Page 1

GRANT AGREEMENT NO. : PROJECT ACRONYM: PROJECT TITLE: FUNDING SCHEME: THEMATIC PRIORITY: PROJECT START DATE: DURATION:

608775 INDICATE Indicator-based Interactive Decision Support and Information Exchange Platform for Smart Cities STREP EeB.ICT.2013.6.4 1st October 2013 36 Months

DELIVERABLE 3.1 Report on current energy efficiency monitoring and quantification methodologies

Date 31/ 03/2014

Submitted By Tom Grey (TCD)

Review History Reviewed By Ruth Kerrigan (IES) and John Loane (DKIT)

Version C

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme for research, technological development and demonstration under grant agreement no. 608775


Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................4 1

2

3

4

5

6

7

INTRODUCTION - CONTEXT, UNDERSTANDING AND FRAMEWORK ......................................................6 1.1

Introduction and global context .....................................................................................................6

1.2

Work Package and Task Overview ..................................................................................................6

1.3

Report Methodology .......................................................................................................................7

1.4

Report Structure .............................................................................................................................8

BACKGROUND – THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY ..............................................9 2.1

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................9

2.2

Global Energy Issues .......................................................................................................................9

2.3

Measuring energy use in the urban environment ........................................................................11

2.4

Energy use in the urban environment ..........................................................................................11

2.5

Urban energy use at the micro, meso and macro scale ...............................................................13

2.6

Introduction to urban sustainability and energy assessment methodologies .............................22

2.7

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................23

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH – DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK..............................24 3.1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................24

3.2

Stakeholder engagement ..............................................................................................................24

3.3

Methodology selection and evaluation process ...........................................................................24

3.4

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................31

Evaluation Framework Analysis Findings .............................................................................................32 4.1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................32

4.2

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................39

Key Recommendations and Conclusion ...............................................................................................40 5.1

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................40

5.2

Key Recommendations for Requirements List..............................................................................40

5.3

Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................44

Glossary and Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................45 6.1

Abbreviations ................................................................................................................................45

6.2

Glossary .........................................................................................................................................46

References ............................................................................................................................................47

31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 2


8

Appendices ...........................................................................................................................................52 8.1

Appendix A – Initial list of methodologies ....................................................................................52

8.2

Appendix B – Stage 2: Methodology Selection Process................................................................54

8.3

Appendix C – Methodology Rating / Scoring: Green, Amber, or Red rating (Part 1) ...................55

8.4

Appendix D – Methodology evaluation: BREAAM Schemes.........................................................57

8.5

Appendix E – Methodology evaluation: CASBEE Cities.................................................................85

8.6

Appendix F– Methodology evaluation: Energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki .....94

8.7

Appendix G– Methodology evaluation: Green Globes Schemes ..................................................99

8.8

Appendix H – Methodology evaluation: Green Star Schemes....................................................114

8.9

Appendix I – Methodology evaluation: LEED Schemes .............................................................123

8.10 Appendix J – Methodology evaluation: Living Building Challenge .............................................137 8.11 Appendix K – Methodology evaluation: Pearl Schemes .............................................................148 8.12 Appendix L – Methodology evaluation: Passive House Planning Package .................................173

31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarises the findings of Task 3.1 which aimed to examine and evaluate urban energy efficiency, including the interaction between the utilisation and function of individual urban objects while acknowledging the influence of context-specific factors such as building design, urban fabric and morphology, urban form and policy. A key component was the investigation of sustainability and energy efficiency methodologies currently being used to monitor and quantify energy consumption in the urban environment, and based on this the formulation of a Requirements List that would support the INDICATE tool as a robust and defensible methodology. INDICATE seeks to provide an integrated tool which considers urban energy efficiency in a holistic manner, viewed in the overall context of sustainable development. The research undertaken in this task considered urban energy efficiency in this wider context while acknowledging the interrelationships that exist between the various sectors in society and the multiple components of the urban and built environment. In support of this approach, the research presented in this report examined key established international sustainability assessment tools which do not exclusively concentrate on energy. The selected methodologies consider energy as a component of sustainability while including other categories such as location and public transport, or land use and ecology. In this way, important information was captured, not just specifically related to energy, but also in relation to the other factors which influence overall energy use, performance and efficiency. Multiple methods of investigation were used to carry out this research including a literature review, stakeholder engagement and the evaluation of a wide range of international urban sustainability assessment tools. The detailed evaluation of these tools and the feedback received from stakeholders informs the recommended requirements list now set out below. Requirement No. 1: Methodology Objectives The INDICATE tool should set clear objectives to deliver energy efficiency performance improvements for urban areas. Requirement No. 2: Methodology Process The INDICATE tool should consist of a coherent and integrated framework which will guide processes for appropriately assessing energy efficiency performance. The development of this framework should consider issues such as usability, accessibility, and provision of shared learning. Requirement No. 3: Project Stages The INDICATE tool will cover the planning, design and operation stages of the development process. Requirement No. 4: Project Development Types The INDICATE tool should cover all development types including new build, extension and renovation in an urban environment. Requirement No. 5: Development Use The INDICATE tool should cover all development uses in an urban environment. 31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 4


Requirement No. 6: Development Scale The INDICATE tool should cover all development scales in an urban environment, from building level to wider community/neighbour/district scales, depending on the context of the individual project. Requirement No. 7: Assessment Criteria The INDICATE tool should consider all necessary variables that influence energy use and performance in the urban area. Requirement No. 8: Data Requirements The INDICATE tool should include data requirements that are specific, measureable, achievable, realistic, and timely (SMART). Requirement No. 9: Innovation The INDICATE tool should facilitate and encourage innovative practices in energy efficiency, to promote the continued evolution of sustainability in urban environments. Requirement No. 10: Solutions and Option Development The INDICATE tool should consider option development and the signposting and testing of energy efficiency solutions, as part of its use in the design process. Requirement No. 11: Timeliness The INDICATE tool should be time effective to use, to enable the efficient determination of appropriate options and solutions. Requirement No. 12: Education The INDICATE tool should cater for the education of users with varying levels of knowledge and experience in relation to energy efficiency. Requirement No. 13: Market Labelling The INDICATE tool should include some element of green market labelling, having regard for the growing importance of smart and sustainable cities. Requirement No. 14: Compatibility of Approach The development of the INDICATE tool should consider other internationally-recognised assessment tools, to foster potential synergies in approach and uptake in use. Requirement No. 15: Review The INDICATE tool should include appropriate provisions, including carefully devised energy efficiency indicators, which monitor the success or otherwise of its application and performance, as part of any continuous improvement strategy. 31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 5


1

INTRODUCTION - CONTEXT, UNDERSTANDING AND FRAMEWORK

1.1 Introduction and global context The ‘Indicator-based Interactive Decision Support and Information Exchange Platform for Smart Cities’, or INDICATE is an EU-funded project involving participants from across Europe including Ireland, Italy, Switzerland and the UK. INDICATE proposes a novel city-wide decision support system which accounts for all major systems and activities relevant to developing energy-efficient cities. The creation of such energy-efficient cities is a critical part of global sustainability and will require integrated smart urban planning tools for both master-planning and detailed energy optimisation. In this regard INDICATE will support stakeholders in the transition towards smart cities by providing an interactive decision support tool for urban planning and design. The tool will assess the interactions between urban objects and spaces, buildings, the electricity grid, renewable technologies and ICT and recommend options for optimising infrastructure, installing technology, and providing cost-effective utility services. As outlined above, the INDICATE tool seeks to provide an integrated tool which considers urban energy efficiency in a holistic manner. Energy is now a key component of sustainable development and must be viewed in this context. According to the UN, approaches to sustainability should appropriately consider the three components of sustainable development – “economic development, social development and environmental protection – as interdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars” (United Nations, 2005.p12). In order for society to develop in a sustainable manner, there must be a careful balance between: the earth’s ecosystem, economic development, and societal progress, to ensure protection of the planet. This is a major challenge and represents a delicate balancing act, and to date humanity has not provided the stewardship required to achieve this balance. From the ‘The limits of growth’ in early 1970s (Meadows and Club of Rome, 1972), to the ‘Brundtland Report’ in 1987 (World Commission on et al., 1987), through to the Stern Report in 2007 (Stern and Great Britain, 2007) there has been many calls to redress this situation. As an illustration of the gravity of the current situation, it is currently estimated that if everyone on the planet consumed the same amount of resources as the average European, then the resources from the equivalent of four and a half planets would be needed to sustain the global population (WWF and Global Footprint Network, 2008). This current research considers urban energy efficiency in this wider context with an appreciation of the interrelationships that exist between the various sectors in society and the multiple components of the urban and built environment. The INDICATE tool, while energy focused, will adopt a holistic approach to urban energy efficiency and this is reflected in the material reviewed in this report and the ongoing stakeholder engagement processes which are being undertaken as part of this research.

1.2 Work Package and Task Overview The overall research project includes nine work packages in total which aim to inform and enable the INDICATE tool. This current deliverable report outlines the main findings from Task 3.1 and provides context and support for Work Package 3 (WP3) by undertaking a comprehensive examination of urban energy efficiency, and by evaluating current methodologies for monitoring and quantifying energy consumption in the urban environment. Overall WP3 is concerned with the selection of suitable sustainability indictors that integrate the energy characteristics of buildings (consumption and generation) with other components of a city’s infrastructure and governance. This refined set of Sustainable Urban Indicators will be used to aid decision support within the urban 31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 6


environment, through integration with the INDICATE Virtual City Model (VCM). In order for the decision support platform to be applicable across the EU, the selection of INDICATORS will need to normalise differences in climate, culture, lifestyles, governance and building typology. This normalised set of INDICATORS will in turn generate the Common City Index (CCI). The decision support tool will be communicated effectively through the development of a customised graphical user interface (in WP5) and the application of the Indicator and CCI in scenario testing (WP6), all of which when combined will allow end users to identify potential energy efficiency measures which can be implemented within urban areas, yielding clear urban environment/sustainability and financial benefits. As stated above, Task 3.1 encompasses a comprehensive evaluation of urban energy efficiency with investigative research into current energy efficiency methodologies that are applied to monitor and quantify energy consumption across an urban environment. This evaluation reviews the theoretical background to energy efficiency monitoring and formulates a ‘requirements’ list for robust and defensible methodologies. The task also compromises an evaluation of the interaction between the utilisation and function of individual urban objects and the influence that context-specific factors such as urban fabric, morphology, cultural, societal, political can have on energy efficiency in urban environments. In support of this approach, this current research examines some key established international sustainability assessment tools which do not exclusively concentrate on energy, but which consider energy as a key category among other sustainability categories such as location and public transport, or land use and ecology. In this way the research team hope to capture important information, not just specifically related to energy, but also in relation to the other influencing and contextual factors which determine overall energy use, performance and efficiency.

1.3 Report Methodology Multiple methods were used to undertake the various components of the research for this study. The methods adopted are outlined briefly below. Literature review: The literature review undertaken for this report, followed established methods (Arksey and O’Malley, 2005). In order to identify primary studies (published and unpublished), reviews and guidance documents suitable for answering the central research question, and to be as comprehensive as possible, the strategy adopted involved searching for research evidence via diverse sources: • • • •

electronic databases and search engines hand-searching of key journals existing networks, relevant organisations and conferences reference lists

The computer-based search performed to identify literature published primarily between 1980 and 2013 included searches of Science Direct and Scopus. The review involved searches of Google, Google Scholar and other similar online search engines. It included a review of literature from TCD libraries and other online databases. The search was supplemented by manual searching of reference lists in the publications identified and restricted to publications in the English language. Foreign language material was excluded because of the cost and time involved in translating material. However, every effort was made to include literature from as many different countries as possible. 31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 7


The sourced literature provided a useful basis on which to critique the various methodologies. This assessment was supplemented by available information from the websites of the various methodology developers, which included technical and non-technical manuals and background papers, as well as experiences from the use of some of the methodologies, as either trial versions or fully licensed versions of the tools. Research and fact-finding was also supplemented by appropriate stakeholder consultation, to inform the considered development of investigations. This extended to, firstly, shaping and, secondly, examining the outputs of questionnaires in WP1 and the hosting of two workshops in March in Genoa and Louth to obtain further experiences and insights on methodology usage.

1.4 Report Structure This report is composed of five chapters in total which present the key findings from the research and also a series of appendices which contain the full extent of information and feedback from the methodology assessment process. Overall, the breakdown of individual chapters includes the following: Chapter 2 provides a background to this report and looks at energy use in the urban context, outlining the typical forms of energy consumption present in the city, as well as key contextual issues that impact energy efficiency. Chapter 2 concludes with an introduction to urban energy efficiency methodologies, ahead of their more detailed consideration in Chapters 3 and 4. Chapter 3 describes the research methodology employed in this task to select, screen, and evaluate a range of urban energy efficiency and sustainability tools, drawn from a wide array of international methodologies. The approach taken includes a three-stage methodology selection and evaluation process, as part of a tailored review analysis. Chapter 4 presents the key findings from this Evaluation Framework Analysis which helps inform the ‘Requirements List’ developed in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 establishes a ‘Requirements List’ for the INDICATE tool, which details the key criteria required for any robust and defensible urban sustainability or energy efficiency methodology. This Requirements List is the key deliverable from Deliverable 3.1. Appendices A to L explain the rationale and structure of the Evaluation Framework. They also present the full extent of information gleaned from the methodology assessment process, along with feedback from the research team in relation to each of the methodologies.

31/03/2014

Grant No. 608775 8


2

BACKGROUND – THE URBAN ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY

2.1 Introduction This chapter attempts to set out the key contextual issues surrounding urban energy efficiency. It recognises that there are many drivers at the global, national and local level that influence the development of new urban energy design practices and technologies, policy and regulation, and evaluation methods. Urban energy efficiency operates at various spatial scales; from the individual building to the region, and at various temporal scales influenced by human behaviour and usage patterns. Further to this, urban energy efficiency is determined by characteristics of the built environment and urban infrastructure, and more importantly by the people who do the living, working, studying or travelling in the urban environment. The following sections briefly look at some of these challenges, starting with the global issues and working down to local and more detailed issues in an effort to provide some context for urban energy and energy efficiency.

2.2 Global Energy Issues In what has been referred to as ‘The Century of the City’ (Peirce et al., 2008) there are many converging factors influencing the debate around urban energy consumption and efficiency including global population, increasing urban population, energy costs and the spectre of ‘peak oil’, and of course climate change. Currently the world’s population is in excess of 7 billion, with a low forecast of 8 billion by 2050, a median of 9.2 billion, and a high forecast of 10.5 billion. (World Watch Institute, 2013). It is estimated that over seventy percent of this population will live in cities by 2050 (United Nations, 2006) which equates to 6.4 billion urban dwellers by 2050. This will have a huge impact on the daily functioning of all systems within cities including energy distribution, public transport, waste management or sanitation. This urban population growth will have a huge impact on quality of life through potential overcrowding, or suburban sprawl, depending on whether existing or new cities develop high, medium or low density settlement patterns in response to this level of urbanisation. Rising energy costs, energy supply security and peak oil worries (Shafiee and Topal, 2009, Asif and Muneer, 2007, Dorian et al., 2006) are also driving concerns about energy which are all to a large extent, connected to the larger global issue of climate change. “In the decades to come, climate change may make hundreds of millions of urban residents – and in particular the poorest and most marginalized – increasingly vulnerable to floods, landslides, extreme weather events and other natural disasters. City dwellers may also face reduced access to fresh water as a result of drought or the encroachment of saltwater on drinking water supplies. These are the forecasts, based on the best available science. Yet none of these scenarios needs to occur, provided we act now with determination and solidarity.” (Ban Ki-moon, 2011) While it can be argued that compact cities, due to density, public transport and proximity to services, represent a more energy-efficient settlement model than dispersed settlements (Newman, 1999), there is no doubt that they consume a significant portion of global energy. According to some estimates, cities consume approximately 80% of all commercial energy produced (Jollands et al., 2008) and account for 75% of global green house gas emissions, all this, despite only taking up 2% of the Earth’s land mass. This is driven by the combustion of fossil fuels consumed in an array of urban residential, industrial, and transport processes (United Nations Human Settlements, 2011).

9


The environmental, social and economic impact of cities was recognised by the UK government Urban Task Force (1999), which was chaired by Richard Rogers, and who were charged with identifying sustainable solutions for British towns and cities. At the time of writing, it was estimated that a UK city of 100,000 people consumed 300,000 tonnes of fuel oil equivalent and produced 900,000 tonnes of CO2 and 9,000 tonnes of SO2 and NOx. The Task Force concluded that the city, as a massive consumer of resources and producer of waste and pollution, would have to change.

Figure 1: City as consumer -(Urban Task Force and Rogers, 1999)

Since then there has been a wide range of responses to this urban crisis with a growing consensus around the potential for more compact, walkable urban form designed around public transport nodes. In the US there is growing support for this compact form of development, defined as ‘Transit Oriented Development’, this urban design approach is a reaction to decades of urban sprawl and dispersed settlement patterns which are evident in many parts of the US (Calthorpe, 2010). Whether settlement patterns are compact, dispersed, or clustered around transport nodes, there is a myiad of energy issues that must be addressed in the urban context in order to achieve sustainable urban environments. While there are many commonalities across countries these issues are often very context based and are hugely influenced by local climate, culture, society, and economics. In Europe where there are traditionally many dense and compact city centres, the challenges may be around upgrading the existing building fabric of protected structures, while in the UK, the US, or Australia, the challenge may focus on creating the appropriate population density and urban form to achieve public transport. Sustainable development will be confronted by different issues in different locations and thus requires a multi-faceted, multi-disciplinary process with maximum stakeholder engagement to progress towards environmentally, socially and economically sustainable urban communities. Global energy issues should also be considered alongside the burgeoning field of ‘smart cities’, which envisions that innovation in energy will drive sustainable urban environments. The convergence between digital technology and the world of energy, or Energy 3.0, will pave the way for a new ecosystem of services which will enable both a

10


better quality of life and reduced energy consumption. At the heart of this concept is the "internet of things": more efficient and miniaturised sensors and networks that interconnect all objects to one another. Ultimately, it is through interconnecting buildings, factories, vehicles, power generation plants, lighting etc, that cities will become "smart".

2.3 Measuring energy use in the urban environment As discussed above, urban energy consumption is the product of a multitude of processes which occur from the micro scale, through the use of individual pieces of equipment, to the macro scale involving regional or national level energy generation and distribution. In terms of measuring this energy use or consumption, there are various indicators which use different units depending on the spatial scale or the focus of measurement. At a national level, some countries measure their energy use in terms of ‘kilo tonnes of oil equivalent’ (ktoe) 1 while many international indicator suites measure energy use consumption per capita presented in terms of kWh/individual. The impact on climate change is measured as Green House Gas (GHG) Emissions per capita using the units of Tonnes CO2 equivalent per individual. (European Commission, 2010, Eurostat, 2007) Siemens, 2009, STATUS, 2006, TISSUE, 2005). 0F

Gigajoules (GJ) per capita is also used as a standard international metric with typical mid-1990s per capita consumption ranging from 138 GJ per capita in the UK, to 12 GJ in India. At the building level there are typically a number of metrics including Energy Demand, expressed as Mega Joules (MJ) per m2 of floor area, Primary Energy Consumption expressed as kWh/m2/y, and net annual building CO2 emissions expressed as kgCO2/m2/y (Flourentzos, 2011, Thomas and Fordham, 2003). Primary Energy Consumption (kWh/m2/y), typically used at the building level can also be used at the urban level. For instance Hedman et al (2014b) in creating an energy efficiency rating tool for urban districts in Finland, express the final result as kWh/m2/y, a metric they argue captures both the energy demand and energy sources of a given urban district.

