Environmental sustainability assessment method for Moroccan residential buildings

Abstract

The method presented in this paper provides for the deployment of a sustainability assessment of residential buildings in local contexts in Morocco. The main purpose is to develop a description sheet for each criterion for 29 subcategories of the “Moroccan Building Sustainability Assessment Framework,” environmental dimension (MBSAF(Env)). Firstly, a set of indicators with possible measures was identified; then, we reviewed national standards and existing green building rating systems. Then, several discussions involving a panel of experts (e.g., engineers, academics) were conducted to consolidate the threshold assessment. The main purpose is scored using a rating scale-based sustainability assessment procedure that is specifically designed for the assessment of new and existing Moroccan residential buildings.

• •MBSAF(Env) consoled risk management and adaptation of climate change indicators.
• •The framework provides an adaptability for new and existing residential buildings, taking the regionalization contexts of Morocco.
• •All criteria and indicator ratings are represented within a −1 to 5-point scale, and their thresholds are identified by national and international standards.

Graphical abstract

Specifications table

Subject area:	Environmental Science
More specific subject area:	Sustainable building.
Name of your method:	Moroccan Building Sustainability Assessment Framework (MBSAF)
Name and reference of original method:
Resource availability:	Not applicable.

Background

The motivation for developing the Moroccan Building Sustainability Assessment Framework (MBSAF) is to contribute to developing sustainability assessment frameworks adapted to the environmental, climatic, and socio-economic specificities of Morocco. MBSAF establishes a hierarchy after the two rounds of the Delphi method, with seven categories for the environmental pillar, three categories for the economic pillar (Life cycle cost, Flexibility, and Affordability), and the social pillar (Health and well-being, Accessibility, and Safety and security).

Details of the development of the environmental dimesion of the MBSAF (MBSAF(Env)) will be published. This framework proposes a Moroccan-contextualized approach to address the gap between international rating systems and local evaluation criteria. Thus, it provides an organized, transparent, and flexible tool for decision-makers, developers, and researchers to evaluate and enhance residential buildings’ environmental performance.

Method details

MBSAF(Env) is based on a hierarchy of environmental assessment, divided into categories, subcategories, and indicators (or criteria). The selection of sustainability indicators followed a two-step. Firstly, a preliminary list of indicators and their assessment methods was established based on a comparative analysis of two international green building rating systems: LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) and BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). These frameworks were selected due to their structured methodologies and maturity [1]. Common categories across these systems—such as energy efficiency, water management, materials, and site sustainability—served as the basis for indicator selection. Each selected indicator was assessed for relevance and applicability to the Moroccan context.

Secondly, we reviewed Moroccan national building standards and regulations, where available, to identify existing requirements and to validate the applicability of the proposed indicators. In categories where national references were absent or insufficient, we supplemented our analysis with insights from the scientific literature, including both Moroccan and international studies. Notably, literature focusing on Morocco often emphasized energy efficiency [[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]], while other environmental aspects remained underrepresented. Therefore, international academic sources were consulted to ensure a comprehensive (Appendix A).

The MBSAF framework suggests two types of evaluations for new and existing residential buildings. The evaluation process is based on three sub-models: MBSAF(Environment), MBSAF(Economic), and MBSAF(Social).

MBSAF = W₁×MBSAF(Env) + W₂×MBSAF (Eco) + W₃×MBSAF(Soc).

• - MBSAF (i): the final score for each sustainability pillar is normalized.

• - W_i: Corresponding weight for each pillar.

Consider the environmental sustainability score: MBSAF(Env) = ${\sum }_{k=1}^7{w}_k^{\prime }\times En{v}_k;$

Where $En{v}_k$is the score for each environmental category: $En{v}_k={\sum }_{k=1}^n{w}_k^{″}\times En{v}_k^{\prime }$.

• - $w_k^{\prime }$ and $w_k^{″}$ is the weight of each category or subcategory (Appendix B).

• - $En{v}_k^{\prime }$ is the normalized score for each subcategory.

This paper presents the methodology used to develop descriptive sheets for the evaluation indicators (or criteria), corresponding to the 29 subcategories within the 7 environmental categories of the MBSAF (Fig. 1). To encourage innovation in Morocco's residential building sector, specific subcategories for innovation have been included.

