assessment results of
Building A based on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE.
2.1.1 BREEAM
The score is high in ‘Health and comfort’ and ‘Energy’ and ‘Transport’, but is low in ‘Materials’ and ‘Ecology’
in the issue categories. In Building A, the cooling tower and the radio tower generate ventilation from wind
power and temperature gradients. Building A introduced a monitoring system for efficient operation. The site
is conveniently located on road access. These factors affect the high score. A small amount of recycled
materials is used in building A. There are few greens on the site. These factors affect the low score.
2.1.2 LEED
The score is good in ‘Sustainable Site’ (SS), ‘Energy & Atmosphere’, (EA) and ‘Indoor Environmental
Quality’ (IEQ), but otherwise the score is low in ‘Materials & Resources’ (MR). In Building A, the site is
located on a developed site. Building A introduced a natural ventilation system. The light fixtures are
automatically controlled by brightness sensors. The HVAC system combine comfort with energy
conservation. These factors contribute to the high score. In Building A, a little amount of recycled and reused
materials are used, but the amount dose not fulfil criteria of LEED. This factor affects the poor score.
2.1.3 GBTool
The score is high in all categories, especially on L (Environmental Loading) and S (Service Quality). The
factors are as follows; reducing CO2 emission by energy saving, using no halon fire retardant and refrigerant
of ODP=0 for reduced atmospheric emission leading to ozone depletion, ample freedom for planning
equipment and space, and using a vibration dampening system.
250
200
150
100

parabolic natural ventilation 50

0
antenna by the radio tower Energy
Health and
Management

Transport

Water

Site ecology
Materials

Land use

Pollution
comfort

radio tower

Building Design & Management & Lost Points

Performance Procurement Operation
solar panel continuous Assessments Assessments

air-conditioning 1) BREEAM
control of for 24h 18
the lighting 16
14
Yes No

by natural use of a large 12

lighting difference air 10
8
conditioning 6
4
2
heat use of no haron 0
reflective fire retardant
Environment
Efficiency

Atomosphere

Materials &

Innovation &
Sustainable

Resource
Energy &
Water

Process
Quality

Design
Indoor
Sites

pair glass
use of refrigerant
of ODP=0
2) LEED
use of 5.0

underground 4.0

water for building

3.0

2.0
thermal mass 1.0

system 0.0
Environmental

Environmental

S Service
Total

Consumption
R Resource

-1.0
Quality
Q Indoor
Loadings

Quality

-2.0
L

3) GBTool
Q-2 Quality
Service
Building type Office 5
Q-3 Outdoor
Location Kobe city, Hyogo prefecture Q-1 Indoor 4
3 Environment on
Site area 3349 Environment 2
1 Site
Total floor area 33295 0
LR-3 Off-site
Floors +19,-2 LR-1 Energy
Environment
Structure Above the ground S
Below the ground RC,SRC LR-2 Resources
and Materials
Figure 1 Outline of A building
4) CASBEE

Figure 2 The assessment results of Building A

- 1701 -
 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,
Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

2.1.4 CASBEE
The score is high in ‘Q-2 Quality of Service’, ‘Q-3 Outdoor Environment on Site’, and ‘LR-1 Energy’, but
otherwise the score is low in ‘LR-2 Resources and Materials’. In a Building, energy consumption is reduced
by a number of energy-saving measures and natural energy utilizations. The floor load margin is 50% higher
than the Building Standards Law. There is freedom for planning equipment and space. The exterior as
designed in consideration of the surrounding environment. These factors affect the high score.There is a
small amaunt of recycled and reused materials used. This factor affects the low score.
2.2 The Assessment Results of the Case Study Buildings on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE
2.2.1 Case Study Buildings
In this study, except in the case of building A, we assessed three case study buildings, which are of high
performance. These buildings’ outline is shown in table 1.
2.2.2 One Low Performance Building
To compare the low assessment results, One low performance building is also assessed. The building’s
outline is shown in Table 2.
2.2.3 The Assessment Results
Table 4 shows the assessment results of four case study buildings and one low performance building. In the
four case study buildings, the assessment results of BREEAM are EPI = 9, ‘Very Good’ in Design &
Procurement Assessments, and ‘Excellent’ in Management & Operation Assessment. The assessment
results of LEED are ‘Silver’ or ‘Gold’. The assessment results of GBTool are from 2.2 to 2.9. The
assessment results of CASBEE are ‘A’ or ‘S’ on the building sustainability rating based on BEE (Building
Environmental Efficiency). These assessment results are high based on each assessment method.
Table 1 Outline of Case Study Buildings Table 2 Outline of the Fictitious Buildings
A B C D Total floor area 2000㎡
Location Hyogo Tokyo Tokyo Kanagawa Building type Office
Structure Above the ground S,SRC CFT S,SRC
Structure S
:S
under the ground
Electric energy consumption （KWh/㎡･yea 200
:RC SRC Enbodied energy (GJ) 24344
Total floor area 33,000 106,000 9,000 80,000 Enbodied Carbon emission (ton-C) 6352
Completion 2000 2002 2002 2000
Water use (㎥/㎡･year) 2.4
Floors +19,-2 +37,-4 +10,-1 +26,-2