2.4 Energy use in the urban environment The complexity encountered in cities presents a major challenge to sustainability. Jane Jacobs referred to cities as “Organisms that are replete with unexamined, but obviously intricately interconnected, and surely understandable relationships” (Jacobs, 1961). Vale and Vale describe the city as dynamic interactive systems which demand systems thinking in order to unpick their many challenges. “The city is far more than a collection of buildings, rather it can be seen as a series of interacting systems - systems for living, working and playing – crystallized into built form. It is by looking at systems that we may find the face of the city of tomorrow” (Vale and Vale, 1991). A systems approach to urban sustainability requires delicate interventions and “a willingness to tolerate open-endedness, unpredictability, and bottom-up thinking as well as closure, causality and top-down ordinance” (Hagan, 2000).

1

A tonne of oil equivalent (toe) is a unit of energy roughly equivalent to the energy content of one tonne of crude oil. The definition in energy terms is that 1 toe = 107 kilocalories = 41.868 gigajoules (GJ) = 11.63 Mega Watt hours (MWh) = 11,630 kilo-Watt-hours (kWh) SEAI 2013. Energy in Ireland 1990 – 2012: 2013 Report. Dublin.

11


Understanding the city as an urban energy system is critical to urban sustainability and in particular energy efficiency. Rutter and Keirstead (2012) refer to Jaccards’s (2005) definition of an urban energy system, describing them as ‘‘the combined processes of acquiring and using energy’’(p.72). to meet the energy service demands of an urban population According to the authors this energy, which supplies the domestic, commercial and industrial sectors is largely brought into the city as electricity or gas through national grid infrastructure. They trace the evolution of urban energy systems looking at seven major transitions along with the associated drivers, technologies and consequences. Table 1 - Significant urban energy system transitions in the UK. (Rutter and Keirstead, 2012)

Transition

Approx. date

Approx. global population

Driver

Technology

Consequence

Raw to cooked food

1.2–2 million years ago

20,000

Food supply

Fire

Population increase

Nomadic to settled lifestyle

10,000 BC

10 million

Food security

Horticulture

Population increase

Settled to Urban

3000 BC

50 million

Food security, trade and defence

Agriculture, wheel and sail

City states and trade

Biomass to coal Early urban networks

1650 AD

500 million

Chimneys & steam

1850 AD

1.2 billion

Transport cost of wood fuel Effective street lighting

Rapid urban industrialisation Better energy services. Suburbs and commuting.

National grids

1950 AD

3 billion

Efficiencies of scale and natural gas discoveries

Electricity and gas grids, automobiles

Low energy prices, reduced dependence on coal

Integrated energy services?

?

9 billion?

System efficiency, resource availability, constraints climate

Highly efficient use, integrated energy systems emission supplies, secure low emission supplies

?

Incandescent light bulb; gas cooker; railways

?= unknown future dates, populations or consequences With each transition they identify four common features as follows: an intensification of energy use; an increasing complexity of urban energy systems; policies to promote innovation in urban systems due to constraints of existing systems; and finally the evolution of systems typically aligned with wider changes in society and technology. Based on these historic transitions they pose questions about future developments pointing to the optimisation of urban energy systems, integrated and linked smart grid technologies that maximise the potential of existing assets, and improved energy efficiency in the home, as likely outcomes. In terms of supply they outline two scenarios, firstly a situation where nuclear or large-scale renewables provide remote generation leaving the

12


city as a passive consumer. The other scenario involves smart grid technologies and local renewable energy sources embedded in the urban fabric while utilising local-scale combined heat and power (CHP), energy supply companies and ICT to create local utilities based on a greater awareness of local geography. Whichever way the urban energy system evolves there are certain characteristics that will remain important, both in terms of understanding these systems and responding accordingly with energy efficiency strategies. Keirstead et al (2012) identify three key features of urban energy use which they believe must be considered as part of any integrated thinking around urban energy and these include the following: 

The first issue refers to ‘Combined processes’ and must take account of the many steps associated with delivering energy services such as “refining, transportation, storage, and conversion to end service. While the urban environment may be physically separate from many of these processes, they should be considered in an overall analysis if they are ultimately being used to service urban demands.” (p.3848) The second feature is associated with ‘Acquiring and using’ energy and revolves around balancing supply and demand in cites. This must also consider opportunities for ‘in-city’ generation so that urban energy systems are considered as both supply and demand. The third factor looks at ‘Given society and economy’ where the energy system is considered “a sociotechnical system, comprised of more than just pipelines, fuels, and engineering equipment. Markets, institutions, consumer behaviours and other factors affect the way technical infrastructures are constructed and operated. Urban energy systems therefore need to be viewed more widely and account for local context.” (p.3848)

In a literature review that narrowed down the literature from over 2000 results to 219 highly relevant journal papers, Keirstead et al (2012) identified five reoccurring themes that capture the key areas associated with urban energy. These include; technology design; building design; urban climate; systems design; and policy assessment. These categories are not too far off those identified by Baker and Steemers (Baker and Steemers, 1992, Baker, 1999) who argue that urban geometry, building design, systems efficiency, and occupant behaviour are critical to building energy performance. Keirstead, having examined the literature argued that a sixth field, land use and transportation, is largely overlooked, but must be included to form an integrated view of energy systems. For the purposes of this report a selection of these key fields including; technology design; building design, urban morphology, urban form and land use, and policy assessment, will be used to structure the following sections. These sections look very briefly at some of the key components of the urban energy system as it relates to technology, urban morphology, building fabric, energy consuming systems and services, transport, and the influence of human behaviour and societal behaviour.

2.5 Urban energy use at the micro, meso and macro scale With buildings consuming approximately 40% of EU and US final energy, and the most recent Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) aiming for all new buildings to be ‘nearly zero’ energy by 2020 (Brophy and Lewis, 2011), the role of energy-efficient buildings is coming under increasing scrutiny. However, building-related energy efficiency is a complex issue with many variables and must be considered at a number of spatial levels to understand the key determining factors. Firstly, energy efficiency at the building level or ‘micro’ scale is contingent upon not only the efficiency of the building services or technology and the performance of the building fabric, but is also dependent on building

13


shape, surface area and other form characteristics. Beyond the micro-scale there are larger issues operating at the ‘meso’ scale, such as urban morphology, and finally urban form or urban structure factors at the’ macro’ or city scale. Urban morphology, also termed the ‘urban fabric’ or ‘urban texture’, “deals primarily with the particular shape and dimensions of the built environment and with the aggregations and configurations of building types” (Doherty et al., 2012.p.4. ). Urban form on the other hand “refers to the arrangement of the larger functional units of a city, reflecting both the historical development of the city and its more recent planning history; it is defined by the spatial patterning of industrial, commercial and residential land uses and also by different levels of residential density” (ibid). In the context of urban form, Doherty et al. refer to Newton et al. (2000) who outline some ‘archetypal urban geometries’ which include the ‘dispersed city’, the ‘compact city’, the ‘edge city’, the ‘corridor city’, and the ‘fringe city’. All of these dimensions are shaped by a myiad of contextual factors such as social, cultural, and economic issues which influence human behaviour as the key driver behind energy efficiency. The following sections look at these various levels starting with technology and working up to the larger scale of urban form and transportation with a final section on energy policy.

2.5.1 Micro-scale - Building and energy related technology Technology plays a central part in space and water heating, cooling, ventilation, artificial lighting, and the servicing of appliances and equipment. As an example, in 2011 the ‘average’ dwelling in Ireland- which had a floor area of 119 m2 and an occupancy of 2.7 persons -consumed almost 20,000 kWh of energy per year, comprising of 5,000 kWh electrical and 15,000 kWh non-electrical consumption (SEAI, 2013). This figure represents a 62% increase in annual average electricity consumption per person in average households which is largely due to an increase in the number and usage of electrical appliances, as illustrated below in Figure 2 below. Figure 2 represents an estimation of electricity consumption within the home. As stated in the SEAI document, this breakdown is a tentative estimation based on limited data, however it is still useful in outlining the basic energy usage in average dwellings. ‘Wet appliances’ refer to dishwashers, washing machines etc, while ‘other small appliances’ refers to TVs, kettles etc. Water heating, at 23%, is clearly a significant form of energy consumption within the Irish home and this may be accounted for by the large number of electric immersion heaters that operate in many Irish homes. The energy consumption outlined above relates to residential dwellings but gives a good indication of how technology interacts

14 Figure 2: estimation of electricity consumption within the home (SEAI, 2013).


with energy consumption. Brophy and Lewis (2011) examine the role of various building services and their role in a building’s ‘energy intensity’ which is expressed as kWh/m2/y. Using the example of a public building in Southern Germany, they point out that while the building may typically consume 220 kWh/m2/y for heating, according to some estimates (Eicker, 2009) this could be reduced to 100 kWh/m2/y with higher levels of insulation and to 15 kWh/m2/y if designed according to the Passive House standard 2. Brophy and Lewis warn against the use of heating systems such as electrical storage heaters due to the fact that most countries generate electricity using fossil fuels where the efficiency for generation is often only between 30 – 55% (Harvey, 2006). In terms of lighting, it is estimated that globally, electrical lighting in buildings consumes 19% of all generated electricity (International Energy Agency, 2010) and Brophy and Lewis point to a range of measures such as the use of energy-efficient lighting using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) or light emitting diodes (LEDs). As an indicator of the influence of building system efficiency (heating, cooling, lighting etc) on a building’s overall energy performance , it has been estimated that system efficiency can account for a two-fold variation in energy consumption (Baker and Steemers, 1992, Baker, 1999) which when considered as just one component of the urban energy system, is a significant factor. 1F

While there are various other energy efficiency building technologies such as geothermal heat pumps 3, photovoltaic panels 4, and onsite wind turbines, Thomas and Fordham (2003) would argue that a mixture of onsite generation and off-site grid supplied energy is probably the most efficient and pragmatic approach to urban energy supply and demand, as illustrated in Figure 3 below. 2F

3F

Figure 3: A mixture of on-site energy generation and off-site grid supplied energy solutions (Thomas and Fordham, 2003)

2 A Passive House is a building for which thermal comfort (ISO 7730) can be achieved solely by post-heating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions – without the need for additional recirculation of air." FEIST, W. 2014. Passive House Designer [Online]. Germany: Passive House Institute Available: http://www.passivhausplaner.eu/index.php?group=3&level1_id=277&page_id=277&lang=en-GB [Accessed 01-03 2104]. 3 A geothermal heat pump system is a heating and/or cooling system that uses the earth’s ability to store heat in the ground and water thermal masses. These systems operate based on the stability of underground temperatures; the ground a few feet below surface has normally a very stable temperature throughout the year, depending upon location’s annual climate 4 Photovoltaics (PV) convert the sun’s energy to electricity using semiconductor technology

15


While a range of on-site and off-site measures may be the best approach, there are some technologies such as combined heat and power (CHP) 5 systems or district heating systems 6 which may have particular relevance to urban energy systems. Smith (2003), while discussing a variety of sustainable technologies ranging from traditional micro-renewables such as solar thermal panels to more advanced options such as biogas or fuel cells, advocates the use of CHP as a sustainable urban energy solution. Pointing to the successful use of low temperature water grids which are used in Denmark, Smith suggests that the future of city-wide CHP may lie with the combination of CHP with solar and wind. The possibility of CHP working in ‘trigeneration’ mode as part of a district scale building cooling system as suggested by Smith is also picked up by Brophy and Lewis (2011) who talk about ‘combined cooling, heating and power’ (CCHP). They argue that CHP can deliver efficiencies in excess of 85% and result in CO2 reductions of up to 50% compared with conventional sources of heating. 4F

5F

The Keirstead et al. (2012) literature review established that most technology studies focusing on urban energy typically look at technology at a small spatial scale while the temporal scale ranged from seconds in the case of vehicle performance, hourly or daily for solar energy systems, through to annual or static for life cycle performance issues. The studies which incorporate various technologies such as solar thermal, PV, waste-to-heat or other such systems, mostly looked at supply-side issues and where demand-side parameters were included; these were categorized as being exogenous to the system.

2.5.2 Micro scale - Building fabric and services, and building design Optimum orientation for passive solar, highly insulated structures, and airtightness all provide passive approaches which will contribute to increased energy performance of buildings. This passive approach is often encouraged to minimise a building’s base load in order to reduce the need for the technologies and building services outlined above. As outlined previously, the Passive House approach has firmly established this principle and is being used increasingly across the world as a sustainable planning, construction and operational approach. With stringent requirements such as a Specific Space Heat Demand equal to or less than 15 kWh/m2/y; and Specific Primary Energy Demand (heating, cooling, hot water, auxiliary electricity, domestic and common area electricity) equal to or less than 120 kWh/m2/y the Passive House standard creates a minimum building energy demand which is readily satisfied by low energy technology. The high standards achieved by Passive House design are a result of some key design and construction principles such as a high levels of airtightness which must meet pressurization test results of 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 Pa over/under pressurization; typical wall, floor and roof U-Values less than 0.15 W/m2K, U-Values less than 0.8 W/m2K for windows and doors and thermal bridging with a linear heat coefficient of less than 0.01 W/mK. While the performance of building components is central to energy efficiency, there is evidence that certain building form characteristics have a direct and significant bearing on energy performance. Various studies show a correlation between a greater exposed surface area and increased energy consumption (Reader, 2006, Salat, 2009, Steadman et al., 2013) and negative correlations between heat energy demand and density, ground coverage and building height (Rode et al., 2014). Steadman et al. also found that increased plan depth in buildings accounts for greater energy consumption where ‘passive zones’ or zones adjacent to the external wall of the 5 (CHP), also known as cogeneration is the use of a heat engine or power station to simultaneously generate both electricity and useful heat. 6 District heating systems or community heating is where hot water is generated in a centralised boiler and distributed via a highly insulated pipework system (district heating pipes) to various buildings throughout a district or neighbourhood.

16


building which can be lit or ventilated passively are typically six metres deep. This results in a situation where buildings over 12 metres deep will contain internal ‘non-passive zones’ which will require artificially lit and ventilated space. While there is a multitude of building design factors to be considered, such as overall building shape, façade orientation, or solid wall to glazing ratios, the material covered here gives some sense of the issues at hand. Referring back to Baker and Steemers (Baker and Steemers, 1992, Baker, 1999), it is estimated that building design can account for a doubling in energy consumption and therefore requires careful consideration as part of the urban energy system.

2.5.3 Meso-scale – Urban morphology The modelling of energy consumption in London, Toulouse and Berlin carried out by Ratti et al. (2005) demonstrated that urban morphology has a 10% impact on annual per metre energy consumption. Yet despite the significant influence of urban morphology they claim that the link between this and energy efficiency is often neglected and that many urban energy simulation software packages underestimate this impact and often assume default values for urban morphology. They highlight the impact of urban morphology on sunlight and daylight availability for building facades but also acknowledge influences on the urban microclimate by quoting Givoni who stated that; “The outdoor temperature, wind speed and solar radiation to which an individual building is exposed is not the regional ‘synoptic’ climate, but the local microclimate as modified by the structure of the city, mainly of the neighbourhood where the building is located” (Givoni and World Climate Applications Programme, 1989) In creating a simplified model of urban morphology Adolphe (2001) uses nine performance indicators for the urban fabric including; density, rugosity, porosity, sinuosity, occlusivity, compacity, contiguity, solar admittance, and mineralization. ‘Rugosity’ captures the prominent obstacles in the urban airflow; ‘Porosity’ refers to the open areas or pores of the urban fabric; while ‘Sinuosity’ corresponds to the canyon effect of open spaces where the air flow is not parallel to the pores. ‘Occlusivity’ relates to the height above ground of the built elements; ‘Compactity’ refers to the compactness of the built environment; and ‘Contiguity’ measures how continuous buildings are in relation to adjacent properties and the percentage of party walls; while ‘Solar admittance’ deals with the ability of vertical and horizontal building surfaces to capture solar radiation. Finally, ‘Mineralization,’ refers to the amount of built or manmade surfaces in comparison to natural features such as vegetation or untreated ground surfaces. These indicators provide an interesting characterisation of urban morphology which helps to define some of the main form attributes of the urban environment. In a more recent analysis of the key morphological aspects of the city, Rode et al (Rode et al., 2014) examined a 500 metre x 500 metre section of London, Paris, Berlin and Istanbul using the following five built environment indicators;  

Building density - referred to as FAR / floor space index and defined as the ratio of the sum of the areas of all building floors to that of the sample area (i.e. 500 m × 500 m); Building height - defined as the average height of buildings within the sample area measured in number of storeys;

17


  

Building coverage ratio - is defined as the ratio of the sum of the building footprint areas to that of the sample area; Surface-to-volume ratio - defined as the ratio of the envelope of a building (measured in m2) to the entire volume of that building (measured in m3); Open space ratio - defined as the ratio between the unbuilt area and the gross floor area of any given site.

The authors state that “different building morphologies feature distinctively different energy demands and that higher density building configurations lead to greater heat-energy efficiency was confirmed.” (p.151). Looking at theoretical heat demand expressed in kWh/m2/y they refer to (Cheng et al 2006) and point to an effect which suggests a greater mix of urban typologies may result in greater energy efficiency and suggest that this needs further research. In terms of building typology they found that compact urban blocks performed best, while detached housing was consistently worst. The majority of compact housing was below 100 kWh/m2/y while one case in Paris was below 50 kWh/m2/y. With regard to density they proved that minimum densities usually result in maximum consumption. Densities with a FAR under 0.5 (low density) resulted in heat demand ranging from 100 kWh/m2/y to 200 kWh/m2/y, while efficiency levels of 50 kWh/m2/y or better were only visible at higher densities with an FAR above 4. The study also illustrated that the average building height has a significant impact where for instance in Paris more than half of the buildings sampled were above 6 floors, while in London more than half of the buildings were below 4 floors. When these were compared it was found that the 6 floor buildings in Paris had heat demands as low as 30 kWh/m2/y, while in London the lowest heat demand was 70 kWh/m2/y.

2.5.4 Macro-scale – Urban form and transportation The urban form, or urban structure referred to earlier can also be described as “the pattern or arrangement of development blocks, streets, buildings, open space and landscape which make up urban areas” (English Partnerships & Housing Corporation, 2003). The urban form is critical to understanding urban energy and crucially how it influences human behaviour by determining movement, accessibility to services, travel patterns, and housing, work or school location choices. It also forms the framework for planning and development policy at a local authority and regional level and thus influences urban development and regeneration. The urban form also shapes urban morphology, which as described earlier, influences the sustainability of the urban environment by determining density, building height, building form and shape, plot-ratio, site coverage, building set-back and street widths. As detailed earlier in this report, the recommendations set out by the Urban Task Force (1999) provided a coherent vision of the compact and well-connected city. The authors argue that compact urban development can sustain appropriate levels of social and economic activity around both urban centres and local hubs. Moreover this structure facilitates sustainable means of transport between town centres, district centres and local hubs, and also supports walking and cycling within hubs due to the proximity of key services in relation to the home, as illustrated in Figure 4. This relationship between various parts of the urban structure and the optimum location of critical community services in relation to the home was further outlined by the Urban Taskforce, illustrated in Figure 5. A consensus has emerged that accepts the advantages presented by compact, higher density communities, largely informed by a few well-referenced studies which compared urban densities to energy consumption associated with private vehicle use (Newman and Kenworthy 1989, 1999). The emphasis on the transport sector is well-founded given that in the US, for example, transport accounted for 28% of national energy consumption and produced almost an equal share of carbon emissions (Clark, 2013). However, in more recent times this consensus

18


has been questioned with research refuting the straightforward connection between density and energy consumption (Mindali et al., 2004)) but yet finding correlations between energy efficiency and CBD (central business district) density, proportion of population in CBD, inner area density, outer area employment, public transport trips per person, average speed of public transportation, and proportion of public transportation passenger km (by train). While further research by Clark (2013) shows that a core increase in core population density equates to a modest increase in energy efficiency in the transport sector and similar decrease in carbon emissions.