Fig. 1.

Sustainability assessment attributes of the MBSAF(Env).

A grading scale from −1 (insufficient/negative performance) to +5 (excellent performance), with 0 representing minimum acceptable or regulatory compliance, to evaluate quantitative and qualitative indicators or criteria. This scale is inspired by the SBTool framework, which uses a similar structure to reflect varying levels of performance [8].

Two types comprise the criteria—prerequisite and assessment criteria. An assessment template presented each indicator or criterion, as shown in model Fig. 2.:

Fig. 2.

Model of an evaluation criteria description sheet.

• -General information: it contains a description of the scale of application, certain indicators being able to be applied directly to the building (micro scale) (e.g., EE.3. Energy system efficiency, W.1. Indoor water use performance, etc.), while others require adjustments according to the local or site of the projects (meso scale) (e.g., SE.1. Project site, SE.5. Adequate infrastructure, etc.).
• -The application phase is the lifecycle at which the indicator is applied: design, construction, or occupation.
• -National regulations defining the indicator (if applicable).
• -Assessment approach: a description that indicates how the requirements of the indicator or criterion are to be achieved.

• Scoring points since quantitative and qualitative thresholds were achieved. Where the criterion is required by national regulations or we suggest that it is a criterion for the environmental sustainability of the building, we have listed it in the score cell as a “Prerequisite”.

• - Documentation/checklist: specify the requirements for each indicator (or criterion) and give a description of how credit points will be awarded.

The performance thresholds for the evaluation criteria were stipulated based on national regulations (law or decree) and adjusted to reflect Morocco's regional specificities in certain indicators (e.g., W.1. Indoor water use performance). When specific regulations are not available, thresholds were defined since international standards published by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) were refined following consultation with a panel of experts, including three researchers, two building professionals, and three sustainability specialists. In addition, we contextualize the thresholds that were available in rating systems (such as LEED or BREEAM), these were used as a basis for comparison. For example, LEED suggests a 400 m radius for “Criterion 3: Proximity to amenities”. However, the experts felt that this threshold was too restrictive in the Moroccan urban and peri‑urban context. As a result, a threshold of 600 m was chosen to better reflect local realities.

Similarly, for criteria expressed in percentage or scale, the values were adapted to the specificities of the national context, drawing on the expertise of a panel of Moroccan stakeholders involved in sustainable development in the building sector. This is evident in criteria 2. “Reuse of previously built-up areas” of SE.1. Project site, no negative score (−1) was assigned due to the current absence of a regulatory and institutional framework favoring the reuse of brownfield or greyfield land. In addition, the threshold for criterion 2.“Reuse of previously built-up areas” has been regionalized according to the rate of urbanization, with more stringent requirements in major metropolitan areas, where urban density and development issues.

This principle of contextual adaptation has been applied to all the criteria concerned. We do acknowledge that this approach may introduce a certain degree of subjectivity, but it reflects the intention to establish the evaluation framework in a local context. These thresholds are therefore flexible and may be revised and refined considering future results from case studies.

Category 1: site and ecology

The category "Site and Ecology" in the MBSAF (Env) framework is evaluated for its potential to reduce land footprints and environmental impacts. The evaluation approach considers site selection, land use optimization, biodiversity preservation, and sustainable site management.

SE.1. Project site

To preserve sensitive environments and enhance the urban integration of residential buildings, we evaluate this subcategory based on three criteria.

Criterion 1: Appropriate site selection

This criterion evaluates the site's compliance with municipal regulations and its suitability for the environmental context (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Assessment sheet for “Appropriate site selection” criterion.

Criterion 2: Reuse of previously built-up

To avoid project development on previously undisturbed virgin land and encourage the reuse of occupied sites or select areas classified as “brownfields” (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4.

Assessment sheet for “Reuse of previously built-up” criterion.

Criterion 3: Proximity to amenities

This criterion evaluates site selection based on its proximity to basic services, thus favoring a sustainable location (Fig. 5).

Fig. 5.

Assessment sheet for “Proximity to amenities” criterion.