Table 3 Assessment Results of Case Study Buildings and the fictitious Building
nama A B C D fictitious building
Method Building type Office Office Office Office Office
PE +DE +MA PE +DE +MA PE +DE +MA PE +DE +MA PE +DE +MA PE +DE +MA
Management 0 0 90 0 30 120 0 30 90 0 30 120 0 0 0
Health and comfort 54 6 42 60 18 36 54 18 36 60 6 36 12 0 6
Energy 96 0 40 104 0 40 96 0 40 64 0 32 24 0 0
Transport 80 0 16 64 0 16 64 0 16 80 0 16 64 0 8
Water 12 0 12 18 0 12 18 0 6 18 0 12 0 0 0
BREEAM
Materials 16 0 0 16 16 16 16 0 8 16 24 16 0 0 0
Land use 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 16 0 0 32 0 0 0 0
Site ecology 0 48 0 0 48 0 0 48 0 0 64 0 0 16 0
Pollution 84 14 14 56 0 14 42 0 14 84 0 14 56 0 0
Final Score 324 426 556 310 438 564 290 402 500 322 478 568 156 172 170
PE +DE +MA 9 VG EX 9 VG EX 8 VG EX 9 VG EX 4 No rating PASS
SS 8 8 6 7 2
WE 2 3 2 4 0
EA 7 8 6 8 0
MR 3 5 5 4 2
LEED
EQ 13 13 12 10 5
ID 0 3 3 3 0
TOTAL POINTS PROJECT 33 40 34 36 9
LEVEL SILVER GOLD SILVER SILVER NOT CERTIFIED
R Resource Consumption 2.0 2.2 2.0 1.7 -0.2
L Environmental Loading 2.6 2.8 2.3 2.7 -0.3
GBTool Q Indoor Environmental Quality 2.3 2.0 2.2 3.3 0.3
S Service Quality 2.7 3.2 2.6 3.7 0.1
SCORE 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.9 -0.1
Q-1 Indoor Environment 3.6 4.1 4.0 3.9 2.2
Q-2 Quality of Service 4.1 4.1 3.9 4.3 2.4
Q-3 Outdoor Environmental on Site 4.1 4.7 2.7 5.0 1.7
LR-1 Energy 4.5 4.1 4.6 4.1 2.7
CASBEE
LR-2 Resources and Materials 2.9 3.8 3.3 2.6 2.0
LR-3 Off-site Environment 3.7 4.1 3.5 4.7 1.5
BEE 2.5 3.2 2.8 2.6 0.4
Buileing Sustainability Rating A S A A C

Notice: In the table, the values show score received on BREEAM, based LEED, GBTool and CASBEE.
In the BREEAM, the building performance assessments is show PE, the Design & Procurement Assessments is show +DE
and the Management & Operation Assessments is show +MA.