Figure 4: Linking urban neighbourhoods and communities (Urban Task Force and Rogers, 1999)

19


Figure 5: Relationship between the various urban form scales and travel distances to critical community services (Urban Task Force and Rogers, 1999)

Energy efficiency at the urban form scale largely relates to transport as outlined above. However given the magnitude of transport-related energy consumption and carbon emissions the examination of the urban form in terms of transport options and modal spilt should play a significant role in energy-efficient urban systems. While transport is a key issue, urban form must also be considered on a number of levels. Increasing emphasis is being placed on the neighbourhood unit and district within the city in an effort to capture community-scale opportunities such as district heating or walkable neighbourhoods. Calthorpe discusses Transport Oriented Development (TOD) and the interaction between various urban scales and argues that “each scale depends on the others and that only a whole systems approach, with each scale nestling into the other, can deliver the kind of transformation we need to confront climate change” (Calthorpe, 2010). The settlement strategy being pursued in many development plans internationally aligns with the ‘urban realms model’ (Hartshorn, 1992) where a number of distinct and largely self-sufficient suburban centres or districts coexist with the main urban core or CBD. This form of development also aligns with the TOD approach and can be seen, for example, in the recent Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017 (Dublin City Council, 2011)which recognises ‘key district centres’ outside the main urban centre. This approach also promotes the creation of strong neighbourhoods as a central building block of sustainable urban design. Public engagement is fundamental to the management and improvement of the urban environment, and this process is most effective at the city quarter, or neighbourhood level, which represents a scale where residents can contribute their local knowledge and expertise (Moughtin, 1992, Moughtin and Shirley, 2005). Moughtin refers to neighbourhoods, quarters or districts of the city which have a clear identifiable boundary that is recognisable to both residents and outsiders alike. These neighbourhoods are structuring elements which are common to most cities and act on people’s perception of the city, thus making the urban environment more intelligible and legible (Lynch, 1960). The neighbourhood is also the scale at which most people interact with the urban environment on a daily basis, and therefore has a significant impact on their quality of life.

20


All of these macro-scale issues have a bearing on how energy is consumed, produced, distributed and analysed in the urban context. The urban form influences a range of sustainability and energy efficiency issues and has a direct impact on specific factors such as district heating design, walkability and local public transport design, and local public engagement and awareness.

2.5.5 Policy Over the past few years some key policies has radically transformed the energy landscape. Europe 2020 has set ambitious targets for climate change and energy sustainability including:   

20% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (or even 30%, if the conditions are right) lower than 1990 20% of energy from renewables 20% increase in energy efficiency

The 2011 recast of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive European (EPBD) states that; “Together with an increased use of energy from renewable sources, measures taken to reduce energy consumption in the Union would allow the Union to comply with the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and to honour both its long term commitment to maintain the global temperature rise below 2°C, and its commitment to reduce, by 2020, overall greenhouse gas emissions by at least 20% below 1990 levels, and by 30% in the event of an international agreement being reached. Reduced energy consumption and an increased use of energy from renewable sources also have an important part to play in promoting security of energy supply, technological developments and in creating opportunities for employment and regional development, in particular in rural areas. The EPDB goes on to pledge that by 2020, all new buildings are nearly zero-energy buildings 7, and that after December 2018, new buildings occupied and owned by public authorities are nearly zero-energy buildings. 6F

In countries like Ireland and the UK, consecutive amendments to Part L (energy and carbon in buildings) of the Technical Guidance Documents which form part of the Building Regulations, were introduced as a measure to considerably reduce energy consumption and lower the carbon emissions of all buildings (DECLG, 2011, DEHLG, 2008). These regulations are seen by governments as a step towards more stringent building standards where the ultimate objective is to achieve zero carbon emissions associated with the operation and use of many buildings. Such high standards for building fabric and mechanical and electrical services are also being driven by the adoption of standards such as Passive House. In some cases the Passive House standard itself is being adopted where, for instance, in Germany the State of Bavaria, the cities of Bremen, Frankfurt and Freiburg have stipulated that certain buildings, typically public buildings should achieve the Passive House standard. Similarly in Spain the municipality of Villamediana de Iregua passed a master plan which mandates that all public new builds must fulfil the Passive House Standard. Further afield in the US, the City of San Francisco includes Passive House projects as an option for fast-track planning approval (International Passive House Association, 2014b). 7

‘Nearly zero-energy building’ means a building that has a very high energy performance. Nearly zero or very low amount of energy required should be covered to a very significant extent by energy from renewable sources, including energy from renewable sources produced on-site or nearby.

21


While much policy and regulation has focused on the scale of buildings, there have also been major policy transformations at the urban scale. The influential report ‘Towards an Urban Renaissance’ (Urban Task Force and Rogers, 1999) was followed by other influential documents such as ‘By Design’ (CABE, 2000) or the ‘Urban Design Compendium 1 and 2’ (English Partnerships & Housing Corporation, 2003, English Partnerships & Housing Corporation, 2007). In countries like Ireland urban design manuals (DEHLG, 2009b) and government guidelines to local authorities (DEHLG, 2009a, DEHLG, 2013) advocated for compact developments with a high quality public realm which supported sustainable forms of travel and public transport. In the US the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU) (2014) are dedicated to “promoting walkable, mixed-use neighbourhood development, sustainable communities and healthier living conditions” where some of their key and founding members are now leading advocates and practitioners of this compact, sustainable approach to urbanism (Calthorpe, 2010).

2.6 Introduction to urban sustainability and energy assessment methodologies To assess and rate proposed developments or existing urban areas, a range of urban sustainability and energy assessment tools have been developed. Starting as building-level assessment methodologies, many of these tools development neighbourhood or community scale tools to assess a range of issues that might impact on quality of life and environmental, social, or economic sustainability. In the UK, the ‘British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method’ (BREEAM) represents a suite of assessment tools developed by the British Research Establishment (BRE). Initially focused at the building level, the suite of tools which include BREAAM ‘New Construction’, and other building-level BREEAM methodologies, are under constant development, and are used widely to evaluate the sustainability of individual buildings with a particular emphasis on environmental performance including detailed energy analysis. In more recent times the BRE have developed BREEAM ‘Communities’ which is based on the building level BREEAM methodologies but provides a tool to evaluate the sustainability of new developments, or redevelopments at an larger urban scale. BREEAM tools are used in the UK, throughout Europe and internationally. In the US, the US Green Building Council (USGBC) has developed a range of ‘Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design’ (LEED) tools, which are similar to BREEAM, and are used extensively in the US, and would be seen as an alternative to BREEAM in terms of international use. LEED started with building level tools and has more recently developed LEED ‘Neighborhood Development’ which is designed to address sustainable development including land-use planning of an entire neighbourhood, buildings, infrastructure, street design, and open space (USGBC, 2014). Other urban scale assessment methodologies include the Green Building Council Australia’s ‘Green Star’ schemes including Green Star ‘Communities’ which provides a community level sustainability rating scheme applicable throughout Australia (GBCA, 2014). The CASBEE tools (Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency) is a Japanese based suite of methodologies which includes CASBEE for Cities (JaGBC & JSBC, 2014). Again, this tool takes a comprehensive approach to evaluating the city in terms of social, environmental and economic sustainability. Similarly, in Abu Dhabi the ‘Pearl rating system’, which includes schemes for individual buildings, also has the ‘Pearl Community Rating’ for urban scale sustainability assessments (Estima, 2014). While still at prototype stage; an energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki, Finland, developed by Hedman et al (2014a), is an interesting tool that a focuses on energy at the city district scale. While this tool has only been developed recently as a prototype, and therefore has had limited impact, it has the potential to provide

22


a rapid response tool for energy specific analysis that requires less knowledge and experience compared to BREEAM or LEED. The Living Building Challenge (LBC), also a recently developed assessment methodology, is arguably one of the more demanding international sustainability standards available. The LBC which has been developed by the International Living Future Institute (2014) as “a green building certification program that defines the most advanced measure of sustainability in the built environment possible today and acts to diminish the gap between current limits and ideal solutions”. In addition to the methodologies described above, there are other individual-building-based tools such as the US and Canadian ‘Green Globes’ for New Construction and ‘Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings’ (Green Globes, 2014). Finally, the ‘Passive House Planning Package’, while not providing an assessment or ranking similar as per the tools above, is used as both a design tool to achieve a highly energy efficient building, and also to certify that the design, or existing building, reaches a certain energy performance level set by the Passive House Institute (2014a). Once a certain energy performance, measured in kWh/m2/y is reached, the building is certified as passive rated.

2.6.1 Main categories examined in assessment methodologies The various assessment tools outlined above have been examined in detail as part of this current research and the findings from this evaluation are summarised in Chapter 4, with detailed analysis of each found in Appendices C to L. Many of the methodologies examined seek to engender an integrated approach to development placing equal emphasis on the environmental, social, and economic sustainability. The tools aimed at community or urban scale assessment respond to this integrated approach by including categories of assessment which typically include; management, energy, transport, health and wellbeing, water, materials, land use and ecology, pollution and sustainable site issues. Each category is typically measured by diverse criteria which are weighted in accordance with their impact on the overall sustainability objectives or the local context. Some methodologies also facilitate bespoke assessment tools for specific locations acknowledging the fact that a ‘one-size-fits–all’ approach may not be appropriate in many cases. Stakeholder engagement is also seen as a crucial component in neighbourhood or community assessment tools recognising the significant social and economic impact generated by large scale development, or redevelopment. Critically, the tools that include stakeholder engagement build this engagement into all stages of development with an understanding that the stakeholders must participate from the very start.

2.7 Conclusion This chapter outlined how both global and local contextual issues are influencing new policy and planning approaches which are placing a greater emphasis on urban energy and sustainability issues. In contrast to large scale urban development in the past, stakeholder engagement is now central to urban sustainability. This is of particular importance to place making, the creation of a high quality public realm, and an emphasis on quality of life issues which are key to achieving more compact urban forms. This chapter also emphasises the importance of considering the urban environment; at the building level or ‘micro’ scale; at the ‘meso’ scale which includes urban morphology; and finally at the scale of urban form or urban structure which can be considered as the ’macro’ or city scale. These various scales are also represented in urban sustainability and energy assessment tools, which will be examined in greater detail in the following chapters.

23


3

METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH – DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS FRAMEWORK

3.1 Introduction One of the key aspects of this task involves the examination of various sustainability and energy efficiency evaluation methodologies or tools, and the formulation of a Requirements List drawn from these methodologies to help inform the development of the INDICATE tool. Firstly, this involved the identification of a wide range of international methodologies at both the building and the urban level and secondly the screening of these methodologies to form a manageable methodology set which could be examined in greater detail. Finally, it involved the detailed evaluation of these selected methodologies to draw out the requirements list, as referenced above. This methodology evaluation process is described in Section 3.2 below.

3.2 Stakeholder engagement As part of the methodology selection and evaluation process, a number of stakeholder engagement events were held, which involved a number of one-to-one interviews and two workshops (one in Genoa and one in Dundalk), in order to elicit stakeholder views on the optimum structure and content of the proposed INDICATE tool. This process also afforded the research team the opportunity to discuss existing sustainability and energy efficiency assessment methodologies with the stakeholders to identify and select the key methodologies being effectively used by practicing planners, architects and other design professional that were spoken to.

3.3 Methodology selection and evaluation process The process to identify, screen, and evaluate the different assessment methodologies proceeded via a threestaged process as illustrated below and described in the sections 3.3.1 to 3.3.3.

Stage 1: • Methodology Identificaion •

Stage 3: Detailed • Methodology• Evaluation

Stage 2: • Methodology Selection •

Figure 6: Outline of three-stage process

3.3.1 Stage 1: Methodology identification Stage 1 involved the creation of an extended list of potential methodologies (See Appendix A) which was then refined on the basis of the following key questions: • • • •

Does the methodology meet the definition of a methodology 8 as set out at the beginning of the project? Does the methodology include energy efficiency as either the main focus, or as one of the key themes? Does the methodology use some form of indicators and benchmarking as part of the evaluation? Is the methodology currently in use? 7F

8

‘’A tool for determining the sustainable development of the built environment in terms of planning, design and operation, through the establishment of a common standard of measurement which promotes an integrated approach from building to whole city level assessment.’’

24


Table 2 below shows the list of methodologies which complied with the questions above and subsequently progressed through Stage 1 to the Stage 2 assessment. Table 2- The methodologies that were assessed as green and amber from Stage.

Methodology to be taken forward to Stage 2 BREEAM In-Use-UK/International BREEAM Communities UK/International CASBEE Residential -Japan CASBEE Urban Development-Japan CEPAS-Singapore DEAP(BER)-Ireland Earth Advantage-US Energy Saving Scheme-NSW, Australia Energy Efficiency tool for Districts in Helsinki Green Globes-Canada/US Green Mark Scheme-Singapore Greenstar-Australia BEAM-Hong Kong, China LEED Neighbourhood LEED-US/International Living Building Challenge-US/International NABERSNZ-New Zealand NABERS-Australia NatHERS-Australia National Energy Efficiency Building Code-Lebanon NEST-Wales(UK) Pearl Rating System-Abu Dhabi,UAE Passive House Planning Package Standard Assessment Procedure-UK

3.3.2 Stage 2: Methodology selection The outputs from Stage 1 were then subjected to a selection process to determine which methodologies would be taken forward for more detailed evaluation. This 'filtering process' took account of both quantitative and qualitative findings where each methodology was assessed against a key theme framework and a set of associated key questions. (See Figure 7 and Appendix B) Each methodology was scored out of 22 and then rated using a Green, Amber or Red designation. Those methodologies which scored highest in the assessment were assigned Green and taken forward for detailed assessment. Those that did not score as highly but contained distinctive or innovate elements not explored elsewhere were marked as amber and taken forward for further examination. The methodologies which were deemed unsuitable for inclusion in the final evaluation were identified as Red and were disregarded at this stage. (See Figure 8 below and Appendix C).

25


Figure 7: Stage 2 Key Theme Framework – sample section from assessment of CASBEE

26


Figure 8: Indicative Summary Outputs from Key Theme Assessment

27


Table 3: The methodologies that were assessed as green and amber from Stage 2.

Methodology to be evaluated in detail in Stage 3 BREEAM Schemes - to include 1) BREEAM New Construction 2) BREEAM Refurbishment 3) BREEAM Communities Bespoke International (http://www.breeam.org/) Energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki (one scheme) Passive House Planning Package (one scheme) (http://passiv.de/en/) CASBEE - to include 1) CASBEE new construction 2) CASBEE for Cities (http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/) Green Globes - to include 1) Green Globes for New Construction 2) Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Building (http://www.greenglobes.com/home.asp) LEED - to include 1) LEED for Building Design and Construction (2) LEED for Neighborhood Development (http://www.usgbc.org/leed/rating-systems) Greenstar; to include 1) Green Star - Performance (Pilot) Green Star 2) Communities (Pilot) (http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star) Pearl Rating - to include 1) Pearl Building Rating System 2) Pearl Villa Rating System 3) Pearl Community Rating System (http://www.estidama.org/) Living Building Challenge (one scheme) (http://living-future.org/lbc/about)

3.3.3 Stage 3: Detailed methodology evaluation Table 3 above identifies the methodologies that were assessed as green and amber from Stage 2 and therefore rolled forward for more detailed examination in Stage 3. The table contains a number of methodologies which contain various evaluation schemes under the umbrella of the main methodology itself. These evaluation schemes address specific aspects of development (i.e. new build or refurbishment), or address various scales of development from the building level to the neighbourhood level. Other evaluation methodologies such as the Passive House Planning Package are aimed purely at the building scale, and therefore contain only one scheme.

Figure 9: Schematic of detailed evaluation methodology framework

28


Figure 9 above and Table 4 below provide the detailed methodology evaluation framework which was applied to the methodologies selected in Table 3 above. The themes outlined and the questions posed were not intended to be overly prescriptive but designed to provide a coherent framework to produce consistent findings across the various methodologies. The individual methodologies presented different scenarios that needed to be addressed by variations or additions to the questions contained below. Table 4: Detailed evaluation methodology framework

Theme

• • • •

Guiding Questions What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? Does it incentivise anything through its use? Is it mandatory or voluntary? How does the assessment process work? Who undertakes the assessment? Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation?) Are they an independent or state body? Who participates and who is engaged? Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working?

Does the methodology cover the different project types identified?

Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings.

Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels?

• • • • •

What categories are assessed by the methodology? What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? Is benchmarking used? How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development

• Methodology Objectives

Methodology Assessment Process

Project Stages: • Planning; • Design; • Operation. Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level; • Neighbourhood; • City-scale. Methodology Assessment Criteria

• • • • •

29


• Data Requirements • •

How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles?

• •

Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices?

• •

Who is the methodology pitched at? How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? How user friendly is the tool to use? How does it communicate its outputs? Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? Does it allow the user to test different options?

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

Innovation

Ease of Use

Solutions/ Option Development

types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? How are they measured?

• • • •

Timeliness

• •

Is the methodology time intensive to use? Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself?

Education

• •

Does the methodology include an educational element? Does it foster learning on energy efficiency?

Market Labelling

• •

Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes?

Evidence of Use

• •

Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does?

Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements?

Monitoring Framework •

The output from this stage produced a large quantity of information which is included as Appendices D to J. The next chapter titled ‘Evaluation Framework Analysis Findings’ collates the key findings from each methodology

30


under the themes as set out in Table 4 above. These findings are used to inform the Requirements List which is presented in Chapter 5.

3.4 Conclusion The analysis framework described in this chapter was developed in response to the large number of sustainable and energy efficiency assessment tools that are available internationally for both the building level and the urban or neighbourhood level. The framework provided a systematic process to identify, select and evaluate a number of methodologies and produce consistent findings across all methodologies which could be brought forward to inform the Requirements List.

31


4

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ANALYSIS FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction As established in Chapters 3 and 4, the nine identified methodologies selected for evaluation were subjected to detailed consideration in line with an agreed framework consisting of 17 thematic areas, complete with associated guiding questions. The assessment outputs for each methodology can be found in appendix D to L. The purpose of this section is to draw together and summarise the key salient points from the framework assessment, with a view to informing a Requirements List for the development of the INDICATE tool. To ensure consistency in approach and promote ease of understanding, commentary is presented in accordance with the devised evaluation framework thematic headings (See Table 4 above).

