Towards greener telecommunication towers: A framework for “LEED for telecom towers”

Figures & data

Table 1. The importance scale of the pairwise comparison (Hazem et al., 2020)

Importance Scale	Importance Scale Definition
5	Extremely Important Preferred
4	Very Strongly Important Preferred
3	Strongly Important Preferred
2	Moderately Important Preferred
1	Equally important preferred
−2	Moderately less Important Preferred
−3	Strongly less Important Preferred
−4	Very Strongly less Important Preferred
−5	Extremely less Important Preferred

Table 2. AHP pairwise comparison sample

Item Description	Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	Site Assessment	Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	Open Space
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	1.00	2.19	2.38	2.99
Site Assessment	0.46	1.00	2.23	2.86
Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	0.42	0.45	1.00	2.65
Open Space	0.33	0.35	0.38	1.00

Table 3. AHP Normalization sample

Item Description	Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	Site Assessment	Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	Open Space	Weight
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	0.45	0.55	0.40	0.31	42.9%
Site Assessment	0.21	0.25	0.37	0.30	28.3%
Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	0.19	0.11	0.17	0.28	18.7%
Open Space	0.15	0.09	0.06	0.11	10.2%

Table 4. Consistency Index and consistency ratio calculations sample

Item Description	Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	Site Assessment	Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	Open Space	SUM	SUM/Weight
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	0.43	0.62	0.45	0.30	1.80	4.19
Site Assessment	0.20	0.28	0.42	0.29	1.19	4.20
Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	0.18	0.13	0.19	0.27	0.76	4.08
Open Space	0.14	0.10	0.07	0.10	0.41	4.07

Table 5. The geometric mean of all questionnaire responses sample

Item Description	Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	Site Assessment	Site Development- Protect or Restore Habitat	Open Space
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	1.00	2.19	2.38	2.99
Site Assessment	0.46	1.00	2.23	2.86
Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat	0.42	0.45	1.00	2.65
Open Space	0.33	0.35	0.38	1.00

Table 6. Proposed categories with weights in the telecommunication green rating system

Categories	Weight
Sustainable Sites	29.44%
Location & Transportation	21.41%
Energy & Atmosphere	18.78%
Materials & Resources	13.47%
The health of the surrounding occupants	10.15%
Waste Management	6.74%

Table 7. Proposed telecommunication green rating system with weights

Sustainable Sites
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention	42.85%
Site Assessment	28.25%
Site Development—Protect or Restore Habitat	18.71%
Open Space	10.19%
Location & Transportation
Sensitive Land Protection	37.332%
High Priority Site	30.208%
Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses	20.497%
Access to Quality Transit	11.962%
Waste Management
Offsite containers	37.32%
Disposal of hazardous/nonhazardous materials	32.15%
Agreement with local authorities	18.93%
Workforce training	11.60%
Materials & Resources
Storage and Collection of Recyclables	23.12%
Construction and Demolition Waste Management Planning	29.81%
Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction	29.31%
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Environmental Product Declarations	20.70%
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Sourcing of Raw Materials	11.42%
Building Product Disclosure and Optimization—Material Ingredients	7.05%
Health
Simulating signal transmission and its effects on the surrounding occupants	21.08%
Limit combined exposure to radiofrequency	21.35%
Ensure using materials free from any emissions	18.46%
Participate in research conducted on the potential health effects of radiofrequency exposure	13.75%
Monitor that the radiofrequency exposure is not exceeding the limits	10.86%
Place away from hospitals and schools	8.76%
Place away from the population	5.75%
Energy Efficiency
Fundamental Commissioning and Verification	17.79%
Minimum Energy Performance	18.40%
Building-Level Energy Metering	15.89%
Enhanced Commissioning	12.43%
Optimize Energy Performance	10.39%
Advanced Energy Metering	8.28%
Demand Response	6.85%
Renewable Energy Production	5.78%
Green Power and Carbon Offsets	4.19%

Figure 1. Questionnaire pairwise comparison.

Hazem, N., Abdelraouf, M., Fahim, I. S., & El-Omari, S. (2020). A novel green rating system for existing buildings. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(17), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12177143

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used in this article are available upon request. If you need to examine any of the data in this article, kindly contact one of the authors.