- 1702 -
 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,
Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

One low performance building received the assessment result of BREEAM of EPI = 4, ‘No rating’ in Design
& Procurement Assessments, and ‘Pass’ in Management & Operation Assessment. The assessment result
of LEED is ‘Not Certified’. The assessment result of GBTool is -0.1. The assessment result of CASBEE is ‘C’
on building sustainability rating based on BEE. These assessment results are low based on each
assessment’s methods.
As mentioned above, the assessment results of each assessment method show a similar trend. But, the
assessment results of BREEAM and CASBEE are higher than that of LEED and GBTool. One of reasons for
this trend is the difference in criteria. For example, in the criterion of Energy, the best score can be received
by reducing the ERR value by 25% of the standard level on CASBEE, or by reducing the energy
consumption by 50% of the standard level to receive the best score based on LEED and GBTool.

3. The Comparison of Assessment Results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE

In this study, to compare the assessment results of each environmental assessment method, the criteria of
each assessment method were classified into six categories based on CASBEE’s categories. The categories
are 1) Indoor Environment, 2) Quality of Service, 3) Outdoor Environment on Site, 4) Energy, 5) Resources
and Materials, and 6) Off-site Environment. The assessment results compared the rate of points, credit, or
score based on six categories. In the following, the rate of points, credits, or score is referred to as ‘point
rate’. Fig 3 shows the rate of points, credit, or score in the six categories.
3.1 1) Indoor Environment
The point rate shows a similar trend in all of the case study buildings, but building C’s point rate on LEED is
different from that of the other buildings. The criteria of Noise & Acoustics, Thermal Comfort, Lighting, and
Air Quality are applicable to the ‘Indoor Environment’ category. Based on LEED, Low-Emitting Materials in
Indoor Environment are an important criteria. In Building C, credit for Low-Emitting Materials can not be
received, so the point rate is lower than that of the others. The criteria of HVAC system and ventilation
system are important based on BREEAM. There is no criteria of Noise & Acoustics based on LEED.

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
CASBEE LEED BREEAM GBTool CASBEE BREEAM GBTool

B C D A B C D A

1) Indoor Environment 2) Quality of Service

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
CASBEE LEED BREEAM GBTool CASBEE LEED BREEAM GBTool

B C D A B C D A

3) Outdoor Environment on Site 4) Energy

100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
CASBEE LEED BREEAM GBTool CASBEE LEED BREEAM GBTool

B C D A B C D A

5) Resource and Materials 6) Off-site Environment

Figure 3 The rate of assessment points, credits, or score in the six categories

- 1703 -
 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,
Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

3.2 2) Quality of Service

The criteria of Service Ability, Durability & Reliability and Flexibility & Adaptability are applicable to the
‘Quality of Service’ category. There are no criteria that are applicable to this category based on LEED, and
there are few criteria based on BREEAM. However, the Quality of Service is assessed in detail based on
GBTool and CASBEE. The point rate shows a similar trend on BREEAM, GBTool, and CASBEE.
3.3 3) Outdoor Environment on Site
The point rate follows a different trend based on each assessment method. The criteria of Preservation &
Creation of Biotope, Townscape & Landscape and Local Characteristics & Outdoor Amenity are applicable
to the ‘Outdoor Environment on Site’ category. Based on BREEAM, LEED, and GBTool, the criteria of
Preservation & Creation of Biotope are more important than the criteria of CASBEE. But the criteria are
different in each method. On BREEAM, Creation of a biotope is very important. Based on LEED, site
selection is very important. On GBTool, the area of land for building use is very important, along with the
criteria of creation of a biotope and site selection. The criteria of Townscape & Landscape and Local
Characteristics & Outdoor Amenity are not very important based on BREEAM, LEED and GBTool, but very
important based on CASBEE. The four case study buildings were constructed in urban areas and consider
the surrounding environment, therefore, the rate on CASBEE is good. Based on BREEAM, LEED, and
GBTool, the different measures which consider preservation and creation of biotope affect the point rate.
3.4 4) Energy
The criteria of Building Thermal Load, Natural Energy Utilization, Efficiency in Building Service System, and
Efficient Operation are applicable to the Energy category. Based on BREEAM, LEED and GBTool, the
criteria are assessed for simulation on energy consumption and CO2 emission, but there are no criteria of
Efficient Operation. Based on CASBEE, the criteria of Efficient Operation is important. Based on BREEAM,
the criteria of monitoring and commissioning are assessed. On LEED, the criterion of commissioning is a
prerequisite item. If the building is not commissioned, the building is not able to be assessed based on LEED.
3.5 5) Resources and Materials
The criteria of Water Resources and Materials of Low Environmental Load are applicable to the Resources
and Materials category. Water conservation, reuse of existing building structure and volume of recyclable
materials are important based on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE. Based on CASBEE, the criteria
of rainwater and a gray water reuse system are a important as the criteria of water consumption. The rate
shows a similar trend based on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE. The point rate of CASBEE is a little
higher than that of the others.
3.6 6) Off-site Environment
The criteria are those of Air Pollution, Noise, Vibration and Odor, Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction, Light
Pollution, Heat Island Effect, and Load on Local Infrastructure. The criteria of air pollution are assessed for
NOx emission based on BREEAM, GBTool, and CASBEE, but not based on LEED. The criteria of reducing
heat island effect is not assessed based on BREEAM and GBTool. The point rate is a little higher based on
BREEAM and CASBEE than that based on LEED and GBTool.