4.1.1 Methodology Objectives All investigated methodologies set clear, overarching methodology objectives, which subsequently provide direction, informing the scope of the methodology, its operation system, and the emphasis or importance of its outputs. Form follows function and set objectives for Passive House, Green Globes and the energy efficiency tool for districts in Helsinki reflect the building-specific remit of these methodologies which are technical input-output models. As expected, those methodologies with a community component such as CASBEE for Cities and BREEAM Communities Bespoke International take a more multilateral outlook on the quality and performance of wider areas, based on environmental, societal and economic characteristics. Some are more culturally nuanced than others, drawing and building on wider aspirations, which include Pearl Rating and the ‘Estidama Initiative’ which aims to transform Abu Dhabi into a model of sustainable urbanisation. Of the assessed methodologies, the Living Building Challenge is unique in that it is grounded in a philosophical ethos or advocacy-led approach to social, cultural and ecological restoration. A number of the evaluated methodologies are used internationally and are therefore applied on a mandatory or voluntary basis across different territories. LEED and Pearl were mandated by the United States Green Building Council and the Executive Council of Abu Dhabi respectively, and have statutory footings in these regions. Green Globes, Living Building Challenge, CASBEE and Passive House are typically voluntary in nature. However, interestingly, the latter is an example of how a methodology can garner additional weight, independent of legal policy frameworks. In the US city of San Francisco, Passive House projects benefit from fast-track planning approval processes, which fosters improved uptake in use. BREEAM is a good example of a devised methodology, which has subsequently been subsumed into a legal policy framework. It is now routinely used as a mandatory local government energy efficiency policy tool in the UK.

4.1.2 Methodology Assessment Process The assessment processes for the building-specific methodologies are typically MS Excel-based in nature. The more holistic (including community) methodologies combine spreadsheet-based aspects with requirements to submit ancillary supporting plans and other evidence-based documentation. Submission formats vary from email applications to the use of online upload-based portals. To date, BREEAM has traditionally been paper-based, however, the Building Research Establishment (BRE) have recently approved third-party software known as ‘Tracker Plus’ and IES Track a Project (TaP) to streamline the process. This reflects broader efforts to make methodology assessment processes less labour intensive.

32


All of the investigated methodologies include a level of independent assessment of modelled outputs. Within this, it should be noted that CASBEE is predominantly sold as a ‘self assessment check system’, however, it can only be used as a labelling system if the assessment is verified by a third party. Across all methodologies, it is acknowledged that the independent scrutiny adds extra credence to the assessment process, ensuring it is robust and credible. The requirement to include a trained assessor as part of the design team varies across the methodologies. For example, qualified assessors are required for BREEAM and Pearl Rating, but a trained assessor is not required for LEED, although there is a credit available for appointing an accredited assessor. While you do not need an assessor for the Living Building Challenge, direct and ongoing engagement with the International Living Future Institute is advised and rewarded. Building specific methodologies such as Passive House and the energy efficiency tool for districts in Helsinki do not require the input of qualified assessors. The absence of a requirement to include a trained assessor does obviously not preclude their involvement, and Passive House for example, actively encourage the use of a certified designer to add additional assurance to the process. A supplementary point relating to knowledge or expertise is the availability of methodology technical guidance. It is notable that LEED and Greenstar charge for such resources, while others make them freely available.

4.1.3 Project Stages The scope of individual methodologies is reflected in the project stages they cover. The international market leaders are more holistic in their outlook. Methodologies such as BREEAM, LEED and Pearl Rating comprise preassessment, design assessment and post construction stage assessment, recognising the importance of concurrent stages in the delivery of optimum energy efficiency benefits and the realisation of truly sustainable development. Passive House covers planning and design, but not the operation of a building. Accreditation for the Living Building Challenge takes place no earlier than 12 months post occupation, but the approach is structured to appropriately validate the preceding planning and design stages. An integrated approach across stages, which fosters multi-disciplinary working, is considered vital for robust assessments. Indeed, those methodologies which seek to balance social, economic and environmental issues demand such an approach. Pearl Rating and BREEAM award points for schemes where this can be proven. As a well considered masterplanning tool, BREEAM Communities Bespoke International exhibits the importance of upfront collaboration to deliver effectively across all subsequent stages. Overall, there is consensus on the value of such an approach.

4.1.4 Project Types The investigated methodologies cover the main project types of new building, extension/renovation and retrofit, acknowledging the important role of each in energy efficiency climate change adaption. There are variants in approach across the different methodologies themselves. For example, Passive House offers a specialised package for refurbishment known as ‘EnerPhit’. The process is similar to the original Passive House methodology, but it imposes less onerous heating requirements as opposed to new build.

4.1.5 Development Use Most of the methodologies are devised to achieve blanket coverage of different development uses, including residential, retail, commercial, community etc. In particular, BREEAM offers a very tailored or bespoke programme for different building uses, across residential (individual dwellings, collections of individual dwellings,

33


apartment blocks, commercial (offices, industrial, retail, warehousing, showrooms, restaurants, banks etc.) and non-standard sectors (community, residential institutions, public services etc.). It is important to note that while a number of methodologies cover the standard development uses such as residential, retail, commercial etc., further analysis of these components identifies that in some instances, there may be significant cultural differences in the interpretation of a development use and how it is assessed. For example, the CASBEE for cities tool examines residential in an urban context specifically, and the devised framework also considers cultural aspects unique to Japan and Asia that do not translate internationally. This raises interesting questions about the need for consistency of approach on a pan-European or international basis. Further commentary on cultural aspects of data requirements is provided under heading 4.1.7 below.

4.1.6 Development Scale Addressing the issue of development scale is readily identified as a fundamental ingredient in any integrated approach to energy efficiency. Its importance is best reflected in the continued development of bespoke branch or associate approaches over time, which typically stem from building-specific methodologies. The larger methodologies offer a suite of tools to address different spatial scales including building-level, site-level, neighbourhood-level etc. The categories of assessment and resulting data requirements invariably reflect the scale emphasis of the methodology tool being used. Defining different spatial scales is clearly important. This is not much of an issue at building level per se, however lines of definition can become a little more blurred across site level/neighbourhood (or community) level assessments, with related impacts on assessment outcomes. Many methodologies actively seek to address this by placing a defined cap on the level of development at a particular scale. For example, LEED for Neighbourhood Development, which is designed to address the land-use planning of an entire neighbourhood, including buildings, infrastructure, street design, and open space, does not set a minimum size, but it does set a maximum size of 320 acres (129 hectares) for its use. Many methodologies emphasise the importance of upfront engagement with accredited practitioners who can reliably inform the appropriate methodology to be applied, relative to the scale of the development proposal. Relevant consideration should be given to this in the development of any city scale assessment toolkit.

4.1.7 Methodology Assessment Criteria A wide range of environmental assessment categories are covered by the evaluated methodologies, which can be broadly summarised to include consideration of management, energy, transport, health and wellbeing, water, materials, land use and ecology, pollution and sustainable site issues. While there is some general consistency in approach, direct comparisons between methodologies are not straightforward. For example, whilst Green Star is a close relative of BREEAM, and LEED is also a more distant relation, CASBEE has completely independent origins and a strong focus on issues such as earthquake resistance and migration impacts, which are of particular importance in Japan. Unlike the other methodologies, CASBEE explores economic aspects in greater detail, such as contribution to industrial and financial viability, including the generation of tax revenues, local bonds etc. Passive House deals exclusively with energy related criteria. BREEAM International New Construction has no fewer than 52 issue categories across 10 main sections, while the energy efficiency tool for districts in Helsinki is more streamlined in its approach to assessing building, electricity, transport and workplace-related criteria.

34


A credit-based approach is typically employed by all methodologies. This includes both mandatory and optional credits promoting choice among various criteria and providing important flexibility, recognising that proposals routinely differ in composition and approach. The use of mandatory criteria ensures that all the important ‘building blocks’ for a successful assessment are in place in the first instance, with subsequent scoring supplemented by optional criteria. Some of the methodologies include a tiered approach to mandatory and optional criteria reflecting overall rating levels. For example, BREEAM requires additional levels of mandatory criteria to be met as you strive for good, very good, excellent ratings etc. This approach guards against the possibility of applicants pursuing ‘quick wins’ via easier to meet criteria, in an effort to improve the overall rating of a building. The important issue of weighting different criteria is linked to mandatory and optional requirements, but also consideration of geography and context-specific factors. There is no standard approach. Green Star environmental weighting factors vary across states and territories to reflect the variety of environmental issues in each area. Drawing on the importance of an integrated approach, issue category weightings for BREEAM are set via consultation with a variety of construction industry stakeholders, including academics, construction industry professionals and scientists. Similarly in LEED each criteria is weighted in terms of its impact on overall sustainability and these weightings have been defined by the US EPA, the US National Institute of Standards and Technology and by the USGBC. The Pearl Rating methodology prioritises issues of contextual importance such as ‘precious water’ and local ‘stewarding materials’. In general, site or community-based methodologies positively weight the liveability, social amenity and health of buildings, relative to building-specific methodologies. It is very clear that weighting is all about achieving appropriate balance across assessments, but it is also tied to the designed usability of methodologies. However the weighting for different categories is handled differently across the methodologies where, for instance, the materials section in LEED is worth nearly 1/5th of the final score whereas in both BREEAM and Green Star the materials section is worth just 1/10th of the final score. It could be argued that this reflects more closely the relationship between the embodied and operational energy of a building. Benchmarking is also important for ensuring consistency in approach and comparability in achieved ratings. It adds confidence and assurance to the tool and related outputs. For example, the BREEAM rating benchmarks a building against other similar BREEAM rated buildings, which represents performance relative to scores achieved across pass, good, very good, excellent, outstanding categories. On the other hand, while LEED uses benchmarking, the overall score is created simply out of a total of 110 possible points.

4.1.8 Data requirements Data requirements stem directly from the identified methodology assessment criteria and associated levels of detail or evidence required can often reflect the mandatory or optional nature of credits. The submitted information is generally both quantitative and qualitative in nature, depending on the methodology involved and may include proposal plans and other particulars. For example, the task for a technical and building-specific methodology such as Passive House predominantly involves entering data values on heating, cooling, and other energy-based demands into a spreadsheet. At the other end of the spectrum, the Living Building Challenge also includes more essay-style submissions to justify the validity of particular approaches. It also extends to submitting legally-certified information to meet habitat exchange criteria. In theory, these essay-style submissions can be interpreted to be more subjective elements in any assessment process.

35


Following on from the identified consistency in assessment criteria, there is also commonality in data approaches, which includes a reliance on existing building regulations and other third-party standards, again, taking account of different requirements across territories. This, in effect, helps to future proof a methodology, ensuring that when a regulatory requirement changes, it is automatically subsumed into the overall approach. It negates the need for continual extensive maintenance in this area. Assessment criteria, including sub issues have their own metrics within any model. The review of different methodologies also highlights the value of common metrics, its important role in market promotion and the potential benefits of developing an international index to enable wider roll-out and uptake across territories.

4.1.9 Interactions with the Natural Environment/Place Making Community or neighbourhood-based methodologies such as BREEAM Communities Bespoke International, Pearl Rating Communities and LEED for Neighbourhood Development are essentially masterplanning tools and as such, consider interactions with the natural environment and place making in detail. In doing so, they aim to marry the functionality of energy efficiency performance with well designed places that people want to live and work in areas that are universally good in environmental terms. They do so by examining issues such as governance (consultation plans, engagement and design review), social and economic wellbeing (housing provision, public realm, microclimate, green infrastructure, local vernacular, inclusive design), land use and ecology (groundwater, agriculture, land use and landscape) and transport and movement (safe and appealing streets, cycling facilities, access to public transport, other transport facilities). Again issues of development scale influence the level of interaction with place making principles. For example, in the case of the Pearl Rating methodologies, it is notable that there are significantly less applicable assessment categories for the Villa methodology (3 in total) compared with those available under the building or communities rating systems. The ‘Natural Systems’ category includes one mandatory evaluation requirement on natural system assessment and protection. In addition to environmental aspects, place making is considered more generally across a number of categories including ‘Livable Villas’, ‘Private Outdoor Space’, ‘Thermal Comfort’ and ‘Light Pollution Reduction’. Again, it is acknowledged that some of these aspects are distinctive to life in Abu Dhabi.

4.1.10 Innovation The importance of innovation and its role in continually improving the environmental performance of our activities is heavily reflected in the inclusion of dedicated innovation categories across the assessment methodologies. Pearl Rating and BREEAM methodologies reward innovation via the granting of extra credit points in these categories. In terms of weighting, it is also noticeable that BREEAM offers higher credits within its innovation category (10 credits), relative to the waste (7 credits), water (9 credits) and transport (9 credits) categories. Innovation means different things across these methodologies. For example, Pearl Rating places an emphasis on celebrating cultural and regional distinctiveness in design. Importantly, these practices should also contribute to the environmental performance of the building. Emphasis is also placed on sharing learning around innovation. There is a requirement to develop a guideline document that enables the innovative solution(s) to be repeated, before extra credit points are awarded in this category. Focusing on the methodology assessment frameworks themselves, it is clear that most are sufficiently flexible to absorb new practices. Generally, this flexibility exists because of the wide range of sustainability issues being

36


covered and annual provisions for review, through monitoring procedures. Passive House is a good example of continual evolution to meet emerging requirements. It is currently proposing to introduce new labels which includes ‘Passive House Plus’, which denotes a building that produces as much energy as it consumes, and ‘Passive House Premium’ which denotes a building which creates an energy surplus. Innovation is considered to be an innate part of the Living Building Challenge. The standard is an evolving document and in the words of the International Living Futures Institute, “to achieve the progressive standard, it is assumed that typical best practices are being met”.

4.1.11 Ease of Use The majority of methodologies are aimed at expert users, owing to the largely technical nature of required inputs. In the case of some methodologies, this justifies requirements to have a qualified/accredited assessor involved in the submission. Many of the methodologies that do not stipulate this requirement encourage related involvement. In the case of LEED and Pearl Rating, the approaches set out are not overly prescriptive in some areas. In many cases, it states the intention behind an assessment category and leaves it to the applicant’s discretion to subsequently decide how to comply. In theory, this can place a greater burden of proof on applicants. A related point in terms of ease of use is the availability of user guidance, which was highlighted above. In cases, where charges apply for support resource material, it has been inferred that this may exist as a motivational measure to undertake specialist accreditation training on offer.

4.1.12 Solutions/Option Development All of the methodologies are performance-based standards. The nature of these tools means they can invariably be used to test various design options by changing data inputs to ascertain whether approaches will meet identified requirements. Independent of this, none of the evaluated methodologies signpost options for development or suggest solutions to address troubleshooting aspects. They are not interactive by design. This has been identified as a significant shortcoming and the inclusion of such functionality via a web-based platform could add significant value to assessment processes. It could reduce the ‘trial and error-based’ approach which underpins the use of Excel-based models.

4.1.13 Timeliness In general, the investigated methodologies are time intensive to use. In terms of the pre-submission stage, the amount of time it takes to gather/model the required data depends on the scale and complexity of the scheme itself and its interaction with the methodology in terms of development stage (planning, design or operation), the rating level being pursued, as well as prospective amendments or revisions to schemes, which require the reassessment of variables involved. In terms of the operation stage, market factors may also influence the timeliness of use. For example, in Pearl Rating, the third and final rating is only awarded after 2 years of at least 80% occupancy of the building(s). Similarly, an evidenced period of 12 months occupation is required for the Living Building Challenge. The assessment of submitted applications is generally governed by prescribed timescales. In the case of Greenstar, results will be typically issued within a 6 week period, exclusive of appeal procedures. The LEED process includes a preliminary review (25 working days for a hardcopy submission, 12 working days for online submissions) and a final review (15 working days), which is separated by a further information stage (project team

37


have 25 days to respond to further information queries), meaning that a result should always be issued within 65 days, again exclusive of potential appeal procedures. Of the evaluated methodologies, the exception is the energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki. Aimed at city planners, it operates as a simplified checklist and assuming all submitted data is readily available, it could be completed within a couple of hours, making it very time efficient.

4.1.14 Education The fact that most methodologies are aimed at expert users and do not signpost further options or solutions generally means that they do not include educational elements. It is assumed that expert users have a good deal of energy efficiency knowledge. As documented above, in many cases project teams must include an accredited assessor, who will have undertaken available training. As an advocacy tool, Living Building Challenge is probably the most progressive in terms of creating the conditions for shared learning. The ILFI offers different levels of technical assistance, including in-house and charette facilitation to customise learning to match a project’s needs. All certified schemes form part of a growing community or network of schemes, to inform the continued shared learning of ideas. Although it is as of yet unclear, the requirement to catalogue innovation aspects in Pearl Rating methodologies (see Section 9) could lead to the development of a library or inventory of best practice, which others could learn from.

4.1.15 Market Labelling All of the key energy efficiency methodologies in the market promote themselves as green market labels. The rating systems themselves are devised to communicate achieved results, using semiotic frameworks which convey value such as stars (Green Star), pearls (Pearl Rating) and precious metals such as platinum, gold, silver (LEED). Schemes that achieve ratings regularly broadcast this via mounted plaques or erected banners, displaying approved methodology logos. Within this, the achievement of higher ratings i.e. 4/5 stars, invariably sets buildings apart from those who achieve lower rating. The issue of market labels and commercial imagery is of growing importance, as cities strive to transmit their green credentials.

4.1.16 Evidence of Use Research highlighted significant levels of use across the different evaluated methodologies. In particular, BREEAM and LEED exhibit high uptake, having regard for their uniformity of application across different international territories. The cultural specificity of some methodologies means they are restricted in this regard, however, examples such as CASBEE and Pearl Rating are very successful in their own right domestically. Evidence of use across different spatial scales is also important and the energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki is a good quality example of a specially devised and effective intervention at a singular city-scale.

4.1.17 Monitoring Framework Methodologies such as BREEAM, LEED, Green Star and CASBEE are under constant development and are regularly updated to cater for changing needs and emerging requirements. This is evidenced via the evolution of methodologies and the emergence of tailored or bespoke tools across different spatial scales. The associate bodies behind the methodologies actively engage with different partners in the construction industry as well as with green building councils, and this aids penetration in the market. The emergence of new strands of Passive House are a prime example of this. Pearl Rating has learned from established predecessors such as LEED and BREEAM. Elements are continually being refined and in particular, the Operational Rating process is still being

38


developed to take account of evolving best practice. It is clear from the research undertaken, that considerable benefits can be accrued from collaborative work practices and the sharing of learning to ensure developed methodologies remain fit for purpose and address emerging requirements.

4.2 Conclusion The findings presented above bring together and analyse the key components of all methodologies evaluated to provide a solid base from which to tease out the key requirements for the INDICATE tool. These requirements and a brief summary of the related research are now set out in Chapter 5 which is the concluding chapter of this report.

