Sustainable Building Methods: LEED ,Green Star and CASBEE - Term Paper Example

Sustainable Building Methods: LEED , Green Star and CASBEE Introduction Initial discussion of the issue of sustainable building methods will require a foray into the art and science of etymology. According to the Oxford English Dictionary sustainable is a variant of the word sustain. The word sustain has two Latin roots sus--under, and tenere--hold. Thus, that which can be sustained is that which can be held from below or supported. Thus, something that is sustainable is something that can be supported. In the context of building methods, sustainable building methods are those building methods that can be supported by the environment. Sustainable building methods are building methods that do not deplete the resources of the environment, but rather can be supported by them. The concept of sustainable development and sustainable building methods are no longer new. In Our Common Future (1987) the World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) states that, "sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." The document, popularly known as the Brundtland Report goes on to state that the term needs gives priority to "the essential needs of the worlds poor" and that, inevitably, limitations are placed on sustainable development by "the state of technology and social organisation," the environments capacity, and consideration of future needs and circumstances. Sustainability, be it in project design or international development, must not deplete the asset stock of the natural environment. Therefore, sustainable development can be defined as development that the environment can support without depletion or degradation both in the present and in the future. Beyond this, sustainability means more than environmentally friendly development. Sustainability consists of a triple bottom line. The environment is one of three considerations that include also the economy and society at large. The concept of sustainability is no longer new. The concept of sustainable building methods is newer but also no longer new. However, the theoretical development of a concept and its application do not occur coincidentally. Beyond the concept of sustainability, sustainable building methods need to be developed and implemented to realize the concept of sustainable building in practice. Finally, metrics have to be developed to determine the relative sustainability of comparative methods and the overall sustainability of a given technique or structure. According to Integral Sustainability, the concept of sustainable building methods and their assessments “foundations lie in well-established practices such as project environmental impact assessment (EIA) and the more recent experience with strategic environmental assessment (SEA) applied to policies, plans and programmes.” (“What is Sustainability Assessment”) The difference is that sustainable building methods do not only address the environmental aspects of a project: Rather, they address the triple bottom line of sustainability – environment, economy and society. The following discussion will focus on three sustainable building methods rating tools: LEED, Green Star and CASBEE. Briefly each methods history and origins will be outlined. Then the body of the discussion will focus on comparing and contrasting the three methods. A subsequent section, based on the preceding comparisons and contrasts will identify a fourth ideal building methods sustainability metric. Sustainable Building Methods Metrics Three sustainable building methods rating tools, among others, are CASBEE, Green Star and LEED. These three methods will be compared and contrasted throughout the body of this analysis. The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) was developed in Japan starting in 2001. According to the Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ) a sustainable and CASBEE compliant building, is designed and built: [1] to save energy and resources, recycle materials and minimize the emission of toxic substances throughout its life cycle, [2] to harmonize with the local climate, traditions, culture and the surrounding environment, and [3] to be able to sustain and improve the quality of human life while maintaining the capacity of the ecosystem at the local and global levels.” (AIJ, 2005, “Architecture for a Sustainable Future”, Tokyo: IBEC) CASBEE is currently administered by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC). “Green Star is a comprehensive, national, voluntary environmental rating system that evaluates the environmental design and construction of buildings” developed in Australia. (“What is Green Star?”, 2009) Green Star was developed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) commencing in 2003. Green Star employs nine rating categories focusing on everything from the nuts and bolts of reducing energy and water consumption to more ethereal categories such as impact on the surrounding environment and level of innovation. (“Green Star Rating Tool Categories”, 2009) Leadership in Energy & Design (LEED) was developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) and its first rating system was unveiled in 1998. Its origins are even older as development of LEED began under the leadership of the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) It is, therefore, the oldest of the three building assessment tools under consideration. LEED uses eight categories to assess the sustainability of a project. Figure 1: Sustainability Assessment Systems (on the following page) identifies the broadest factors that identify and compare the three sustainable building methods assessment tools under consideration in this discussion. This does not address the specifics of each program but rather their origins, chronologically and geographically. Figure 1: Sustainability Assessment Systems Metric System Country of Origin Date Development Commenced Developer Categories Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE) Japan 2001 Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ)/Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) n/a Green Star Australia 2003 Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) 9 Leadership in Energy & Design (LEED) United States of America 1993 Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC)/United States Green Building Council (USGBC) 8 Comparing and Contrasting Sustainable Building Methods Metrics All sustainable building methods and all sustainable building methods assessment tools share the common goal of augmenting, and measuring sustainability. However, at the same time, they use slightly different methods and metrics to