SE.2 Site ecology

It provides for optimum management of the environment of the project site, with a focus on preserving and developing the site's biodiversity.

Criterion 1: Ecological site management

Select a site of low ecological value and the implementation of measures to improve its biodiversity and environmental integration (Fig. 6).

Fig. 6.

Assessment sheet for “Ecological site management” criterion.

Criterion 2: Greening of buildings

This criterion considers the implantation of green spaces to improve the site's microclimate and landscape. This indicator is transversal with the biodiversity and heat island reduction criterion (Fig. 7).

Fig. 7.

Assessment sheet for “Greening of buildings” criterion [9].

SE.3 Rainwater management

This subcategory evaluates the implementation of stormwater management measures to reduce runoff, limit the risk of soil erosion, and improve natural water infiltration (Fig. 8).

Fig. 8.

Assessment sheet for “SE.3 Rainwater management” subcategory.

SE.4. Mitigation of heat islands

The purpose of this subcategory is to assess the actions that have been taken to reduce the impact of heat islands and to enhance the thermal comfort of the location (Fig. 9).

Fig. 9.

Assessment sheet for “SE.4. Mitigation of heat islands” subcategory [10].

SE.5. Adequate infrastructure

This subcategory assesses the placement of buildings near existing infrastructure networks to mitigate the environmental impacts linked to the construction of new infrastructure (Fig. 10).

Fig. 10.

Assessment sheet for “SE.5. Adequate infrastructure” subcategory.

Category 2: energy efficiency

Energy efficiency is a key category in the assessment of building sustainability. In the Moroccan context, regional studies and energy audits show that energy consumption per surface area and insulation characteristics are among the most decisive indicators for assessing the energy performance of residential buildings.

EE.1. Passive design

To adapt to local climate conditions and decrease operational energy consumption, this subcategory considers bioclimatic strategies into account throughout the building's design (Fig. 11).

Fig. 11.

Assessment sheet for “EE.1. Passive design” subcategory [11].

EE.2. Envelope performance

This subcategory evaluates the efficiency of building envelope designs to minimize energy consumption while ensuring optimum thermal comfort. The analysis covers four criteria: thermal insulation, airtightness, thermal inertia, and the optimization of glazed surfaces (Fig. 12).

Fig. 12.

Assessment sheet for “EE.2. Envelope performance” subcategory [12].

EE.3. Energy system efficiency

The energy performance and overall impact of the building's energy systems and appliances are assessed in this section (Fig. 13).

Fig. 13.

Assessment sheet for “EE.3. Energy system efficiency” subcategory [13].

EE.4. Use of renewable energy

In order to improve the building's energy efficiency and decrease its dependence on fossil fuels, this subcategory evaluates the integration of renewable energy sources. The analysis focuses on the use of locally available resources, notably solar thermal and photovoltaic panels, as well as other technologies adapted to the Moroccan context (Fig. 14).

Fig. 14.

Assessment sheet for “EE.4. Use of renewable energy” subcategory [[14], [15]].

EE.5. Energy management strategy

Assessment of the energy management strategy is based on the implementation of monitoring, control, and awareness-raising measures aimed at optimizing energy consumption during the occupation phase (Fig. 15).

Fig. 15.

Assessment sheet for “EE.5. Energy management strategy” subcategory.

EE. bonus for innovation

This subcategory encourages the integration of innovative solutions, technology, design, construction, operation, maintenance methods or processes not mentioned in the evaluation criteria. Up to a maximum of 5 points of bonus are available overall from a combination of the following:

• - Both “Thermal bridges” criterion and air infiltration required.

• - Nearly zero or positive energy building.

• - Innovative daylighting system (e.g., solar panel daylighting system).

Category 3. Water

This category is judged by how well strategies are used to improve water management and use in Morocco, where water resources are limited and being used up faster than they can be replenished. It encourages designers, project teams, and property owners to favor water-saving equipment, adopt practices adapted to local climatic conditions, and implement innovative solutions for wastewater treatment and reuse.

W.1. Indoor water use performance

The assessment of this subcategory is based on the project's ability to reduce drinking water consumption (Fig. 16).

