A Comparative Analysis of the Standards in Healthy Building Rating Systems

Due to the growing emphasis on sustainable development, the building and construction industry has shifted from using standardized scoring methods for green building (GB) to focusing on healthy building (HB). This study compares three prominent healthy building rating systems (HBRS): WELL, Fitwel, RESET, and Healthy Building Evaluation Standards (HBES). Archive analysis and comparative studies were carried out to achieve this objective. The comparison analysis in this study considers all aspects of the rating systems, which include similarities, differences, advantages, and disadvantages, to provide input to building construction industry players in improving the performance of GB to become HB. Comparison analysis shows that investigated HBRSs utilize a point-based structure that allows for some freedom for building owners while also requiring specific mandatory criteria for certification. It also demonstrates that the assessments’ criteria and categories share similar meanings but are articulated in distinct ways. Each HBRS varies in scope, criteria, procedure, data gathering, and assessment findings. The results of this study indicate that RESET differs from WELL and Fitwel among the four HBRSs analyzed. Although highly thorough, its scope is restricted to water and air quality. On the other hand, WELL and Fitwel assessments offer comprehensive evaluations of building health, focusing solely on the operational stage of the structure. HBES are simplified versions that cater to both the design and operational phases. This study helps bridge gaps in HB’s current understanding or application, especially regarding practical implications for the building construction industry.