achieve that goal. CASBEE emphasizes a Life Cycle Approach (LCA) to the issue of sustainability. Figure 2: CASBEE (following page) illustrates the comprehensive LCA nature of the CASBEE approach. It begins with the pre-design stage and follows through to renovation. Figure 2: CASBEE Source: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm. The most interesting element of the CASBEE system is that on the one hand it is a comprehensive system from pre-design to renovation while, on the other hand, engineers and architects can plug a project into the process at any stage. An ideal CASBEE process applies the sustainability criteria of CASBEE to site selection, design and construction, “Tool-0, CASBEE for Pre-Design”. However, if there are constraints on site selection the project can be plugged into the CASBEE system at the design stage, “Tool-1, CASBEE for New Construction”. For example, construction of an ore refinery may very well be dictated by the location of the mine or location of a shopping mall may be defined by marketing considerations. These issues may override applying CASBEE to site selection but the project can be plugged into the CASBEE system at the design stage and employed throughout the design and construction process. Similarly, if a building pre-dates CASBEE (an existing building) it can still be inserted into the CASBEE system using “Tool-2, CASBEE for Existing Building”. This tool allows the sustainability of the existing structure to be determined and will also point the way to renovations that will improve the sustainability of the structure. For example applying “Tool-2, CASBEE for Existing Buildings” may identify significant energy savings in the introduction of a new HVAC system or indicate that the existing structure is ideally located for the installation of photovoltaic cells to utilize solar energy and reduce energy consumption from the grid and dirtier forms of electrical energy. It is not surprising that a sustainability assessment tool of this type was developed in Japan. Japan is a densely populated island that is heavily developed. A sustainability assessment tool that only applied to new development would have very limited application in Japan. One that can also be applied to already existing structures is of much wider applicability in Japan. In the United States (source of LEED) and to a greater extent Australia (source of Green Star) there is a much lower population density and the potential for significant future development therefore the concept of sustainable retrofitting is of less relevance. It is not unimportant, nor is it entirely neglected by LEED and Green Star, but it is not integral to the assessment tool as it is in CASBEE. The Australian Green Star system uses nine categories to determine the sustainability of a structure. Green star can be used by any member of a design team or wider project team. However, to receive the Green Star seal of approval a third-party assessment must be conducted by the GBCA. A building that achieves a score of 45 (45 credits) us awarded 4 stars and certified as Green Star compliant. The nine categories are as follows: 1. Management credits are earned by thoroughly integrating Green Star into the project from conception to completion. 2. Energy credits are earned by reducing energy consumption and improving energy efficiency. 3. Water credits are earned in a similar manner. 4. Land Use and Ecology credits are earned by minimizing the structures impact on its immediate surroundings. 5. IEQ credits are earned by addressing the internal health of the building and its impacts on occupants. This criteria considers everything from lighting to interior air quality. 6. Transport “credits reward the reduction of demand for individual cars by both discouraging car commuting and encouraging use of alternative transportation.” (“Green Star Rating Tool Categories”, 2009) 7. Materials credits are based on materials used in construction and credits are earned by reuse initiatives, and use of environmentally sustainable products. 8. Emissions criterion are determined by building emissions of all types from waste water to emissions. 9. Finally, an admittedly ill-defined and subjective category is innovation. “Green Star seeks to reward marketplace innovation that fosters the industrys transition to sustainable building.” (“Green Star Rating Tool Categories”, 2009) Overall, the Green Star system is designed to reduce the deleterious impacts on the environment of a project while also offering significant returns (financial and otherwise) to the designers, builders and occupants. This is an essential point: For sustainable building techniques to displace traditional, less-energy efficient, building methods there must be a direct benefit to the bottom line for stakeholders from tenants to designers, architects and developers . Green Star focuses on these benefits as Figure 3 below illustrates. Figure 3: Green Star Benefits Source: http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-tools/green-star-custom-pilot/3092.htm. This emphasis on the diversity of benefits – economic, environmental and social – and the diversity of stakeholders that benefit is the key to sustainability. In a pithy sense, it makes sustainability sustainable. With reference to the preceding figure, designers and builders of sustainable projects the benefit from higher returns, tenant attraction and demonstration of corporate social responsibility. For the owner/operator in a sustainable project the benefits include reduced operating costs and emissions and increased sales, productivity and overall competitive advantage. Employees working in a sustainable project benefit from a healthier and safer work environment. Subsequently, all of these direct benefits offer indirect benefit to the surrounding community. According to journalist Rob Watson the Leadership in Energy & Design (LEED) project rating system was the single most important environmental development of the first decade of this century: “Of course, any green building summary of the first decade of the 21st century must begin and end with the introduction of the LEED Green Building Rating System. In under a decade, LEED has transformed one of the most important yet conservative industries on the planet.” (Watson, 2010) This is bombastic, American hyperbole although LEED has made a significant and valuable contribution to green building in the last ten years. The LEED system is extremely straightforward. Originally, a project was scored out of 100 possible points, along with 10 bonus points for innovation [6] and Regional Priority [4]. Subsequent versions of LEED and specific scoring based on project type have altered the