Assessment of GRIHA and LEED on the Parameters of Sustainable Design and Development of Buildings

  • Shiva JiEmail author
  • Sharmistha Banerjee
  • Ravi Mokashi Punekar
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 66)


To practice design for sustainability in the domain of Building Design, Construction and Usage, we require Sustainability Assessment (SA) Methods, Tools and Techniques; which suggest pre-design as well as post completion checks to assess impact in terms of material and energy consumption, environment, society and economics. GRIHA and LEED are the leading SA methods currently in use in India. Since they originate from different countries with different contexts, level of technology and type of usage, they possess some degree of distinction over the other. A need was felt to gather these methods and discuss so that clarity can be drawn upon the scope defined by them to address sustainability. The objective of this paper is to analysis the chosen SA methods and evaluate their scope in terms of sustainability using the three pillars of sustainable development: Social, Economic, Environmental. A literature review based evaluation of methods was conducted. From the analysis, it is evident that both the tools are targeting towards Sustainable Buildings but the criteria list of GRIHA still lay more emphasis on the Environmental and Economic pillar and less on the Social pillar. LEED has good emphasis across all the three pillars. The paper ends with suggestions on a list of social, cultural and socio-economic criteria which can be added to GRIHA for further strengthening it on the Social pillar.


Design for sustainability Building sustainability assessment methods GRIHA LEED 


  1. 1.
    Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future. Transmitted to the General Assembly as an Annex to document A/42/427-Development and International Co-operation: Environment. Accessed: 21 Apr 2015
  2. 2.
    Chwieduk, D.: Towards sustainable-energy buildings. Appl. Energy 76(1–3), 211–217 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ching, Francis D.K.: Building Construction Illustrated, 5th edn. Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berardi, U.: Stakeholders’ influence on the adoption of energy-saving technologies in Italian homes. Energy Policy 60, 520–530 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Martens, P.: Sustainability: science or fiction? Sustain: Sci. Pract. Policy 2(1):36–41 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Reed, B.: Shifting from ‘sustainability’ to regeneration. Build. Res. Inf. 35(6), 674–680 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7. Accessed on 05 Sept 2015
  8. 8.
    Zenko, Z., Rosi, B., Mulej, M., Mlakar, T., Mulej, N.: Mulej’s Dialectical Systems Theory—A Proven Next Step After Bertalanffy’s General Systems Theory (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Edum-Fotwe, F.T., Price, A.D.F.: A social ontology for appraising sustainability of construction projects and developments. Int. J. Project Manage. 27(4), 313–322 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bozicnik, S., Mulej, M.: From devision to integration of natural and social sciences by “the universal dialectical systems theory”. Cybern. Syst. 40(4), 337–362 (2009)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alwaer, H., Clements-Croome, D.J.: Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting in using the multi-attribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Build. Environ. 45(4), 799–807 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shiva Ji
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharmistha Banerjee
    • 2
  • Ravi Mokashi Punekar
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Planning and ArchitectureMizoram UniversityAizawlIndia
  2. 2.Department of DesignIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiGuwahatiIndia

Personalised recommendations