Fig. 16.

Assessment sheet for “W.1. Indoor water use performance” sub-indicator.

W.2 Outdoor water use performance

The “Outdoor water use performance” subcategory applies when the surface area of outdoor and indoor green spaces exceeds 20 % of the project's total surface area (Fig. 17).

Fig. 17.

Assessment sheet for “W.2 Outdoor water use performance” subcategory [16].

W.3. Alternative water sources

The assessment of this subcategory is based on the integration of solutions aimed at reducing the demand for fresh water and reducing the load on the wastewater system by exploiting alternative water sources (Fig. 18).

Fig. 18.

Assessment sheet for “W.3. Alternative water sources” subcategory.

W.4. Water management strategy

Evaluation of this subcategory depends on the application of strategies to track water usage, increase occupant awareness, and check leakage to maximize the optimize the use of water resources (Fig. 19).

Fig. 19.

Assessment sheet for “W.4. Water management strategy” subcategory.

W. bonus for innovation

Demonstrate intelligent new grey and black water treatment solutions, technologies, and processes that are not covered by the previous criteria and that prove to be effective in terms of water performance savings. Achieve a maximum of 5 bonus points at an exemplary level of performance:

• - Net zero water building.

• - Efficient irrigation.

• - Alternative water sources.

Category 4. Construction materials

The assessment of this category is based on an analysis of the environmental impact of the materials used in the project, integrating a life cycle thinking approach. Using environmental assessment methods and performance indicators, it aims to encourage owners, designers, and project teams to favor sustainable materials with a low ecological footprint, from their extraction to their end of life.

CM.1 Environmental impact of building materials

This subcategory is assessed by analyzing the choice of building materials in terms of their environmental impact along their life cycle (Fig. 20).

Fig. 20.

Assessment sheet for “CM.1 Environmental impact of building materials” subcategory [[17], [18]].

CM.2 Materials with recycled content

For the purpose of mitigating the negative effects on the environment that are linked with the utilization of virgin resources, this subcategory examines the utilization of building materials that incorporate recycled elements (Fig. 21).

Fig. 21.

Assessment sheet for “CM.2 Materials with recycled content” subcategory.

CM.3. Local building materials

This subcategory is assessed by using local building materials and products to reduce supply chain environmental impact (Fig. 22).

Fig. 22.

Assessment sheet for “CM.3. Local building materials” subcategory.

CM.4. Responsible for sourcing materials

Assessment of this subcategory is based on a demonstrated responsibility to source sustainable building materials and products. It aims to guarantee the traceability of materials throughout the supply chain, from extraction or production to use on site (Fig. 23).

Fig. 23.

Assessment sheet for “CM.4. Responsible for sourcing materials” subcategory.

CM.5. Appropriate construction processes

During the construction phase, the project team strives to adopt optimized and alternative construction techniques to maximize material efficiency and minimize waste (Fig. 24).

Fig. 24.

Assessment sheet for “CM.5. Appropriate construction processes” subcategory.

CM. bonus for innovation

Support innovation and new solutions for the responsible use of building materials, which are not covered by the criteria and which lead to a reduction in the overall impact of materials on the environment. Up to a maximum of 5 bonus points are available if one or more of the following evaluation criteria are met:

• - Environmental impact of materials: performed a complete life cycle cradle to grave to select the best-performing variant in terms of environmental impact.

• - An exemplary level of performance corresponds to achieving >25 % in recycled content, use of recycled materials, or material recycling efforts.

Category 5. Solid waste management

This category is assessed based on the use of responsible and sustainable waste management strategies throughout the building's life cycle. It attempts to assess the efficacy of initiatives implemented to reduce waste generation at the source, promote reuse, maximize recycling, and stimulate material recovery.

SWM.1. Construction waste management

Assessment of this subcategory is based on the implementation of strategies aimed at minimizing waste production on-site and ensuring its efficient sorting for recycling in construction stage (Fig. 25).

Fig. 25.

Assessment sheet for “SWM.1. Construction waste management” subcategory.

SWM.2 Domestic waste management

In this subcategory, approaches to limit waste creation during building occupancy and encourage selective sorting are assessed (Fig. 26).