39


5

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

5.1 Introduction This report summarises the findings of Task 3.1, which aimed to examine and evaluate urban energy efficiency, including the interaction between the utilisation and function of individual urban objects while acknowledging the influence of context-specific factors such as building design, urban fabric and morphology, urban form and policy. A key component was the investigation of sustainability and energy efficiency methodologies currently being used to monitor and quantify energy consumption in the urban environment, and based on this the formulation of a Requirements List that would support the INDICATE tool as a robust and defensible methodology. INDICATE seeks to provide an integrated tool which considers urban energy efficiency in a holistic manner, viewed in the overall context of sustainable development. The research undertaken in this task considered urban energy efficiency in this wider context while acknowledging the interrelationships that exist between the various sectors in society and the multiple components of the urban and built environment. In support of this approach, the research presented in this report examined key established international sustainability assessment tools which do not exclusively concentrate on energy. The selected methodologies consider energy as a component of sustainability while including other categories such as location and public transport, or land use and ecology. In this way, important information was captured, not just specially related to energy, but also in relation to the other factors which influence overall energy use, performance and efficiency. Multiple methods of investigation were used to carry out this research including a literature review, stakeholder engagement and the evaluation of a wide range of international urban sustainability assessment tools. The detailed evaluation of these tools and the feedback received from stakeholders informs the recommended Requirements List now set out below.

5.2 Key Recommendations for Requirements List 5.2.1 Requirement No. 1: Methodology Objectives The INDICATE tool should set clear objectives to deliver energy efficiency performance improvements for urban areas. Justification: The setting of clear overarching objectives will be an important prerequisite for the development of a successful tool, providing purpose and direction. It will establish the scope of INDICATE, informing the composition of the assessment framework and its subsequent use. Developed objectives must capture the energy efficiency focus of the tool, relative to that of other methodologies, which consider wider holistic aspects.

5.2.2 Requirement No. 2: Methodology Process The INDICATE tool should consist of a coherent and integrated framework which will guide processes for appropriately assessing energy efficiency performance. The development of this framework should consider issues such as usability, accessibility, and provision of shared learning. Justification: It is important that the tool framework is legible and understandable, fostering greater uptake and ease of use. The approach should be multidisciplinary in principle and examine the potential for interdisciplinary

40


activities. The consideration of energy efficiency should not be confined to professional practitioners in the construction, land and property sectors, rather it should be more inclusive, engaging technical and non-technical personnel. The starting point in fostering understanding is the existing knowledge base of users and the development of the tool should explore opportunities to provide appropriate guidance to experts and novices alike. It should function as a platform to share important learning.

5.2.3 Requirement No. 3: Project Stages The INDICATE tool will cover the planning, design and operation stages of the development process. Justification: The achievement of improved energy efficiency necessitates its suitable consideration at the initial planning stage, the subsequent design (and ultimately construction) phase and the resulting occupation of any building or neighbourhood by communities. Rather than consider these aspects in isolation, the tool must ensure consistency of approach across these stages to ensure what is positively planned for is subsequently delivered.

5.2.4 Requirement No. 4: Project Development Types The INDICATE tool should cover all development types including new build, extension and renovation in an urban environment. Justification: The composition of cities is mixed in nature and constantly evolving. It is vital that any tool considers interactions between different development types. In addition to new build activity, adaption is fundamental to improving the energy efficiency of urban areas, through means of appropriate extension and renovation.

5.2.5 Requirement No. 5: Development Use The INDICATE tool should cover all development uses in an urban environment. Justification: Dynamic interactions in any urban environment are shaped by relationships between different development uses, be it residential, retail, commercial, community, industrial etc. It is therefore important that the INDICATE tool is developed to achieve blanket coverage of all these uses to allow for the examination of independent, as well as in-combination use effects.

5.2.6 Requirement No. 6: Development Scale The INDICATE tool should cover all development scales in an urban environment, from building level to wider community/neighbour/district scales, depending on the context of the individual project. Justification: Energy efficiency performance can vary across different spatial scales and it is important that the devised tool both considers and responds to the differing scale issues that exist from building level to wider community/neighbourhood level developments. Having regard for researched methodologies, this will enable a comprehensive approach to the realisation of optimal energy performance across urban environments.

5.2.7 Requirement No. 7: Assessment Criteria The INDIATE tool should consider all necessary variables that influence energy use and performance in the urban area.

41


Justification: Energy performance is evaluated via a wide range of assessment categories which include management, energy, transport, health and wellbeing, water, materials, land use and ecology, pollution and sustainable site issues. The INDICATE tool should consider these in detail. The development of the tool should also explore the role of wider holistic influences, such as enhancing the natural environment and placemaking. As part of these assessment criteria, the INDICATE tool should acknowledge the importance of urban morphology and the need to accurately model the urban microclimate to realistically reflect the existing or proposed environmental conditions ,and in turn to design for greater energy efficiency. In addition to the above, it is essential that the INDICATE tool should carefully consider all renewable energy or energy efficiency technologies at both the building scale and the urban scale, paying particular attention to district wide solutions such as Combined Heat and Power (CHP) systems working in trigeneration

5.2.8 Requirement No. 8: Data Requirements The INDICATE tool should include data requirements that are specific, measureable, achievable, realistic, and timely (SMART). Justification: The strength of any tool lies in the effectiveness of its constituent inputs. It is important that devised data requirements are SMART in terms of composition to ensure realistic, robust outputs in a time-sensitive manner. Required evidence should strike an appropriate balance between prescriptive and subjective elements and draw on best practice aspects of such. The development of the INDICATE tool should consider opportunities for the development of common international metrics, having regard for the pan-European nature of the project.

5.2.9 Requirement No. 9: Innovation The INDICATE tool should facilitate and encourage innovative practices in energy efficiency, to promote the continued evolution of sustainability in urban environments. Justification: Technological and social innovation is rapidly shaping the development of European urban environments. It is vital that the development of the INDICATE tool is shaped by latest thinking and emerging best practice to ensure it is genuinely ‘state of the art’. The final tool must be fit for purpose and contribute significantly to the realisation of European 2020 energy efficiency targets.

5.2.10 Requirement No. 10: Solutions and Option Development The INDICATE tool should consider option development and the signposting and testing of energy efficiency solutions, as part of its use in the design process. Justification: Conducted research shows that existing methodologies are used on a ‘trial and error basis’ and do not proactively signpost options or suggest solutions to address troubleshooting aspects of development design. As a decision support tool, INDICATE has the potential to address this shortcoming and add significant value to energy efficiency assessment processes.

5.2.11 Requirement No. 11: Timeliness The INDICATE tool should be time effective to use, to enable the efficient determination of appropriate options and solutions.

42


Justification: Research highlights that existing methodologies are time intensive to use. This can be a barrier to uptake and a more streamlined approach, which incorporates option development and solutions, will deliver improved efficiencies in approach.

5.2.12 Requirement No. 12: Education The INDICATE tool should cater for the education of users with varying levels of knowledge and experience in relation to energy efficiency. Justification: Most methodologies are aimed at expert users and do not include direct educational elements. This represents an opportunity to distinguish the INDICATE tool from others by displaying and signposting best practice and educating about energy efficiency at different technical and non-technical levels. This is an identified chance to make this educational element an integral part of the tool at the design stage, rather than it functioning as an add-on.

5.2.13 Requirement No. 13: Market Labelling The INDICATE tool should include some element of green market labelling, having regard for the growing importance of smart and sustainable cities. Justification: All of the key energy efficiency methodologies in the market promote themselves as green market labels. Increased awareness of energy efficiency and its importance in the built environment have turned public attention to more efficient, “green” buildings. There is empirical evidence that “green” labels positively affect the financial performance of urban areas, and cities in particular are striving to transmit their green credentials. Within this, a green market-labelled INDICATE tool could be an attractive proposition, proactively fostering inward investment into areas.

5.2.14 Requirement No. 14: Compatibility of Approach The development of the INDICATE tool should consider other internationally recognised assessment tools, to foster potential synergies in approach and uptake in use. Justification: The potential value of establishing common international metrics has been outlined previously. It is important that the development of the INDICATE tool considers compatibility with other methodologies in an international context. It is not uncommon for buildings to seek dual certification or to use alternate methodologies for renovation/expansion, and general compatibility will help maximise related opportunities, as well as extending the geographic reach of the tool.

5.2.15 Requirement No. 15: Review The INDICATE tool should include appropriate provisions, including carefully devised energy efficiency indicators, which monitor the success or otherwise of its application and performance, as part of any continuous improvement strategy. Justification: Methological approaches to the assessment of energy efficiency exist in a cycle of continuous improvement and the ability to flexibly adapt to changing circumstances is vitally important. The smart cities field

43


of research is evolving all the time and an effective plan-monitor-manage approach to the review of the INDICATE tool will ensure that it maintains its ‘state of the art’ status.

5.3 Conclusion The requirements list set out above can be viewed as ambitious but it has a clear focus on the delivery of a ‘state of the art’ solution to address the challenges of achieving smart and sustainable cities. Meeting these challenges must not only be about creating resilience and efficiency in the ‘Century of the City’ but also be about creating liveable cities which foster a high quality of life as part of the compact, connected and integrated environment. Accordingly the Requirements List contains a range of recommendations which widen the scope of energy efficiency in order to facilitate a more integrated approach that examines urban energy in the context of environmental, social and economic issues. The recommendations also acknowledge the various development types and development uses that are typically present in the city. They highlight the importance of engaging with an urban development, or re-development at the earliest stages and providing a framework that can be used at all stages of a project from preliminary planning, to detailed design, through to the occupation and operational phases. This multi-stage framework also enables the participation of key stakeholders in the design process through the identification of critical key design stages where stakeholder engagement and input may be most beneficial. To support a more inclusive tool there are requirements around usability, ease of access and the addition of educational provision which will encourage shared learning in relation to urban sustainability and energy efficiency in particular. Overall the research covered in this task and the resulting Requirements List seek to support the central aims of the INDICATE tool. In order to create a novel city-wide decision support system which accounts for all major systems and activities relevant to energy-efficiency, while supporting stakeholders in the transition towards smart cities, it is crucial to formulate a methodology with clear objectives which adopts an integrated approach. The methodology must invite users to investigate alternative solutions and reward innovation while stimulating crossdisciplinary and inter-disciplinary working.

44


6

Glossary and Abbreviations

6.1 Abbreviations

BRE - British Research Establishment BREEAM - British Research Establishment Assessment Method’ CASBEE - Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency CCI – Common City Index CO2- carbon Dioxide EU – European Union GHG – Green House Gas Emissions ICT – Information and communication technology ILFI - International Living Future Institute ICT – Information and communication technology INDICATE - Indicator-based Interactive Decision Support and Information Exchange Platform for Smart Cities JaGBC- Japan Green Building Council JSBC - Japan Sustainable Building Consortium LBC - Living Building Challenge LEED – Leadership in Energy and Environmental NOx. – Nitrogen Oxides OECD – Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development SO2 - Sulphur Dioxide TCD – Trinity College Dublin UN – United Nations WP – Work Package WWF – World Wildlife Fund

45


6.2 Glossary kWh/m2/y - Primary energy consumption of a building or energy intensity expressed as kilo Watt hours per square metre per year Joules - derived unit of energy, Gigajoules -1 Million Joules

46


7

References

ASIF, M. & MUNEER, T. 2007. Energy supply, its demand and security issues for developed and emerging economies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 11, 1388-1413. BAKER, N. & STEEMERS, K. 1992. The LT method In: GOULDING, J. L. J. O. S. T. C. C. O. T. E. C. D.-G. F. S. R. & DEVELOPMENT (eds.) Energy in architecture : the European passive solar handbook. London: B.T. Batsford for the Commission of the European Communities, Directorate General XII for Science, Research and Development. BAKER, N. S. K. 1999. Energy in architecture : the European passive solar handbook, New York, E&FN Spon. BAN KI-MOON 2011. Foreword. Cities and climate change : global report on human settlements,. [Nairobi]; London; Washington, DC: UN-Habitat ; Earthscan. BRE 2012. BREEAM Communities Technical Manual In: GLOBAL, B. (ed.). BRE. 2013a. BREEAM Communities 2012 - An introduction for international use [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/BREEAM_Communities__An_introduction_for_international_use_(KN5260).pdf [Accessed 22-08-13 2013]. BRE. 2013b. BREEAM Communities - Integrating sustainable design into masterplanning [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/filelibrary/BREEAM%20Communities/Introduction_to_BREEAM_Communities.p df [Accessed 08-03 2014]. BRE 2013c. BREEAM International 2013 for New Construction Technical Manual In: GLOBAL, B. (ed.). BRE. 2014a. BREEAM in numbers [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=559 [Accessed 02-03 2014]. BRE. 2014b. BREEAM International [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/podpage.jsp?id=367 [Accessed 02-03 2014]. BRE. 2014c. BREEAM Schemes [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/podpage.jsp?id=54 [Accessed 02-03 2014]. BRE 2014d. The Case for BREEAM Communities Watford. BRE. 2014e. GreenBookLive [Online]. Available: http://www.greenbooklive.com/search/scheme.jsp?id=214 [Accessed 02-03 2014]. BRE. 2014f. Pre-Assessment Estimators [Online]. Available: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=87 [Accessed 0203 2014]. BROPHY, V. & LEWIS, J. O. 2011. A green vitruvius : principles and practice of sustainable architectural design, London; Washington, DC, Earthscan. BSRIA 2011. BREEAM 2011 & Soft Landings - an interpretation note for clients and designer CABE 2000. By Design: Urban Design in the Planning System - Towards Better Practice. In: DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT, T. A. T. R. (ed.). Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. CALTHORPE, P. 2010. Urbanism in the age of climate change, Washington, DC, Island Press. CLARK, T. A. 2013. Metropolitan density, energy efficiency and carbon emissions: Multi-attribute tradeoffs and their policy implications. Energy Policy, 53, 413-428. CNU. 2014. Congress for the New Urbanism [Online]. Available: https://www.cnu.org/ [Accessed 03-03 2014].

47


DECLG 2011. Part L- Conservation of Fuel and Energy - Dwellings - Building Regulations 2011. In: ENVIRONMENT, C. A. L. G. (ed.). Dublin: The stationery Office Dublin. DEHLG 2008. Part L- Conservation of Fuel and Energy - Buildings other than dwellings. In: GOVERNMENT, E. H. A. L. (ed.). Dublin: The stationery Office Dublin. DEHLG 2009a. Guidelines for Planning Authorities on Sustainable Residential Development in Urban Areas (Cities, Towns & Villages). In: GOVERNMENT, E. H. A. L. (ed.). Dublin: The stationery Office Dublin. DEHLG 2009b. Urban Design Manual: A best practice guide. In: GOVERNMENT, E. H. A. L. (ed.). Dublin: The stationery Office Dublin. DEHLG 2013. Local Area Plans - Guidelines for Planning Authorities. In: ENVIRONMENT HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (ed.). Dublin: The stationery Office Dublin. DOHERTY, M., NAKANISHI, H., BAI, X. & MEYERS, J. 2012. Relationships between form, morphology, density and energy in urban environments - GEA Background Paper,. CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, Canberra, Australia. DORIAN, J. P., FRANSSEN, H. T. & SIMBECK, D. R. 2006. Global challenges in energy. Energy Policy, 34, 1984-1991. DUBLIN CITY COUNCIL 2011. Dublin City Development Plan 2011-2017. Dublin EICKER, U. 2009. Low energy cooling for sustainable buildings, Chichester, West Sussex, U.K., Wiley. ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS & HOUSING CORPORATION 2003. Urban design compendium, London, English Partnerships. ENGLISH PARTNERSHIPS & HOUSING CORPORATION 2007. Delivering quality places : urban design compendium 2, London, Llewelyn-Davies. ESTIMA. 2014. Pearl Rating System [Online]. Available: http://estidama.org/pearl-rating-systemv10.aspx?lang=en-US 01-03]. EUROPEAN COMMISSION 2010. Europe 2020 - A European strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. EUROSTAT 2007. Measuring progress towards a more sustainable Europe - 2007 monitoring report of the EU sustainable development strategy FEIST, W. 2014. Passive House Designer [Online]. Germany: Passive House Institute Available: http://www.passivhausplaner.eu/index.php?group=3&level1_id=277&page_id=277&lang=en-GB [Accessed 01-03 2104]. FLOURENTZOS, F. 2011. Measures of Urban Sustainability. In: ROBINSON, D. (ed.) Computer modelling for sustainable urban design : physical principles, methods and applications. London; Washington, DC: Earthscan. GBCA. 2014. Green Star Communities [Online]. Available: http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-starcommunities/ [Accessed 01-03 2014]. GIVONI, B. & WORLD CLIMATE APPLICATIONS PROGRAMME 1989. Urban Design in Different Climates, World Meteorological Organization. GREEN GLOBES. 2014. Green Globes [Online]. Available: http://www.greenglobes.com/about.asp [Accessed 01-03 2014]. HAGAN, S. 2000. In: STEEMERS, K., YANNAS, S., INTERNATIONAL, P. & LOW ENERGY ARCHITECTURE, C. (eds.) Architecture city environment : proceedings of PLEA 2000, July 2000 Cambridge United Kingdom. London: James & James. HARTSHORN, T. A. D. B. D. H. J. I. 1992. Interpreting the city : an urban geography, New York, John Wiley & Sons.

48


HARVEY, L. D. D. 2006. A handbook on low-energy buildings and district-energy systems : fundamentals, techniques and examples, London; Sterling, VA, Earthscan. HEDMAN, Å., SEPPONEN, M. & VIRTANEN, M. 2014a. Energy efficiency rating of districts, case Finland. Energy Policy, 65, 408-418. HEDMAN, Å., SEPPONEN, M. & VIRTANEN, M. 2014b. Energy efficiency rating of districts, case Finland. Energy Policy, 65, 408-418. INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY 2010. Guidebook on Energy Efficient Electric Lighting for Buildings. Finland: Aalto University School of Science and Technology. INTERNATIONAL LIVING FUTURE INSTITUTE. 2014. Living Building Challenge [Online]. Available: http://livingfuture.org/lbc/about [Accessed 01-03 2014]. INTERNATIONAL PASSIVE HOUSE ASSOCIATION. 2014a. New Passive House categories also rate building energy gains [Online]. Available: http://www.passivehouse-international.org/index.php?page_id=76 [Accessed 05-02 2014]. INTERNATIONAL PASSIVE HOUSE ASSOCIATION. 2014b. Passive House legislation [Online]. Available: http://www.passivehouse-international.org/index.php?page_id=176 [Accessed 05-02 2014]. INTERNATIONAL PASSIVE HOUSE ASSOCIATION. 2014c. Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) + designPH [Online]. Available: http://www.passivehouse-international.org/index.php?page_id=188&level1_id=78 [Accessed 05-02 2014]. JACCARD, M. K. 2005. Sustainable Fossi lFuels:The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy, Cambridge., Cambridge UniversityPress JACOBS, J. 1961. The death and life of great American cities, [New York, Random House. JAGBC & JSBC. 2014. An overiew of CASBEE [Online]. Available: http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/overviewE.htm [Accessed 01-03 2014]. JOLLANDS, N., KENIHAN, S. & WESCOTT, W. 2008. Promoting Energy Efficiency Best Practice in Cities, . IEA. KEIRSTEAD, J., JENNINGS, M. & SIVAKUMAR, A. 2012. A review of urban energy system models: Approaches, challenges and opportunities. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16, 3847-3866. LYNCH, K. 1960. The image of the city, Cambridge [Mass., Technology Press. MEADOWS, D. H. & CLUB OF ROME 1972. The Limits to growth; a report for the Club of Rome's project on the predicament of mankind, New York, Universe Books. MINDALI, O., RAVEH, A. & SALOMON, I. 2004. Urban density and energy consumption: a new look at old statistics. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 38, 143-162. MOUGHTIN, C. 1992. Urban design : street and square, Oxford; Boston, Butterworth Architecture. MOUGHTIN, J. C. & SHIRLEY, P. 2005. Urban Design Green Dimensions [Online]. Burlington: Elsevier. Available: http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=269926. NEWMAN, P. K. J. R. 1999. Sustainability and cities : overcoming automobile dependence, Washington, D.C., Island Press. NEWTON, P., TUCKER, S. & AMBROSE, M. 2000. Housing form, energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. . In: JENKS, M., WILLIAMS, K. & BURTON, E. (eds.) Achieving sustainable urban form. London; New York: E & FN Spon. PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE. 2014a. Home [Online]. Germany. Available: http://passiv.de/en/ [Accessed 02-03 2014].