numerics of the system. However, the principle remains the same: The number of points a project earns determines its LEED rating. Projects that attain the minimum number of points are certified. Those that attain more points are progressively certified as LEED silver, gold or platinum. (“Leadership in Energy & Design (LEED)”) According to the King Sturge report, European Property Sustainability Matters- benchmark tools and legal requirements qualifying is a relatively simple procedure. “Projects must register with the USGBC to obtain a LEED rating. To date [2009] there have been a total of 2,858 projects certified under the different LEED tools.” (King Sturge, 2009) Figure 4: Illustrative LEED Categories Source: http://resources.kingsturge.com/contentresources/library/5/research/2009/01Jul/270720095501_pdf.pdf An excellent schematic comparison of the three certification programs is provided in “International Comparison of Sustainable Rating Tools” (2009) by Richard Reed, Anita Bilos, Sara Wilkinson, and Karl-Werner Schulte. It is reproduced in Figure 4 Comparison of LEED, Green Star and CASBEE on the following page. Figure 4: Comparison of LEED, Green Star and CASBEE LEED Green Star CASBEE Ratings Certified/Silver/Gold/ Platinum 1 to 6 Star Letter Grades of C to A and S for the highest level. Weightings All credits equally weighted, although the number of credits related to each issue is a de facto weighting. Applied to each issue category (industry survey based). Highly complex weighting system applied at every level. Info Gathering Design/management team or Accredited Professional Design team Design/management team 3rd-Party Valuation N/A GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) nominated assessors Third-party agencies e.g., JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) Labeling USGBC (United States Green Buildings Council) GBCA JSBC Update As required Annual As required Governance USGBC GBCA JSBC Assessor/AP CPD requirements No CPD requirements Status renewed every three years N/A Annual Growth Rate 86% (2002-2007) N/A N/A Assessment Collation Fee Up to £37,770 £2015-£4030 Unknown Cost of credit appeals £252 £403 Unknown Source: http://academia.edu.documents.s3.amazonaws.com/767954/International_comparison_of_sustainable_rating_tools_2009_-_Journal_of_Sustainable_Real_Estate_-_vol.1_no._1_pp.1-22.pdf. An Ideal Alternative Subsequent to summarizing and analysing three of the most popular sustainable building methods employed across the globe consideration of an improved or ideal alternative leads to two conclusions. First, there seem to be very limited means for transferring knowledge and understanding from one system to another. Most important is the question of comparability of standards. Is a LEED certified project equivalent to a C in the CASBEE system and one star in the Green Star system? At the other end of the scale, is LEED platinum equivalent to a CASBEE S ranking for six stars in the Green Star system? This very visible problem only illustrates, it does not define, the complexities involved in comparing the various systems. Consequently, it is not possible to conduct an assessment of this nature and not suggest that efforts have to be made to investigate and determine the compatibility, or lack thereof, of the various systems. This is a point that is highlighted by Reed, et al. in “International comparison of sustainable rating tools”. (Reed, et al., 2009) It is also a point that is beginning to be addressed according to "Rating tool providers sign MOU regarding carbon emissions” published in Wood & Wood Products (2009). “Rating tools like BREEAM, LEED and Green Star have a proven track record in driving significant improvements in performance, and Im delighted they are now coming together to help create an international language that will enable us to talk with one voice about the vital role green buildings can play in creating a low carbon future," said Paul King, CEO of the UK Green Building Council. ("Rating tool providers sign MOU regarding carbon emissions”, 2009) On another level, each of the three tools under consideration seems to emphasize a different aspect of sustainable building methods assessment and an ideal system needs to combine these three diverse emphases. The Australian Green Star system excellently conveys the diverse benefits of green building methods and the diverse stakeholders to whom these benefits accrue. The Japanese CASBEE system is designed to be integrated into any phase of the development process from project conception to retrofitting and renovating. Finally, the LEED system provides a very detailed, complex and, potentially, clear set of criterion for a portrait of a buildings sustainability. Each of the strong points of the various systems should be incorporated in an ideal system. It could be inserted at any point in the development process; it would provide a clear and concise picture of a projects sustainability; and, the benefits of sustainability would be identified and widely communicated to stakeholders. A third issue also arises. Assessment of sustainable building methods is presently viewed too much as a portrait rather than a process. The most important assessments need to be done during the lifecycle of the project. Projected benefits and planned savings are not the best evidence. The best evidence is facts and figures from the project once it is up and occupied. Therefore, sustainable building methods assessments must focus on ongoing analysis and present a view of the process rather than rely on a simple, static portrait. References Architectural Institute of Japan (AIJ), 2005, Architecture for a Sustainable Future, Tokyo: IBEC Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE). Green Building Council Australia (GBCA) 2009, “What is Green Star?”, Green Building Council Australia (GBCA) 2009, “Green Star Custom Pilot”, Green Building Council Australia (GBCA) 2009, “Green Star Rating Tool Categories”, Integral Sustainability. “What is Sustainability Assessment”, King Sturge 2009, European Property Sustainability Matters- benchmark tools and legal requirements. "Rating tool providers sign MOU regarding carbon emissions." 2009, Wood & Wood Products vol. 114, no.3, p. 17. Reed, R.G., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S.J. & Werner-Schulte, K. 2009, “International comparison of sustainable rating tools”. Journal of Sustainable Real Estate,1 (1). United States Green Building Council (USGBC). “Leadership in Energy & Design (LEED)”. Watson, Rob, December 24, 2010, “A Look at LEED Milestones and Green Building To-Do Lists for 2011”, World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED),1987, Our Common Future. Read More