This literature review examines weighting schemes within Building Sustainability Assessment Systems (BSASs). Given the widespread adoption of BSASs and their direct link to significant economic benefits for investors and owners, weighting schemes serve as critical tools for policymaking in the sustainable building sector. The review synthesizes findings from 102 articles, covering multiple building types, subsystems, design parameters, lifecycle phases, locations, and sustainability dimensions. The identified schemes are categorized as subjective, objective, hybrid, or equal, based on established definitions. First, the weighting schemes of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)—the two most frequently referenced BSASs—are analyzed within this framework. Second, a systematic analysis of novel weighting schemes proposed in the literature is conducted. Among these methodologies, 75% employed subjective weighting schemes, while objective, hybrid, and equal weighting schemes accounted for 12%, 6%, and 3%, respectively. No discernible temporal trend was observed in these proportions over the last 25 years. The geographical analysis further underscores the global dominance of subjective schemes. Notably, nearly 71% of the studies focus on developing countries in Asia and Africa, where the proportion of subjective schemes reaches 75% and 85%, respectively. Consequently, the results indicate the pivotal role of experts in shaping BSASs priorities. Finally, the discussion evaluates the advantages and limitations of these weighting approaches regarding their capacity to guide the building sector toward sustainability goals.
Papachatzis et al. (Wed,) studied this question.