49


PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE. 2014b. News [Online]. Germany. Available: http://www.passivehouseinternational.org/index.php?page_id=76 [Accessed 02-03 2014]. PASSIVE HOUSE INSTITUTE. 2014c. Refurbishment with Passive House components [Online]. Germany. Available: Refurbishment with Passive House components [Accessed 02-03 2014]. PEIRCE, N. R., JOHNSON, C. W., PETERS, F. & ROCKEFELLER, F. 2008. Century of the city : no time to lose, New York, Rockefeller Foundation. RATTI, C., BAKER, N. & STEEMERS, K. 2005. Energy consumption and urban texture. Energy and Buildings, 37, 762776. READER, J. 2006. Cities, New York, Grove Press. RODE, P., KEIM, C., ROBAZZA, G., VIEJO, P. & SCHOFIELD, J. 2014. Cities and energy: urban morphology and residential heat-energy demand. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 41, 138-162. RUTTER, P. & KEIRSTEAD, J. 2012. A brief history and the possible future of urban energy systems. Energy Policy, 50, 72-80. SALAT, S. 2009. Energy loads, CO2 emissions and building stocks: morphologies, typologies, energy systems and behaviour. Building Research & Information, 37, 598-609. SEAI 2013. Energy in Ireland 1990 – 2012: 2013 Report. Dublin. SHAFIEE, S. & TOPAL, E. 2009. When will fossil fuel reserves be diminished? Energy Policy, 37, 181-189. SMITH, P. F. 2003. Sustainability at the cutting edge : emerging technologies for low energy buildings, Oxford, Architectural Press. SOUTHFACING. 2014. Tracker Plus [Online]. Available: http://www.tracker-plus.co.uk/index.php [Accessed 01-03 2014]. STEADMAN, P., HAMILTON, I. & EVANS, S. 2013. Energy and urban built form: an empirical and statistical approach. Building Research & Information, 42, 17-31. STERN, N. H. & GREAT BRITAIN, T. 2007. The economics of climate change : the Stern review, Cambridge, UK; New York, Cambridge University Press. THOMAS, R. & FORDHAM, M. (eds.) 2003. Sustainable Urban Design: An environmental Approach: Spon Press. UNITED NATIONS. 2005. 2005 World Summit Outcome [Online]. New York: United Nations. UNITED NATIONS. 2006. World urbanization prospects the 2007 revision [Online]. New York: United Nations. Available: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wup2007/2007wup.htm. UNITED NATIONS HUMAN SETTLEMENTS, P. 2011. Cities and climate change : global report on human settlements, 2011, [Nairobi]; London; Washington, DC, UN-Habitat ; Earthscan. URBAN TASK FORCE AND ROGERS, R. 1999. Towards an urban renaissance, London, Spon]. USGBC. 2014. LEED [Online]. Available: http://www.usgbc.org/leed#rating [Accessed 03-03 2014]. VALE, B. & VALE, R. 1991. Green architecture : design for a sustainable future, London, Thames and Hudson. WORLD COMMISSION ON, E., DEVELOPMENT & UNITED NATIONS ENVIRONMENT, P. 1987. "Our common future" : [report of the World Commission on Environment and Development], [New York], The Commission. WORLD WATCH INSTITUTE. 2013. U.N. Raises “Low” Population Projection for 2050 [Online]. Available: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6038 [Accessed Jan 13 2013]. WWF & GLOBAL FOOTPRINT NETWORK 2008. Living Planet Report. Gland, Switzerland: WWF.

50


51


8

Appendices

8.1 Appendix A – Initial list of methodologies Building-Level Methodologies 1. BREEAM – International but UK originally 2. CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Energy Efficiency) 3. Dwellings Energy Assessment Procedure (DEAP) – Ireland 4. Earth Advantage – US 5. EkoProfile – Norway 6. Energy Efficiency Improvement Assistance Scheme – Singapore 7. Energy Savings Scheme – NSW, Australia 8. Green Building Label and Award Scheme – China 9. Green Globes – Canada 10. Green Mark Scheme – Singapore 11. Green Star – Australia / South Africa 12. Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM) – Japan 13. LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) – US [Green Building Council] 14. NABERNZ [Office Buildings Only] – New Zealand 15. National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS) – Australia 16. Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme (NatHERS) – Australia 17. Nest – Wales, UK 18. Passive House Planning Package – Europe mainly but gaining internationally 19. Pearl Rating System – Abu Dhabi, UAE 20. R-2000 – Canada (Domestic dwellings) 21. Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) – Northern Ireland 22. The Building Quality Index (IBI) – Hong Kong 23. The Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme for Buildings – Singapore 24. Thermal Standards for Buildings (National Energy Efficiency Building Code) – Lebanon

52


Neighbourhood/Community/Site-Level Methodologies 1. LEED Neighbourhood – US 2. BREEAM Communities - UK 3. CASBEE (Urban Development) – Japan 4. Living Building Challenge – International/US 5. Pearl Community Rating System – Abu Dhabi, UAE 6. Green Star (Communities) – Australia 7. Arbed Programme – Wales, UK 8. Energy Efficient Cities Initiative (EECi) – UK 9. Energy efficiency rating tool for Urban Districts in Helsinki, Finland

53


8.2 Appendix B – Stage 2: Methodology Selection Process

54


8.3 Appendix C – Methodology Rating / Scoring: Green, Amber, or Red rating (Part 1)

55


Methodology Scoring / rating: Green, Amber, or Red rating (Part 2)

56


8.4 Appendix D – Methodology evaluation: BREAAM Schemes The British Research Establishment of BRE has developed the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology or BREEAM which includes a number of BREEAM schemes aimed at specific aspects of the built environment such as new construction, refurbishment, In-Use, or communities. Thus, according to the BRE “BREEAM can be used to assess the environmental performance of any type of building, new and existing, anywhere in the world. BREEAM is an internationally recognised brand across the world, setting the standard for sustainability in the built environment.” (BRE, 2014c) Overall the aims and objectives of BREEAM which apply to all schemes are as follows; Aims of BREEAM 1. 2. 3. 4.

To mitigate the life cycle impacts of buildings on the environment To enable buildings to be recognised according to their environmental benefits To provide a credible, environmental label for buildings To stimulate demand for sustainable buildings

Objectives of BREEAM 5. To provide market recognition of buildings with a low environmental impact 6. To ensure best environmental practice is incorporated in building planning, design, construction and operation. 7. To define a robust, cost-effective performance standard surpassing that required by regulations. 8. To challenge the market to provide innovative, cost effective solutions that minimise the environmental impact of buildings. 9. To raise the awareness amongst owners, occupants, designers and operators of the benefits of buildings with a reduced life cycle impact on the environment. 10. To allow organisations to demonstrate progress towards corporate environmental objectives. (see http://www.breeam.org/BREEAM2011SchemeDocument/Content/01_Introduction/what_is_breeam.htm) While many BREEAM schemes have been developed for specific countries, especially the UK, BREEAM International provides a range of BREEAM schemes that can be used internationally but which also have the ability to include local context issues for each site. AS outlined by the BRE, BREEAM International “provides a set of environmental assessment methods that encompass all stages of a building’s lifecycle and which can be applied to developments across the world. They have been designed to provide a stimulus for property owners and national construction industries to improve the performance of buildings and developments beyond standard practice. A key benefit of the methodologies is the flexibility of recognising local best practice codes and standards” (BRE, 2014b)

57


For the purposes of this research the following BREEAM Schemes to include 1) BREEAM International New Construction 2) BREEAM Communities Bespoke International. These are now examined in detail in the following sections.

BREEAM International New Construction Theme

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? For overall BREEAM aims and objectives see 2.1 Introduction BREEAM International New Construction (BINC) can be used to assess the sustainability of a range of new buildings types (commercial and residential) at the design, construction and post construction stages of projects worldwide. It enables developers to evaluate, improve and demonstrate the sustainability credentials of their buildings in a consistent way across the world. Like all BREEAM schemes, one of the main objectives of BINC is to consider sustainability in a holistic manner and therefore includes the categories of Management, Health and Wellbeing, Energy, Transport, Materials, Waste, Water, Land Use and Ecology, Pollution and Innovation.

Methodology Objectives

• Does it incentivise anything through its use? It incentivises a sustainable and integrated approach to construction in order to achieve a BREEAM approval which, beyond achieving a more sustainable, energy efficient building with greater occupancy comfort, provides an internationally recognised quality assurance mark which has become synonymous with high quality construction and an integrated sustainable design approach which includes both environmental and social sustainability. Once a building is BREEAM certified, it receives a BREEAM certificate, it can be entered in the GreenBookLive listing of the buildings that have been certified under BREEAM 2008 onwards (BRE, 2014e), the building can be fitted with a BREEAM wall plaque, or large BREEAM banners, and approved BREEAM logos and marks can be used in association with the building. • Is it mandatory or voluntary? BINC is voluntary

Methodology Assessment Process

• How does the assessment process work? Typically the client, building owner, or project manager contacts a licensed BREEAM Assessor or BREEAM In-Use Auditor (or a BREEAM accredited professional – AP) who helps the client determine which scheme to use and advises the client on various aspects of the project. Once the assessor is in place there are a number of ways of completing a typical BREEAM assessment including the use of the paper-based scheme documents which involves the direct calculation of various scores contained in this document and the compilation of a report (Assessment report templates are available to accredited assessors). More recently

58


BRE have approved a third party software solution known as ‘Tracker plus’ which provides an online software platform to assist accredited auditors and help streamline various BREEAM assessment schemes (Southfacing, 2014). Typically assessments comprise of a Pre-Assessment, Design Stage Assessment, and a Post Construction Stage Assessment. Pre-assessment – This assessment provides advice that provides early advice on the sustainability of the project and gives advice on elements that need to be included at the detailed design stage. BRE have developed a free excel-based Pre-Assessment Estimator which can be downloaded and used to carry out the Pre-Assessment exercise (BRE, 2014f). Once the re-assessment is complete the AP registers the project with BRE Global for an assessment. Design Stage Assessment (DS) – This interim assessment is typically carried out once detailed drawings, specifications and calculations are available with the project being assessed in line with the credit criteria outlined in the manual. Once assessed the AP submits a report and other evidence to BRE Gobal for DS certification Post Construction Stage (PCS) Assessment- This final BREEAM assessment is based on information contained in the as built drawings, specifications and calculations, and a site inspection by the accredited BREEAM auditor. The PCS assessment should confirm the commitments made at the DS assessment which have been implemented during the construction phase. Again, once the PCS assessment is complete the AP submits a report and other evidence to the BRE for final certification. (for a more detailed descrition of how a typical assessment takes place see Methodology Criteria Assessment below) Once certification is complete the project can be listed on GreenBookLive. • Who undertakes the assessment? The assessment is completed licensed BREEAM Assessor or BREEAM In-Use Auditor or (or a BREEAM accredited professional – AP) • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) BRE Global • Are they an independent or state body? BRE Global is a UK based independent body (the overarching body is the BRE Trust which is a charity) • Who participates and who is engaged? BINC, like many BREEAM schemes takes an integrated approach to the built environment and therefore the schemes encourage a collaborative including the client, various designers and consultants. Critically the ‘Management Section’ (Man 04a/b Stakeholder Participation) of BINC awards points for stakeholder engagement where the stated aim is to “The focus of Man 04a/b Stakeholder participation is to ensure that the building and its

59


layout meet the needs of potential users and consider the impact (positive and negative), on others, e.g. local community, by involving and consulting with them” Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Yes, the BINC includes a s Pre-assessment Stage, Design Stage Assessment (DS),and Post Construction Stage (PCS) Assessment. Also in some areas, such as the ‘Sustainable Procurement’ issue in the ‘Management’ section, the assessment criteria is split into three parts including; Project Brief and design; Construction and Handover; and Aftercare. • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Yes, all BREEAM scheme documents define that an integrated approach by stating; “All BREEAM schemes have affiliation to the ‘BRE Global Code for a Sustainable Built Environment’ in common. The Code is a set of strategic principles and requirements that define an integrated approach to designing, managing, evaluating and certifying the environmental, social and economic impacts of the built environment.” (BRE, 2013c.p.2-3) BNIC carefully considers this issue of integrated design throughout the scheme a awrds points where it can be proven that an integrated approach has been undertaken. In support of this the BINC recognises the Building Services Research and Information Association (BSRIA) ‘Soft Landings framework which defined by BSRIA as; “Soft Landings requires that all roles and responsibilities are clear from the outset. Shared risk and responsibility is at the core of Soft Landings. Roles and responsibilities should be shared among the project sponsor, client advisors, the project manager, and the design professionals. However, job titles are less important than an individual’s ability and temperament. Always choose the right people.” (BSRIA, 2011.p.2) Also, as stated earlier the BINC awards points for stakeholder consultation, there is also points for engaging an AP early in the project, and points available for involving different consultants or contractors at certain stages of the project.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? BINC is aimed at new build and new extensions to existing buildings.

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community;

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings.

“The BREEAM New Construction schemes can be used to assess the sustainability of new buildings over their life cycle, at the design and construction stages of a project. ‘New Construction’ (NC) is defined as a development that results in a new standalone structure, or a new extension to an existing structure, which will come into use for the first time when the works are completed.” (BRE, 2013c.p.9)

In the Residential Sector it covers the following Building Types; - Individual dwelling - Collections of individual dwellings

60


• Other.

- Apartment blocks. Within the non-residential or Commercial Sector it includes the following Building Types; - Offices - Industrial (units for warehousing and storage and units for process or manufacturing etc.) - Retail (shops, retail parks and associated warehousing, showrooms, restaurants, and over-the-counter services such as banks etc.)

Within the Non Standard Sector (as defined by BRE) it includes the following Building Types; - Community (community or visitors centres, schools or universities, sports or leisure facilities, theatres etc) - Residential Institutions (hotels, care homes, barracks, halls or residence etc.) - Public (prison, courts police or fire stations transport hubs, museums or galleries, places of worship etc) For the Non Standard Sector as outlined above, the BINC contains the following guidance “Non-standard building types are listed in the non-standard building section of Table - 2 and include a wide range of buildings – the list in Table - 2 is not exhaustive. Non-standard building types must undergo a scoping and tailoring exercise to facilitate a BREEAM assessment and rating. For an individual project this involves BRE Global selecting appropriate BREEAM issues from the existing pool of assessment issues, to provide criteria against which the building can be assessed. This is sometimes known as a ‘bespoke’ or ‘tailored’ assessment. To ensure the consistency and robustness of the assessment, certain issues that are common to all BREEAM schemes form part of all tailored BREEAM criteria sets. These issues are applicable to any building type, e.g. Man 02 Responsible construction practices. Issues that are applicable to the activities in a particular type of building will also form part of the criteria set. Where a criterion is not appropriate in a specific part of the building, it will be defined as not applicable for that area. For example, in issue Hea 01: Visual comfort, the Daylighting credit would not be applicable to cinema theatres.” (BRE, 2013c.p.10) Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhood • City-scale.

• Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? BREEAM schemes take a holistic approach to sustainability and therefore consider each project through the framework of the ‘BRE Global Code for a Sustainable Built Environment’ as described earlier. This accounts for all stages of the project and considers the triple bottom line of sustainability including environmental, social, and economic issues” The BNIC scheme is for use at the building level only, however many sections within the

61


scheme such as Management, Energy, Transport, Land use and Ecology, or Pollution, consider the building in the broadest context and assess how it impacts on the wider environment. • What categories are assessed by the methodology? The BNIC scheme has ten ‘Sections’ as follows’          

Management Health and wellbeing Energy Transport Water Materials Waste Land use and ecology Pollution Innovation

• What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? Within each of these ten ‘Sections’ there are an average of five ‘Issue’ for all sections except for ‘Innovation’ which has one issue. This results in 52 issues as follows; Methodology Assessment Criteria

Management  Sustainable procurement  Responsible construction practices  Construction site impacts  Stakeholder participation  Life cycle cost and service life planning Health and wellbeing  Visual comfort  Indoor air quality  Thermal comfort  Water quality  Acoustic performance  Safe access  Hazards  Private space Energy  Energy efficiency  Energy monitoring

62


     

Energy efficient external lighting Low and zero carbon technologies Energy efficient cold storage Energy efficient transportation systems Energy efficient laboratory systems (TBC) Energy efficient equipment (process)

Transport  Public transport accessibility  Proximity to amenities  Alternative modes of transport  Maximum car parking capacity  Travel plan  Home office Water  Water consumption  Water monitoring  Water leak detection and prevention  Water efficient equipment Materials  Life cycle impacts  Responsible sourcing of materials  Insulation  Designing for robustness Waste  Construction waste management  Recycled aggregate  Operational waste  Speculative floor and ceiling finishes Land use and ecology  Site selection  Ecological value of site and protection of ecological features  Enhancing site ecology  Long term impact on biodiversity  Building footprint Pollution  Impact of refrigerants  NOx emissions  Surface water run off  Reduction of night time light pollution  Noise attenuation Innovation  New technology, process and practices

63


• Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? Yes, the BREEAM Sections are given a ‘Section Weighting’. This is now explained in the context of the overall BREEAM assessment procedure. The overall assessment process is described in the BNIC scheme (BRE, 2013c.p.19)document as follows; 1. For each environmental section the number of ‘credits’ awarded must be determined by the assessor in accordance with the criteria of each assessment issue (as detailed in the technical sections of this document). 2. The percentage of ‘credits’ achieved is then calculated for each section. 3. The percentage of ‘credits’ achieved in each section is then multiplied by the corresponding section weighting. This gives the overall environmental section score. 4. The section scores are then added together to give the overall BREEAM score. The overall score is then compared to the BREEAM rating benchmark levels and, provided all minimum standards have been met (refer to Table - 5, the relevant BREEAM rating is achieved. 5. An additional 1% can be added to the final BREEAM score for each ‘innovation credit’ achieved (up to a maximum of 10%). The available credits and associated weightings are determined by the building type (i.e. there a specific credits available for certain criteria which may be specific to residential or commercial). They are also determined by the buildings global location and the BINC takes account of different climatic zones and the cultural, economic and work practices associated with certain areas. If a project is one of the first BREEAM assessments using a specific BREEAM scheme in a particular country or climate zone, then the assessment must be accompanied by a completed project specific BREEAM ‘Approved Standards and weighting list’ which will, once approved by BRE Global, determine the credits and weightings appropriate for that project type in that specific location. Other similar subsequent projects in the same location may then use this agreed ‘Approved Standards and weighting list’ as part of the assessment. As an example of an assessment the BINC contains the following example Section

Credits Achieved

Credits Available*

% of Credits

Section Weighting*

Section score

Management Health and wellbeing Energy

10 8

22 10

45.00% 80.00%

0.12 0.15

5.45 12

16

30

53.33%

0.19

Transport Water Materials Waste Land use & Ecology Pollution

5 5 6 3 5

9 9 12 7 10

55.56% 55.56% 50.00% 42.86% 50.00%

0.08 0.06 0.125 0.075 0.10

10.13 % 4.44% 3.33% 6.25% 3.21% 5.00%

5

13

38.50%

0.10

3.85%

64


Innovation

2

10

20.00%

0.10

Final BREEAM score BREEAM rating

2.00% 55.66% VERY GOOD

*This will vary depending on building type and location.