4. Conclusion
This study is concluded in the following:
(1) On BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE, the assessment results of a high performance building are
of a similar trend.
(2) The assessment results of some high performance building are a little higher based on BREEAM and
CASBEE than those based on LEED and GBTool.
(3) To compare the features of assessment results on BREEAM, LEED, GBTool, and CASBEE, the criteria
are classified into six categories based on CASBEE’s criteria. In the ‘Outdoor Environment on Site’ category,
the assessment results are different in each method. The factors are the differences of the criteria in each
method. However in on the ‘Indoor Environment’ category, ‘Quality of Service’ category, ‘Energy’ category,
‘Resource and Materials’ category, and ‘Off-site Environment’ category, the assessment results show a
similar trend.

- 1704 -
 The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,
Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo)

Acknowledgement
This study is part of the research output of Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (chaired by Professor
Shuzo Murakami of Keio University) and the sub-committee on the study of Green Building Challenge,
established within the Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation. The authors express
sincere thanks to all people associated with this study.
<The member of sub-committee on study of Green Building Challenge in 2003>
Chair : Tatsuo Oka (Utsunomiya University), Vice-chair : Masaaki Sato (KAJIMA Corporation), Hiroaki Takai
(TAKENAKA Corporation), Secretary : Nobukazu Kobayashi (Mitsubishi Jisho Sekkei Inc.), Member :
Kazuaki Shimada, Yuka Tukada (from Ministry of land, Infrastructure and Transport), Kazuo Iwamura
(Musashi Institute of Technology), Yuichiro Kodama (KOBE Design University), Tomoya Yashiro (University
of Tokyo), Takao Sawachi, Shiro Nakajima (from Building Research Institute), Noritaka Shinada (Tokyo
Metropolian Government), Kunimichi Ishiguro (TAISEI Research Institute), Wataru Urabe (Central Research
Institute of Electric Power Industry), Junko Endo (Nikken Sekkei Co,Ltd.), Yoshio Kato (NIHONSEKKEI, Inc.),
Nobuhiro Shimada (KANSAI ELECTRIC POWER CO.,Inc), Sadahachi Tanaka (Building and Equipment Life
Cycle Association.), Yuji Tubota (TOKYO Electric Power Company), Toshiyuki Miura (TODA Corporation),
Hiroshi Yamamoto (TOKYO GAS Co., Ltd.)

References
Murakami, S. et al. 2002, Study on Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency (CASBEE) Part 1-9. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of
Japan, pp. 1044-60
Murakami, S. et al. 2003, Study on Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency (CASBEE) Part 1-9. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of
Japan, pp. 993-1006
Murakami, S. et al. 2004, Study on Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental
Efficiency (CASBEE) Part 1-9. Summaries of Technical Papers of Annual Meeting Architectural Institute of
Japan, pp. 1099-1128
CHUN, C. et al. 2000, TENDS IN OVERSEAS GREEN BUILDING EVALUATION TOOL. AIJ JOURNAL OF
TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN No.11, pp. 161-4
Yokoo, N. et al. 2002, Comparison of assessment results of green housing in Japan by using Eco Homes,
LEED, GBTool, and Green housing A-Z. In Proceedings of International conference Sustainable Building
2002, Norway, No.147, pp. 1-6

- 1705 -