Fig. 26.

Assessment sheet for “SWM.2 Domestic waste management” subcategory.

SWM.3. Valorization of organic waste

This subcategory is assessed on the basis of the implementation of solutions for the management and valorization of organic waste (Fig. 27).

Fig. 27.

Assessment sheet for “SWM.3. Valorization of organic waste” subcategory.

SWM. bonus for innovation

The project team proposes innovative systems for waste management during all phases of the project, including construction, operation, and demolition of the building. The team will receive a maximum of 5 bonus points for their efforts. For example:

• - Project teams are invited to register an innovative strategy with stakeholders (local authorities and waste management companies) to establish a system in which the waste fees paid by users are modulated according to the quantity of waste, like the Pay as you throw (PAYT) systems.

• - Pre-demolition planning can be very difficult, especially when information on future strategies and technologies for demolition and deconstruction waste recovery in Morocco is not available. The project team can outline the strategy for the demolition phase.

Category 6. Pollution

This category is assessed based on the implementation of strategies to limit pollutant emissions and mitigating negative environmental impacts.

P.1. Protection of the ozone layer

It evaluates the use of non-ozone-depleting air conditioning and cooling systems (refrigerators) that do not contain CFCs or HCFCs (Fig. 28).

Fig. 28.

Assessment sheet for “P.1. Protection of the ozone layer” subcategory.

P.2. Pollution from construction activities

The assessment of this subcategory evaluates the adoption of measures to reduce the negative effects of construction work on the environment (Fig. 29).

Fig. 29.

Assessment sheet for “P.2. Pollution from construction activities” subcategory.

P.3. Contribution to climate change

The evaluation of this subcategory is based on the use of strategies to limit greenhouse gas emissions during the building's operational phase (Fig. 30).

Fig. 30.

Assessment sheet for “P.3. Contribution to climate change” subcategory [19].

P.4. Water pollution

This subcategory is assessed based on solutions adopted to reduce the quantity of wastewater discharged to treatment plants (Fig. 31).

Fig. 31.

Assessment sheet for “P.4. Water pollution” subcategory.

Category 7. Risk management

This category is based on the assessment and mitigation of risks during the building's operational phase. The aim is to limit material damage, protect the health and safety of occupants, and enhance the building's adaptability to climatic and environmental hazards.

RM.1. Risk of climatic hazards

It assesses the building's ability to anticipate and adapt to climatic hazards that may affect the building in the future (Fig. 32).

Fig. 32.

Assessment sheet for “RM.1. Risk of climatic hazards” subcategory.

RM.2 Seismic risk management

This subcategory assesses the integration of seismic requirements into the building design process to ensure resistance to earthquakes (Fig. 33).

Fig. 33.

Assessment sheet for “RM.2 Seismic risk management” subcategory.

RM.3. Microbiological risk

In this subcategory, we evaluate the integration of preventive strategies to limit the spread of pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, to protect the health of residents (Fig. 34).

Fig. 34.

Assessment sheet for “RM.3. Microbiological risk” subcategory.

RM. bonus for innovation

Demonstrate any new intelligent solution or technology during the design phase for seismic risk management and climate resilience. Up to a maximum of 5 bonus points are available overall from a combination of the following: earthquake resistance standard, seismic damping systems, and seismic insulation are used.

Method validation

This paper presented a methodology for the assessment of residential buildings with MBSAF(Env). The MBSAF building assessment process suggests two evaluation phases for the assessment of the residential building.

• - Design and construction stage

Self-assessment during the design phase aims to evaluate whether the project design meets the assessment criteria specific to this phase. If the project fails to meet the "Prerequisites" of the MBSAF, we will propose recommendations for improvement.

During the construction stage, assessment and inspection visits will be conducted to evaluate criteria related to the construction phase, such as “SWM.1. Construction waste management” and “P.2. Pollution from construction activities” for MBSAF(Env). These visits will also confirm the effective implementation of the design strategies.

• - In-use phase

The building is evaluated a second time for its real performance one year after occupancy (an occupancy rate of over 50 %), based on sub-categories depending on the phase of occupation, such as: “EE.4. Use of renewable energy”, and “SWM.2 Domestic waste management”.

