Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis
This study reviews the utilization and effectiveness of green building assessment tools in Indonesia by systematically analyzing four primary tools: EDGE, Greenship Existing Building, Greenship New Building, and MAGC. Using the PRISMA methodology, articles published between 2019 and 2024 were select...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
EDP Sciences
2025-01-01
|
| Series: | E3S Web of Conferences |
| Online Access: | https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2025/05/e3sconf_icenis2024_03023.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832098511803383808 |
|---|---|
| author | Lendra Lendra Jesica Jesica Agung Wibowo Mochamad Hatmoko Jati Utomo Dwi Andi Andi |
| author_facet | Lendra Lendra Jesica Jesica Agung Wibowo Mochamad Hatmoko Jati Utomo Dwi Andi Andi |
| author_sort | Lendra Lendra |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | This study reviews the utilization and effectiveness of green building assessment tools in Indonesia by systematically analyzing four primary tools: EDGE, Greenship Existing Building, Greenship New Building, and MAGC. Using the PRISMA methodology, articles published between 2019 and 2024 were selected, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted with VOSviewer. Analyzing 34 case studies reveals a predominant focus on the operational phase of green building implementation, which accounts for 47% of the research, highlighting the importance of energy efficiency and resource management. The comparative analysis identifies that while Greenship tools dominate the planning and construction phases, EDGE excels in operational energy efficiency for educational and medical buildings, whereas MAGC is preferred for commercial buildings and public facilities. These findings suggest that no single tool is universally applicable across all contexts, emphasizing the need for tailored assessments based on specific project types. For policymakers, it is crucial to promote these assessment tools through incentives and resources. Developers and practitioners should enhance their understanding and training on these tools. Additionally, significant research gaps remain in underrepresented sectors, such as transportation and sports facilities, indicating that future studies should explore these areas for a comprehensive integration of the building lifecycle phases. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-645e0c2f7fd14108b281967935f35704 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 2267-1242 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2025-01-01 |
| publisher | EDP Sciences |
| record_format | Article |
| series | E3S Web of Conferences |
| spelling | doaj-art-645e0c2f7fd14108b281967935f357042025-02-05T10:49:10ZengEDP SciencesE3S Web of Conferences2267-12422025-01-016050302310.1051/e3sconf/202560503023e3sconf_icenis2024_03023Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysisLendra Lendra0Jesica Jesica1Agung Wibowo Mochamad2Hatmoko Jati Utomo Dwi3Andi Andi4Palangka Raya University, Civil Engineering DepartmentPalangka Raya University, Civil Engineering DepartmentDiponegoro University, Civil Engineering DepartmentDiponegoro University, Civil Engineering DepartmentPetra Christian University, Civil Engineering DepartmentThis study reviews the utilization and effectiveness of green building assessment tools in Indonesia by systematically analyzing four primary tools: EDGE, Greenship Existing Building, Greenship New Building, and MAGC. Using the PRISMA methodology, articles published between 2019 and 2024 were selected, and a bibliometric analysis was conducted with VOSviewer. Analyzing 34 case studies reveals a predominant focus on the operational phase of green building implementation, which accounts for 47% of the research, highlighting the importance of energy efficiency and resource management. The comparative analysis identifies that while Greenship tools dominate the planning and construction phases, EDGE excels in operational energy efficiency for educational and medical buildings, whereas MAGC is preferred for commercial buildings and public facilities. These findings suggest that no single tool is universally applicable across all contexts, emphasizing the need for tailored assessments based on specific project types. For policymakers, it is crucial to promote these assessment tools through incentives and resources. Developers and practitioners should enhance their understanding and training on these tools. Additionally, significant research gaps remain in underrepresented sectors, such as transportation and sports facilities, indicating that future studies should explore these areas for a comprehensive integration of the building lifecycle phases.https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2025/05/e3sconf_icenis2024_03023.pdf |
| spellingShingle | Lendra Lendra Jesica Jesica Agung Wibowo Mochamad Hatmoko Jati Utomo Dwi Andi Andi Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis E3S Web of Conferences |
| title | Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| title_full | Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| title_fullStr | Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| title_full_unstemmed | Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| title_short | Green building assessment tools in Indonesia: A systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| title_sort | green building assessment tools in indonesia a systematic literature review and comparative analysis |
| url | https://www.e3s-conferences.org/articles/e3sconf/pdf/2025/05/e3sconf_icenis2024_03023.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT lendralendra greenbuildingassessmenttoolsinindonesiaasystematicliteraturereviewandcomparativeanalysis AT jesicajesica greenbuildingassessmenttoolsinindonesiaasystematicliteraturereviewandcomparativeanalysis AT agungwibowomochamad greenbuildingassessmenttoolsinindonesiaasystematicliteraturereviewandcomparativeanalysis AT hatmokojatiutomodwi greenbuildingassessmenttoolsinindonesiaasystematicliteraturereviewandcomparativeanalysis AT andiandi greenbuildingassessmenttoolsinindonesiaasystematicliteraturereviewandcomparativeanalysis |