Comparative Analysis between Community and Occupants’ Rating Systems for Sustainable Urban Communities (SUC)

Overpopulation globally is an addressed issue impacting human lives, marine lives, and the surrounding ecosystem; it is adding pressure on the available resources that should be optimized to suit the needs. Yet with improper management of resources and monitoring of daily activities, the environment will be further negatively impacted. With overpopulation higher urbanization rates are noticed with the demand of seeking better health facilities, better education, better jobs and better well-being; this progression is driving more demand into the infrastructure sector to be able to accommodate the growth rates. Hence, the need to having sustainable communities aiming at optimizing the resources used, working towards more feasible, environmentally friendly and cost-effective communities with a better occupant’s experience is in action. Sustainable development goals (SDG) are vital goals developed by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in 2015 to address and guide through 17 interconnected global goals serving the previously mentioned trend. Out of the 17 goals, Sustainable Cities and Communities (goal #11) and Good Health and Well-Being (goal #3) are the focus of this paper directed towards holding a comparative analysis between the community scale commonly known and mostly used rating system Leadership of Energy and Environmental Design (LEED-Cities and Communities) (USA) versus similar rating systems like Tarsheed-Communities (Egypt) and Estidama-Pearl (UAE) rating systems meeting sustainable development goal #11. Conjointly, another complimenting comparative review of the occupant’s health and wellbeing rating systems, such as Fitwel (USA) and Well (USA) are studied under sustainable development goal #3; however, they are focused on a building scale assessment. Living Community Challenge (LCC, USA) rating system linking community rating system with health & wellbeing credits was first issued in 2006, yet is it not cost effective neither easy to apply acting as a primary step while being affordable, accessible, and easy to implement. The objective of this paper is to highlight the pros and gaps under both categories of studies of community rating system and occupants’ health & wellbeing rating systems based on scientific content and commercial acceptance and do-ability. This comparison is done via comparing credits and sections within each rating system type; this will support in addressing the focal points needed for an integrated rating system between both categories that will serve in meeting SDG Sustainable Cities and Communities