An example illustrating the “Energy efficiency” has been provided to demonstrate the calculation method used. Note that the score calculation neither scores nor weights the sub-categories classified as prerequisites, as they are mandatory. On the other hand, bonus points are included at the end of the calculation process in the form of a weight adjustment representing 10 % of the final score (Appendix B). Table A presents the details of this procedure.

Table A.

Example of score calculation for the “Energy efficiency” category.

MBSAF(Env)	Weight ( %)	Maximum Score	Rating	Normalized and weighted
Energy efficiency	24.00 %	20
EE.1. Passive design	33.87 %	5	5	$\frac{5}{5}\times 33.87=33.87$ %
EE.2. Envelope performance	Prerequisite		Prerequisite confirmed
EE.3. Energy system efficiency	22.67 %	5	- 1	$\frac{-1}{5}\times 22.67=-4.53$ %
EE.4. Use of renewable energy	28.63 %	5	3	17.18 %
EE.5. Energy management strategy	14.83 %	5	0	0 %
			Total	$\left(33.87-4.53+17.18+0\right)\times 0.24=11.16\%$
Bonus for innovation	–	5	1

The validation phase of the proposed framework will be the subject of two residential buildings, the results of which will be presented in future work. For each case study, this application demonstrated how the MBSAF(Env) assessment criteria could be applied and suggested context-specific refinements to improve their applicability. To complement the discussion, the two buildings were also assessed according to three international standards: HQE_résidentiel_V2015, LEED v4.2018 "Home Design and Construction and OM (Operations and Maintenance)”, and BREEAM: New Construction V.6.2021.

Limitations

The framework developed has certain limitations: (1) insufficient research into the development of sustainability rating systems in the Moroccan building sector; (2) Lack of implementing decrees and calculation guides for the assessment categories, which complicates their implementation; (3) Subjectivity in defining thresholds for certain indicators and criteria, further accentuated by the limited number of experts involved in this study. This method article focused on residential buildings; with adjustments, it could also apply to tertiary buildings. In addition, case studies in other regions of Morocco are recommended to refine and improve the MBSAF(Env) reference framework.

Finally, we propose to complete the MBSAF framework to include the two pillars of sustainability: economic (MBSAF(Eco)) and social (MBSAF(Soc)), in collaboration with research teams in socioeconomics.

Ethics statements

Not relevant

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Redouan Assadiki: Conceptualization, Data curation, Methodology, Writing – original draft. Gérard Merlin: Methodology, Writing – review & editing. Catherine Buhé: Writing – review & editing. Hervé Boileau: Writing – review & editing. Fouzi Belmir: Writing – review & editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Appendix A. Correspondence of MBSAF(Env) subcategories with BREEAM (v.6.), LEED V4 BD+C and literature

Categories	Subcategories	BREEAM– New construction V.6.	LEED V4-BD/C	References
Site and ecology	SE.1. Project site	Site selection	Sensitive Land Protection	[[20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]
	SE.2. Site ecology	Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features. Enhancing site ecology.	Protect or Restore Habitat
	SE.3. Rainwater management	Rainwater management.	Stormwater management
	SE.4. Mitigation of heat islands	Heat island reduction.	Heat island effect
	SE.5. Adequate infrastructure	Access to transit.	Electric charging facility for vehicles.
Energy efficiency	EE.1. Passive design	Design and Construction Guideline.	–	[20,21,34,[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],35,[29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]
	EE.2. Envelope performance	Reduction of energy use and carbon emissions	Minimum Energy Performance.
	EE.3. Energy system efficiency	Efficient lighting. Energy efficient transport systems. Energy efficient equipment.	Optimize energy performance.
	EE.4. Use of renewable energy	–	RENEWABLE ENERGY
	EE.5. Energy management strategy	Energy monitoring	Energy Metering. Grid harmonization.
Water	W.1. Indoor water use performance	Water consumption. Water efficient equipment.	Water Use Reduction.	[20,21,34,[22], [23], [24],[26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]
	W.2. Outdoor water use performance
	W.3. Alternative water sources
	W.4. Water management strategy	Water monitoring. Water leak detection and prevention.	Water Metering.
Construction materials	CM.1. Environmental impact of building materials	Building life cycle assessment. Environmental impacts from construction products.	Building Life cycle	[20,21,34,[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28],35,[29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]
	CM.2. Materials with recycled content
	CM.3. Local building materials
	CM.4. Responsible for sourcing materials	Responsible sourcing of construction products.	Environmental Product Declaration.
	CM.5. Appropriate construction processes	Designing for durability and resilience.	–
Pollution	P.1. Protection of the ozone layer	Impact of refrigerants.	–	[34,[21], [22], [23], [24], [25],27,[29], [30], [31], [32], [33]]
	P.2. Pollution from construction activities	Nox emissions. Surface water run-off.	–
	P.3. Contribution to climate change	–	–
	P.4. Water pollution	–	–
Solid waste management	SWM.1. Construction waste management	Construction waste management.	Construction and Demolition Waste Management.	[20,34,[21], [22], [23], [24], [25],27,28,[30], [31], [32], [33]]
	SWM.2. Domestic waste management	Operational waste.	Storage and Collection of Recyclables.
	SWM.3. Valorization of organic waste
Risk management	RM.1. Risk of climatic hazards	Flood and surface water management. Adaptation to climate change.	Regional priority	[21,22,28,[30], [31], [32], [33]]
	RM.2. Seismic risk management	–
	RM.3. Microbiological risk	–	–

Appendix B. Summary sheet of MBSAF(Env) performance calculation and weightings applied

MBSAF(Env)		Weight ( %)	Maximum Score	Rating	Normalized and weighted
Site and ecology		13.90 %	35
SE.1. Project site		33.48 %	10	………..	………..
SE.2. Site ecology		29.06 %	10	………..	………..
SE.3. Rainwater management		7.68 %	5	………..	………..
SE.4. Mitigation of heat islands		20.73 %	5	………..	………..
SE.5. Adequate infrastructure		9.05 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Energy efficiency		24.00 %	20
EE.1. Passive design		33.87 %	5	………..	………..
EE.2. Envelope performance		Prerequisite		Prerequisite
EE.3. Energy system efficiency		22.67 %	5	………..	………..
EE.4. Use of renewable energy		28.63 %	5	………..	………..
EE.5. Energy management strategy		14.83 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Bonus for innovation		–	5	………..
Water		19.50 %	20
W.1. Indoor water use performance		32.20 %	5	………..	………..
W.2. Outdoor water use performance		27.75 %	5	………..	………..
W.3. Alternative water sources		24.48 %	5	………..	………..
W.4. Water management strategy		15.57 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Bonus for innovation		–	5	………..
Construction materials		13.30 %	25
CM.1. Environmental impact of building materials		27.12 %	5	………..	………..
CM.2. Materials with recycled content		21.34 %	5	………..	………..
CM.3. Local building materials		20.98 %	5	………..	………..
CM.4. Responsible for sourcing materials		15.86 %	5	………..	………..
CM.5. Appropriate construction processes		14.70 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Bonus for innovation		–	5	………..
Pollution		10.40 %	15
P.1. Protection of the ozone layer		Prerequisite		Prerequisite
P.2. Pollution from construction activities		28.93 %	5	………..	………..
P.3. Contribution to climate change		39.25 %	5	………..	………..
P.4. Water pollution		31.82 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Solid waste management		8.20 %	15
SWM.1. Construction waste management		21 %	5	………..	………..
SWM.2. Domestic waste management		42 %	5	………..	………..
SWM.3. Valorization of organic waste		37 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Bonus for innovation		–	5	………..
Risk management		10.70 %	15
RM.1. Risk of climatic hazards		46.01 %	5	………..	………..
RM.2. Seismic risk management		41.63 %	5	………..	………..
RM.3. Microbiological risk		12.36 %	5	………..	………..
				Total	…. %
Bonus for innovation		–	5	………..
+ 10 % Bonus for innovation (…/25 points)				………..	……….. %
	Final score of MBSAF(Env) (…. /145 points)			………..	……….. %

Data availability

The authors are unable or have chosen not to specify which data has been used.