Table 3 - Example BREEAM score and rating calculation as taken from BINC scheme document

• Is benchmarking used BREEAM The BREEAM rating benchmarks a building against other similar BREEAM rated buildings which represents performance equivalent to:     

Outstanding: Less than top 1% of new buildings (innovator) Excellent: Top 10% of new buildings (best practice) Very Good: Top 25% of new buildings (advanced good practice) Good: Top 50% of new buildings (intermediate good practice) Pass: Top 75% of new buildings (standard good practice)

Rating

% score

OUTSTANDING EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD PASS UNCLASSIFIED

≥ 85 ≥ 70 ≥ 55 ≥ 45 ≥ 30 < 30

Table 4 - BREEAM rating benchmarks taken from BINC scheme document

An unclassified BREEAM rating represents performance that is non-compliant with BREEAM, failing to meet either the BREEAM minimum standards for key environmental issues or the overall threshold score required for formal BREEAM certification. •

How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria?

As described earlier, the BINC provides for Pre-assessment, Design Stage (DS) Assessment and Post Construction Stage (PCS) Assessment. Also, as outlined above there are different criteria and associated credits and weightings for various building types (i.e. there a specific credits available for certain criteria which may be specific to residential or commercial). Are there mandatory and optional criteria Yes, BREEAM is designed to allow choice among various criteria but there are some issues that are mandatory and without gaining credits in these areas the building would automatically fail (i.e. Visual comfort, Indoor air quality and Water quality. BREEAM issue PASS Man 01: Sustainable 1credit procurement

GOOD 1credit

VERY GOOD 1credit

EXCELLENT 1credit

OUTSTANDING 2 credits

65


Man 02: None Responsible construct. practices Man 04a: None Stakeholder participation Man 04b: None Stakeholder participation

None

None

1credit

1credit (Building user information) 1credit (Building user information)

1credit (Building user information) 1credit (Building user information)

1credit (Building user information) 1credit (Building user information)

Hea 01: Visual comfort Hea 02: Indoor air quality Hea 04: Water quality Hea 08: Private space Ene 01: Reduction of CO2 emissions Ene 02a: Energy monitoring

Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only None

Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only None

None None

2 credits

1credit (Building user information) 3 credits (Building user info. & adaptable design) Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only None

None

1credit

None

None

Six credits

10 credits

None

1credit (First submetering credit) None

1credit (First submetering credit) 1credit

1credit (First submetering credit) 1credit

1credit

2 credits

Ene 04: Low or zero None None carbon technologies Wat 01: Water None None 1credit consumption Wat 02: Water None Criterion 1 Criterion 1 only monitoring only Mat 03: Responsible None None None Sourcing Wst 01: Construct. None None None waste management Wst 03a&b: None None None Operational waste Table 5 - Minimum BREEAM standards by rating level

Criterion 1 only Criterion 1 only None

Criterion 1 only

None

1credit

1credit

1credit

But beyond this there are also certain criteria that must be fulfilled to achieve a certain rating. For Instance, the BINC document provides the following table to illustrate the minimum standards required to reach a ‘Very Good’ rating.

Table - 6: Minimum standards for BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rating achieved? Minimum Standards for BREEAM Achieved? ‘Very Good’ rating Achieved? Man 01: Sustainable Y procurement

66


Man 04a: Stakeholder participation Hea 01: Visual comfort Hea 02: Indoor air quality Hea 04: Water quality Ene 02a: Energy monitoring Wat 01: Water consumption Wat 02a: Water monitoring

Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

Table 6 - Minimum standards for BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rating achieved taken from BINC scheme document

• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? Each of the 52 Issues have their own metrics and some Sections such as Management contain many issues and involve various inputs such as letters of appointment of key team members. Other parts are quite subjective and demand a judgement call form the AP. Some other Sections such as energy contain more straightforward inputs where the metrics are derived from established calculation methods or the outputs from modelling software, and other issues which require various verifications regarding installed equipment etc. The Energy section is thus is used here to illustrate some key metrics.

Data Requirements

Energy  Energy efficiency - a combination of 1) Energy Demand (MJ per m2 of floor area), 2) Primary Energy Consumption expressed as (kWh/m2/y), 3) net annual building CO2 emissions (kgCO2/m2/year)  Energy monitoring – verification of a Building Energy Management System (BEMS) or separate accessible energy sub-meters with a pulsed output to enable future connection to a BEMS  Energy efficient external lighting - All external fittings meet or exceed certain lighting requirements as defined by BREEAM, and external light fittings controlled through a Time switch, or Daylight sensor, to prevent operation during daylight hours  Low and zero carbon technologies - A feasibility study has been carried out by an Energy specialist (see Compliance notes) to establish the most appropriate local (on-site or near-site) low or zero carbon (LZC) energy source for the building/development. 

 

Energy efficient cold storage – Verification regarding the energy efficiency rating of equipment and components, verification of sub metering to monitor cold storage, and other similar verification criteria. Energy efficient transportation systems - Verification that a building transportation strategy has been undertaken and that the proposed equipment meets with certain energy efficiency criteria. Energy efficient laboratory systems (TBC) – This has not been finalised by BREEAM Energy efficient equipment (process) - a combination of energy efficiency rated

67


equipment, energy efficiency design strategies for various equipment, or the use of established international best practice or accepted codes of compliance. Drying Space (residential only) – This is measured in linear metres of drying space provided (external space with posts or hanging fixings) per dwelling unit or per bedroom depending on the type of residential accommodation.

The BINC assessments are completed using data from specifications, building drawings, calculations, site surveys etc. The BINC scheme document lists the following evidential requirements;  Relevant section/clauses of the building specification or contract  Design drawings (e.g. new and existing site plans, elevations, internal layouts)  Certificates of compliance (e.g. ISO14001, BES6001, Environmental Profiles, FSC, EPC)  Calculation/software modelling results/outputs (e.g. Energy, thermal modelling)  Professional reports/studies (e.g. contaminated land, ecologist report, flood risk/security consultant report)  Project/construction phase programme  Construction phase data/information (e.g. purchase orders, metering data)  Letters of appointment (e.g. Professional appointment)  Letters of commitment (e.g. Client/contractor commitment which, unless otherwise stated in the schedule of evidence, are only acceptable at the interim Design Stage Assessment)  Letters of action (e.g. Client/contractor confirming specific compliance with criteria)  BREEAM Assessor’s site inspection report and photographic evidence  Meeting minutes  Third party information (e.g. maps, public transport timetable, product manufacturers details)  Tenant lease agreements or ‘green’ clauses from lease agreements (for shell and core buildings, refer to Appendix D for more guidance on types of evidence). How are they measured? As outlined above there is a very wide range of information or data requirements which require a multitude of input types. • How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

As outlined above as evident from the various Sections and Issues, interaction with the natural environment is critical natural environment to the BINC As outlined previously, the BINC is a building level assessment methodology and therefore there is no focus on place-making in the urban sense of the word.

68


• Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Yes, the inclusion of a dedicated Section called ‘Innovation’ is included which aims to; “To support innovation within the construction industry through the recognition of sustainability related benefits which are not rewarded by standard BREEAM issues” (BRE, 2013c.p.349) In support of this there is 10 credits available, over a variety of issues (see below), where there is evidence of ‘exemplary performance’ demonstrated by ‘exemplary level performance criteria ‘ achieved in any of the following assessment issues:

Innovation

         

Man 01 Sustainable procurement Man 02 Responsible construction practices Hea 02 Indoor air quality Ene 01 Energy efficiency Tra 03a&b Alternative modes of transport Wat 01 Water consumption Mat 01 Life cycle impacts Mat 03 Responsible sourcing of materials Wst 01 Construction site waste management Wst 02 Recycled aggregates

• Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? Yes - due to the wide range of sustainability Issues covered; the various acceptable calculation methodologies; the inclusion of location and context; the flexible credit and weighting criteria; and the inclusion of a dedicated Innovation Section all as described above, the BINC provides a flexible framework to include new practices. • Who is the methodology pitched at? The BINC is primary pitched at building owners and clients who wish to achieve an internationally recognised sustainability quality assurance mark for their building. This may be about aligning with, or creating a certain corporate identity, or contributing to their Corporate Social and Environmental Responsibility.

Ease of Use

It is also of interest to Local Authorities as a way of guaranteeing a certain standard for new development or used as part of a fast track planning application. • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? All BREEAM schemes share the one rating system which is the same for all stakeholders and this includes; Outstanding, Excellent, Very good, Good, Pass, Unclassified .This provides a very easily understood rating system that can be appreciated by anyone regardless of building knowledge or experience.

69


• How user friendly is the tool to use? All BREEAM schemes are complex and a rating can only be achieved with the use of an AP. In this regard BREEAM schemes are aimed at expert users and the level of user friendliness is dependent on the experience and knowledge of the AP. However, as discussed earlier , the BREEAM excel based pre-assessment tool offers a quick method to get early results while the Tracker Plus software is streamlining the process and making it more user friendly. • How does it communicate its outputs? Typically the outputs are complied by the AP and presented in table form in a report where the building receives a % score in each section and an overall % score which translates as a BREEAM rating of; Outstanding, Excellent, Very good, Good, Pass, Unclassified. • Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? While, the BREEAM excel based pre-assessment tool offers a quick method to get early results, the BREEAM schemes are more of an assessment methodology as opposes to one that can be actively used to test design solutions in an iterative manner. The early inclusion of an AP as part of the design team will allow input from the earliest stages and help Solutions/ Option inform the brief and early sketch designs. Development • Does it allow the user to test different options? Again, BREEAM schemes are assessment rather than design tools so they do not lend themselves to the testing of different solutions in a rapid iterative manner. However, there would be nothing to stop a design team using the pre-assessment tool on various design options, or even applying some key parts of the DS assessment to selected options.

Timeliness

• Is the methodology time intensive to use? This depends on the level of assessment, the pre-assessment tool could be used to complete an early analysis is a few hours while a full DS Assessment or PCS Assessment for large scheme could take months. • Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? Depends on level of assessment, see above. • Does the methodology include an educational element? Not particularly, it is aimed at AP and expert users. However to become an AP there are many training courses and education opportunities available internationally.

Education

• Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Again, not particularly, as it is aimed at expert users and AP where it is expected that they have a good deal of energy efficiency knowledge. However, if a person is coming from a low level of knowledge and wants to become an AP or even familiar with the BINC they would need to acquire a good working knowledge of energy efficiency, so

70


therefore in this regard it could be argued that it does foster learning!

• Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, as stated earlier BREEAM rating is widely promoted and recognised as a green label, especially due to its integrated and holistic approach to sustainable design.

Market Labelling

• Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? Yes, building projects that achieve BREEAM rating will broadcast this fact and advertise that their building is BREAAM Excellent, Very good, etc. As mentioned at he beginning of this section, once a building is BREEAM certified, it receives a BREEAM certificate, it can be entered in the GreenBookLive listing of the buildings that have been certified under BREEAM 2008 onwards (BRE, 2014e), the building can be fitted with a BREEAM wall plaque, or large BREEAM banners, and approved BREEAM logos and marks can be used in association with the building. • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology?

Evidence of Use

According to the BRE Global “BREEAM is the sustainable building certification scheme that is the most widely used throughout the world, providing a benchmark for performance used by clients, investors, developers and design teams. Over 250,000 buildings have been certified since its inception in 1990, and the scheme is now used in more than 50 countries.” They go on to say that in terms of registrations “There are over 40,000 projects registered for certification under BREEAM, which equates to over 1 million buildings. For some projects there can be a considerable period of time before certification comes to fruition. This is particularly true for large scale, complex construction projects which have lengthy period of planning approval, design, construction etc” (BRE, 2014a) • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Yes, very - See above • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? All BREEAN schemes are under constant development and are regularly updated.

Monitoring Framework

• Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Yes, for all the reasons outlined above, and in particular due to the inclusion of stakeholder engagement, the emphasis on integrated design, and the incorporation of a dedicated Innovation Section.

71


BREEAM Communities Bespoke International Theme

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? For overall BREEAM aims and objectives see 2.1 Introduction Where a country has a BREEAM ‘National Scheme Operators’ (NSOs) this NSO will develop and operate a country specific local scheme affiliated to BREEAM which will align with BREEAM standards. Where a country does not have a country specific BREEAM Communities scheme it is possible to use a bespoke process. BREEAM Communities Bespoke International uses the UK BREEAM Communities scheme. BREEAM through a ‘bespoke’ process tailor the scheme to address the key issues and challenges in the country or region where it is being applied taking into account;

Methodology Objectives

       

the location and current use of the development site local climatic conditions (microclimate and climate change) the timescales and phasing of the development significant issues or constraints on the site local/national development and planning standards the process for bringing forward related infrastructure cultural, economic, social and environmental differences that are relevant to master planning and use pressures across the country and in the local area

Established in 2008, the UK based BREEAM Communities (BC) is an assessment method that covers economic, social and environmental sustainability at a master planning scale and addresses key areas such as housing provision, transport networks, community facilities, and the economic impact of a development and is designed to be used from the very early stages of project. It is typically aimed at developers, design teams and local authorities. “BREEAM Communities is a way to improve, measure and certify the social, environmental and economic sustainability of large-scale development plans by integrating sustainable design into the master planning process.” (BRE, 2013b) “BREEAM Communities is a standard that helps developers, urban planners and design teams achieve sustainable designs and plans for new communities.” (BRE, 2013a) • Does it incentivise anything through its use? It incentivises a sustainable and integrated approach in order to achieve a BREEAM approval which provides an internationally recognised quality assurance mark which has become synonymous with high quality construction and an integrated sustainable design

72


approach which includes both environmental , social and economic sustainability. Like all BREEAM schemes, once a building is BREEAM certified, it receives a BREEAM rating and certificate declaring it Excellent, very good etc. and can use approved BREEAM logos and marks can be used in association with the development. The development can also be entered in the GreenBookLive listing of certified schemes (BRE, 2014e). According to BRE Global the use of BC has the following advantages for the following key people (BRE, 2013b); For Developers   

Offers cost savings by promoting sustainable design from the earliest possible stages. Progresses proposals more efficiently through the planning system by involving key stakeholders early in a proactive and collaborative approach. Simplifies BREEAM building level assessment, supporting higher ratings. Adds value to the development by encouraging the design of places where people will want to live, work and play. Presents promotional opportunities using the recognised and trusted BREEAM brand.

For Local Authorities    

Provides an internationally recognised set of outcomes that the planning authority can use to define sustainable development at the neighbourhood scale. Clarifies what the development proposal will achieve so a case officer can quickly assess performance against key sustainability objectives. Allows local decision-makers and community representatives to quickly understand the proposal’s benefits and potential. Provides a measurable target for monitoring and reporting against objectives in local authority strategies.

For Masterplanners    

Focuses dialogue between the developer and the local authority, facilitating agreement over what can be achieved on the site. Overcomes ‘silo working’ among design professionals, saving time and costs. Provides a level of credibility and transparency to a development proposal. Sets a clear framework for community and stakeholder engagement, allowing positive discussion about the benefits of new communities.

• Is it mandatory or voluntary? BINC is voluntary

73


Methodology Assessment Process

• How does the assessment process work? Typically the developer contacts a BREEAM accredited professional (AP) who guides the process, assesses the development and submits the application to BRE Global. Once the assessor is in place the typical way of completing the BC assessment involves the use of the paper-based BC scheme document and the direct calculation of various scores contained in this document and the compilation of a report accompanied by all required supporting documentation. (Assessment report templates are available to accredited assessors) The BC assessment consists of two stages including; 1) an Interim BREEAM Communities assessment resulting in an Interim certificate, and 2) a Final BREEAM Communities assessment resulting in a final certificate and a rating. These two certification stages align with three assessment steps (Step 1- Establishing the principle of development; Step 2 – Determining the layout of the development; and Step 3 – Designing the details) that must be undertaken as part of the over BC process. These steps and certification stages are as follows; Interim BREEAM Communities assessment and certificate -This assessment and certification is issued when ‘Step 1- Establishing the principle of development’ has been completed and the appropriate documentation is submitted. This certificate does not give a rating but instead gives recognition that Step 1 conditions have been complied with Final BREEAM Communities assessment and final certificate and a rating -This assessment is completed when ‘Step 2 – Determining the layout of the development’ and ‘Step 3 – Designing the details’ have been completed and approved. At this point the final certificate is accompanied with a rating. (for a more detailed description of how a typical assessment takes place see Methodology Criteria Assessment below) Once certification is complete the project can be listed on GreenBookLive. • Who undertakes the assessment? The assessment is completed licensed BREEAM Assessor or BREEAM accredited professional AP. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) BRE Global • Are they an independent or state body? BRE Global is a UK based independent body (the overarching body is the BRE Trust which is a charity) • Who participates and who is engaged? BC, like many BREEAM schemes takes an integrated approach to the built environment and therefore the schemes encourage a collaborative including the client, various

74


designers and consultants. However given the scale of development covered by BC, by necessity includes a much wider level of engagement from additional consultants such as landscape architects and ecologists, an also major input from the local community and relevant stakeholders. To this extent, the first category within the BC is ‘Governance’ which is included in the BC scheme document to “Addresses community involvement in decisions affecting the design, construction, operation and long-term stewardship of the development” (BRE, 2012.p.3). There are four Issues within the Governance category, with a total value of eight credits and the first two issues being mandatory. BC stresses consultation as a key component and beyond the Governance category and the four associated Issues, there are 13 other issues from all categories that are directly related to the consultation and agreement. Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Yes, as pointed out above, BC includes; Step 1- Establishing the principle of development; Step 2 – Determining the layout of the development; and Step 3 – Designing the details. These steps also approximately align with the typical local authority planning application stages of where step 1 aligns with pre-planning consultation or outline planning while steps 2 and 3 align with detailed planning application stage. • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Yes, all BREEAM scheme documents define that an integrated approach by stating; “All BREEAM schemes have affiliation to the ‘BRE Global Code for a Sustainable Built Environment’ in common. The Code is a set of strategic principles and requirements that define an integrated approach to designing, managing, evaluating and certifying the environmental, social and economic impacts of the built environment.” (BRE, 2013c.p.2-3) BC as outlined previously, deals with a development form the earliest stages to the detailed design and takes cognisance of a wide variety of social, environmental, and economic issues. In this regard it fosters a very high level of collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

Development Use:

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? BC is aimed at medium to large scale developments at an urban scale with a large residential component. It is mostly suitable for new developments adjacent to existing communities but can also be used for regeneration projects. “BREEAM Communities is suitable for developments which are likely to have significant impacts on existing communities, infrastructure or the provision of local services. The scheme can be used for new mixed-use communities, or single-use developments of a significant size. It can also be used on regeneration projects where there are plans for significant change to the urban fabric.” (BRE, 2013b.p.2) • Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide

75


• • • • •

Residential; Retail; Commercial; Community; Other.

Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhood • City-scale.

details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. BC is suited best to large scale mixed developments. “The principles and assessment criteria in this scheme are likely to have the most beneficial results when applied to a moderate or large mixed-use development. An assessment can also be carried out for single-use developments (e.g. housing estates, retail or business parks, etc.); however, in these cases greater attention should be given to the impact of the development and the role of facilities and amenities beyond the site boundary.”(BRE, 2012.p.15) • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? As stated above BC is suited best to large scale mixed developments at the neighbourhood scale. • What categories are assessed by the methodology? The BC scheme has 6 ‘Categories ’ as follows’  

   Methodology Assessment Criteria

Governance - community involvement in decisions affecting the design, construction, operation and long-term stewardship of the development Social and economic wellbeing - societal and economic factors affecting health and wellbeing such as inclusive design, cohesion, adequate housing and access to employment Resources and energy - the sustainable use of natural resources and the reduction of carbon emissions Land use and ecology - sustainable land use and ecological enhancement Transport and movement – the design and provision of transport and movement infrastructure to encourage the use of sustainable modes of transport Innovation - Recognises and promotes the adoption of innovative solutions within the overall rating where these are likely to result in environmental social or economic benefit in a way which is not recognised elsewhere in the scheme.

• What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? Within each of these six ‘Categories ’ there are 40 issues as follows; Governance Step 1

Consultation plan

Step 2

 

Consultation and engagement Design review

Step 3  Community management of facilities

76


Social and economic wellbeing Step 1

   

Economic impact Demographic needs and priorities Flood Risk Assessment Noise pollution

Step 2

        

Housing provision Delivery of services, facilities and amenities Public realm Microclimate Utilities Adapting to climate change Green infrastructure Local parking Flood risk management

Step 3

   

Local vernacular Inclusive Design Light pollution Training and skills

Resources and energy Step 1

  

Energy strategy Existing buildings and infrastructure Water strategy

Step 2  - no issuesStep 3

   

Sustainable buildings Low impact materials Resource efficiency Transport carbon emissions

Land use and ecology Step 1

 

Ecology strategy Land use

Step 2

  

Water pollution Enhancement of ecological value Landscape

Step 3

77


Rainwater harvesting

Transport and movement Step 1

Transport assessment

Step 2

  

Safe and appealing streets Cycling network Access to public transport

Step 3

 Cycling facilities  Public transport facilities Innovation 

Innovation does not have any set Issues but instead the project can receive up to 7 credits - One innovation credit for each innovation application approved by BRE Global, where the development complies with the criteria defined within a BRE ‘Approved Innovation application’ form.

• Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? Yes, firstly the Categories were weighted (see Table 5 below) by BRE Global according to the impact that each Category has on the three components of sustainability – Social, Environmental, and Economic, which are each given equal value in BC. These Category weightings were then used to determine the weighting of each individual Issue in terms of how it effect on the aim of each Category. .

Category

Aim

Governance

To ensure community involvement and leadership in 9.3% running the development. Local economy: To create a healthy economy 14.8% (employment opportunities & thriving business)

Social & economic wellbeing

Social wellbeing: To ensure a socially cohesive community. Environmental conditions: To minimise the impacts of environmental conditions on the health & wellbeing of occupants. Resource & energy To reduce carbon emissions & ensure wise use of natural resources. Land use & ecology To improve ecological biodiversity. Transport & To create an efficient & safe system for movement. movement Table 7 - BC Category weighting as taken from BC scheme document

Weighting

17.1%

10.8%

21.6% 12.6% 13.8%

In line with this all 40 assessment issues listed above are weighted according to the impact they have on the overall Category. This is now further explained in the context of the overall BC assessment procedure.

78


The overall assessment process is described in the BC scheme (BRE, 2012) document as follows; 1. For each assessment issue the number of credits awarded must be determined by the assessor in accordance with the criteria. Based on the overall number of credits available for this issue, the % of credits achieved is calculated. 2. The % of credits achieved in each assessment issue is then multiplied by the corresponding individual credit weighting and this gives the assessment issue its weighted score. 3. The individual assessment issue weighted scores for all issues in any category are added together to give the overall score. 4. An additional 1% can be added to the final score of the relevant category for each ‘innovation credit’ achieved (up to a maximum of 7%). • Is benchmarking used All BREEAM schemes use the same rating and similarly, the BC rating benchmarks a development against other similar BREEAM rated development which represents performance equivalent to:     

Outstanding: Less than top 1% of rated developments (innovator) Excellent: Top 10% of rated developments (best practice) Very Good: Top 25% of rated developments (advanced good practice) Good: Top 50% of rated developments (intermediate good practice) Pass: Top 75% of rated developments (standard good practice)

Rating

% score

OUTSTANDING EXCELLENT VERY GOOD GOOD PASS UNCLASSIFIED

≥ 85 ≥ 70 ≥ 55 ≥ 45 ≥ 30 < 30

Table 8 - BREEAM rating benchmarks taken from BC scheme document

An unclassified BREEAM rating represents performance that is non-compliant with BREEAM, failing to meet either the BREEAM minimum standards for key environmental issues or the overall threshold score required for formal BREEAM certification. •

How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria?

Yes, as pointed out above, BC includes; Step 1- Establishing the principle of development; Step 2 – Determining the layout of the development; and Step 3 – Designing the details. All

79


Categories are used in all three steps but within each Category there are certain Issues which apply only to certain steps (see assessment criteria above to see which issues are applied at each step) Are there mandatory and optional criteria Yes. While BC is designed to allow choice among various criteria but there are some issues that are mandatory and without fulfilling all of these issues the development would automatically fail.

Step

Identifier

Assessment issue

Criteria

Step 1

GO 01 SE 01 SE 02 SE 03 SE 04 RE 01 RE 02 RE 03 LE 01 LE 02 TM 01

Consultation plan Economic impact Demographic needs and priorities Flood risk assessment Noise pollution Energy strategy Existing buildings and infrastructure Water strategy Ecology strategy Land use Transport assessment

1– 3 1 1– 2 1– 3 1 1 1– 2 1– 2 1– 6 1– 2 1– 3

1– 3 Step 2 GO 02 Consultation & engagement Step 3 None Table 9 - Minimum BC standards taken adapted from BC scheme document

• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? BRE Global outlines the following list of information that may be required for a BC assessment (BRE, 2012.Appendix A) relevant section/clauses of the building/development specification or contract design drawings (e.g. new and existing site plans, elevations, internal layouts) certificates of compliance (e.g. Environmental Profiles, FSC, EPC) calculation / software modelling results/outputs (e.g. Energy, thermal modelling) professional reports / studies (e.g. contaminated land, ecologist report, flood risk assessment)  project/construction phase programme  letters of appointment (e.g. professional appointment)  letters of commitment (e.g. client/contractor commitment)  letters of action (e.g. client/contractor confirming specific compliance with criteria)  BREEAM Assessor’s site inspection report and photographic evidence  meeting minutes  third party information (e.g. maps, public transport timetable, product manufacturers details)  tenant lease agreements or ‘green’ clauses from lease agreements. In some cases the following information, if it has been prepared as part of the design process or planning application, may be used as a substitute or to supplement the required     

Data Requirements

80


BC information listed above.                    

consultation plan economic study demographic profile study site specific flood risk assessment noise impact assessment energy strategy and associated feasibility study ecological impact assessment ecology strategy and associated mitigation/compensation plan contaminated land site investigation and risk assessment report remediation strategy transport assessment or statement travel plans movement framework design and access statement microclimatic simulation/study report landscape design/green infrastructure plan or strategy design specifications site drainage plan waste management plan site drawing and masterplan

How are they measured? As outlined above there is a very wide range of information or data requirements which require a multitude of input types. During Step 1, for instance the ‘Energy strategy’ Issue is assessed by the submission of a detailed energy strategy for the development where the developer commits to achieving set reductions in CO2 emissions based on a set baseline. 11 credits are available for this Issue in total and, for example, one credit can be achieved by reducing the CO2 emissions by 10% while 11 credits can be achieved if the development is carbon neutral. In Step 3, in the Resource and Energy Category, there is a Sustainable buildings Issue. In this Issue. where there is a total of six credits available, six credits can be achieved if the individual buildings are designed to achieve a BREEAM ‘Outstanding rating’. • How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

As outlined above as evident from the various Sections and Issues, interaction with the natural environment is critical natural environment to the BC and environmental sustainability is one of the key drivers. BC contains a whole range of issues within various Category that will contribute to placing making including; Governance -Consultation plan, Consultation and engagement and Design review

81


Social and economic wellbeing - Housing provision, Public realm, Microclimate, Green infrastructure, Local vernacular, Inclusive Design Land use and ecology - Ecology strategy, Land use, Landscape Transport and movement - Safe and appealing streets, Cycling network, Access to public transport, Cycling facilities, Public transport facilities • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Yes, the inclusion of a dedicated Category called ‘Innovation’ is included which aims to;

Innovation

“To support innovation within the design, planning and construction industry through the recognition of sustainability related benefits which are not rewarded by standard BREEAM issues.” (BRE, 2012.p.163) In support of this there is 7 credits available which can be earned when any new technology, design, planning or construction method or process can be proven through the formal procedure of the ‘Innovation Application Form’. • Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? Yes - due to the wide range of sustainability Issues covered; the various acceptable calculation methodologies; the inclusion of location and context; the flexible credit and weighting criteria; and the inclusion of a dedicated Innovation Category all as described above, the BC provides a flexible framework to include new practices. • Who is the methodology pitched at? The BC is primary pitched at developers, master planning teams.It is also of interest to Local Authorities as a way of guaranteeing a certain standard for new development or used as part of a fast track planning application. • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently?

Ease of Use

All BREEAM schemes share the one rating system which is the same for all stakeholders and this includes; Outstanding, Excellent, Very good, Good, Pass, Unclassified .This provides a very easily understood rating system that can be appreciated by anyone regardless of building knowledge or experience. • How user friendly is the tool to use? All BREEAM schemes are complex and a rating can only be achieved with the use of an AP. In this regard BREEAM schemes are aimed at expert users and the level of user friendliness is dependent on the experience and knowledge of the AP. • How does it communicate its outputs? Typically the outputs are complied by the AP and presented in table form in a report

82


where the building receives a % score in each section and an overall % score which translates as a BREEAM rating of; Outstanding, Excellent, Very good, Good, Pass, Unclassified.

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? BREEAM schemes in general are more of an assessment methodology as opposed to one that can be actively used to test design solutions in an iterative manner. The early inclusion of an AP as part of the design team will allow input from the earliest stages and help Solutions/ Option inform the brief and early sketch designs. Development • Does it allow the user to test different options? Again, BREEAM schemes are assessment rather than design tools so they do not lend themselves to the testing of different solutions in a rapid iterative manner. However, there would be nothing to stop a design team using the Step 1 Issues on various design options. • Is the methodology time intensive to use? This depends on the level of assessment and size of the scheme. But in general BC is time intensive. Timeliness

• Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? Depends on level of assessment and size of the development, see above. But in general gathering the data for BC takes a lot of time. • Does the methodology include an educational element? Not particularly, it is aimed at AP and expert users. However to become an AP there are many training courses and education opportunities available internationally.

Education

• Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Again, not particularly, as it is aimed at expert users and AP where it is expected that they have a good deal of knowledge around development and sustainability issues. However, if a person is coming from a low level of knowledge and wants to become an AP or even familiar with the BINC they would need to acquire a good working knowledge of energy efficiency, so therefore in this regard it could be argued that it does foster learning! • Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, as stated earlier BREEAM rating is widely promoted and recognised as a green label, especially due to its integrated and holistic approach to sustainable design.

Market Labelling

• Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? Yes, building projects that achieve BREEAM rating will broadcast this fact and advertise that their building is BREAAM Excellent, Very good, etc. As mentioned at the beginning of this section, once a building is BREEAM certified, it receives a BREEAM certificate, it can be

83


entered in the GreenBookLive listing (BRE, 2014e), and approved BREEAM logos and marks can be used in association with the building.

• Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? In general it is argued that “BREEAM is the sustainable building certification scheme that is the most widely used throughout the world, providing a benchmark for performance used by clients, investors, developers and design teams. Over 250,000 buildings have been certified since its inception in 1990, and the scheme is now used in more than 50 countries.” (BRE, 2014a) Evidence of Use

In terms of BC, BRE Global states that “To date 8 projects have been certified under BREEAM Communities with a further 18 currently registered and undergoing assessment, with the size of development ranging from 2ha to 179ha (as of the publication date). There are currently 66 licenced assessor in 13 countries” (BRE, 2014d) • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Yes. However it must be stated that it is a very time intensive process which needs a very dedicated response for the earliest stages and form all involved, particularly the developer. • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? All BREEAM schemes are under constant development and are regularly updated.

Monitoring Framework

• Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Yes, for all the reasons outlined above, and in particular due to the inclusion of stakeholder engagement, the emphasis on integrated design, and the incorporation of a dedicated Innovation Section.

84


8.5 Appendix E – Methodology evaluation: CASBEE Cities CASBEE was developed in 2004 by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, involving committees in academic, industrial and government sectors and its family covers housing scale, building scale, and urban scale. It is a method of assessing and rating the environmental performance of a built environment. Assessment tools for CASBEE were developed in accordance with the following three concepts: -

Evaluating a built environment through its entire lifecycle

-

Evaluating a building from the two aspects of environmental quality and environmental load

-

Evaluating a built environment according to the “Built Environment Efficiency (BEE)”

CASBEE was developed according to the following policies: -

The system should be structured to award high assessments to superior buildings, thereby enhancing incentives to designers and others

-

The assessment system should be as simple as possible

-

The system should be applicable to buildings in a wide range of building tyoes

-

The system should take into consideration issues and problems peculiar to Japan and Asia.

Recently, people become highly aware of the importance of actions at the city level for the creation of low carbon societies. Countries and cities around the world have been implementing a variety of programs and policies for that purpose. CASBEE for Cities is a system for comprehensively evaluating the environmental performance of cities, using a triple bottom line approach of “environmental”, “society” and “economy”. It can objectively assess the effectiveness of the city’s policies and environmental measures. The assessment is conducted at the municipal level, the foundation of a society. In order to clearly define the assessment target, a hypothetical boundary is set around the city (municipality) to be evaluated, so that a hypothetical closed space in three dimensions is created around the city. The higher the Q value representing quality and the lower the L value representing environmental load on the external environment are, the higher the BEE (the Built Efficiency = Q/L) value becomes, which indicates that the city is highly regarded for its excellent environmental efficiency.

New Construction Theme Methodology Objectives

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? CASBEE is a method of assessing and rating the environmental performance of a built environment. When evaluating environmental performance, environmental 85


concern is a major perspective, but ensuring a convenient and comfortable life for dwellers and the development of the local economy should be not be overly restricted. Accordingly, CASBEE-City looks multilaterally at the quality and performance of a city from a triple bottom line perspective of the environmental, society and the economy. â&#x20AC;˘ Does it incentivise anything through its use? -

Certification/credits The labelling of buildings with superior low-carbon performance such as zero energy buildings (ZEBs), zero energy buildings (ZEHs) and with life cycle carbon minus (LCCM) houses. - Award high assessments to superior buildings - Publication of results Additional incentives: -

Benefit from energy savings

-

Reduced environmental impacts

-

Reduced maintenance costs

â&#x20AC;˘ Is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary â&#x20AC;˘ How does the assessment process work? The assessment procedure consists of the following five major steps: Current assessment of Q and L Quality (Q) within the hypothetical enclosed space and load (L) on the external environment of the space are each clearly defined, and the assessment is carried out from the Q and L sides. It is also based on multiple assessment items set according to the individual characteristics of Q and L. Results are expressed as scores rated and counted in line with a certain method and standard Methodology Assessment Process

Comprehensive assessment of environmental performance by BEE The BEE value with the concept of environmental efficiency is derived from the results of step (1) by dividing Q and L, in order to express the environmental performance of the city in a comprehensive manner. Current assessment and future assessment -

Current assessment value: The Q, L and BEE values on this point represent the current assessment of the city

-

Tendency value: Future assessment in cases when no special additional measures are taken (BAU = Business As Usual) 86


-

Future assessment value with appropriate measures in place. The Q, L and BEE values on this point represent the future assessment of the city

Calculation of the future BEE value Comparison of the current Q,L and BEE values in steps (1) and (2) with the future values in Steps (3) and (4) These comparisons are intended to determine the feasibility of improvements for achieving the citys long term goals. • Who undertakes the assessment? Multi-disciplined team of engineers, planners, architects etc. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) Unclear from the literature reviewed • Are they an independent or state body? Unclear from the literature reviewed • Who participates and who is engaged? City officials, engineers, planners, architects and building owners/operators Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Yes. -

At time of assessment

-

Year of the current assessment

-

Year of future assessment

• Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Yes, scheme would require collaboration within individual organisations, municipal bodies and relevant experts ie planners, engineers, construction professionals, landscape designers etc Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial;

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? Yes. The methodology caters for different building types and uses across the city spectrum.

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. Yes. The methodology has been designed and developed to be used on numerous building types and uses within the hypothetical boundary 87


• Community; • Other.

Shortcoming: -

Assessment indicators and manual focuses on cities in Japan. The manual states that the system should take into consideration issues and problems peculiar to Japan and Asia.

Development • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? Scales: • Building level Neigbourhood and city-scale levels • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale. • What categories are assessed by the methodology?

Methodology Assessment Criteria

- Environmental aspects - Social aspects - Economic aspect • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? Nature conservation- ratio of green and water spaces Local environmental quality- air and water Resources recycling- recycling rate of general waste CO2 absorption- CO2 absorption by forests Living environment- adequate quality of housing, traffic safety, crime prevention, disaster preparedness Social services- Adequacy of education services, adequacy of cultural services, adequacy of medical services, adequacy of childcare services Social vitality- Rate of population change due to births and deaths, rate of population change due to migration Industrial vitality- amount equivalent to gross regional products Financial viability- Tax revenues, outstanding local bonds Emission trading- Contribution in CO2 reduction in other regions. - Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? In the standard version of CASBEE-City, based on the universal concept that any city seeks a balanced, triple bottom line sustainability, weighting coefficients for the major assessment items: -

Environment

-

Society

-

economy

Both the overall categories (major assessment items ie, environment, society and 88


economy) are weighted equally. Individual criteria (minor items) are weighted equally • Is benchmarking used? The initial assessment gives the hypothetical closed space Q and L values. By dividing these values a BEE value is obtained which indicates the environmental efficiency of the space. Benchmarking of a type is done by awarding higher assessment marks to superior buildings. Scores are given based on the scoring criteria for each assessment item. These criteria applied to assessments are determined taking into consideration of the level of technical and social standards at the time of assessment The rating system has five grades: Excellent (S) Very Good(A) Good(B plus) Fairly good(B minus) Poor ( c) • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? Each assessment item, such as Q1, Q2 and Q3, is weighted so that all the weighting coefficients within the assessment category Q sum up to 1.0. The scores for each item are multiplied by the weighting coefficient, and aggregated in SQ: total scores for Q or LR, total scores for LR respectively. • What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? - Nature conservation- ratio of green and water spaces (Collected facts)

Data Requirements

-

Local environmental quality- air and water (Collected fact)

-

Resources recycling- recycling rate of general waste (Collected facts)

-

CO2 absorption- CO2 absorption by forests (Collected facts)

-

Industrial viability- amt equivalent to gross regional products (Collected facts)

-

Financial viability- Tax revenues, outstanding local bonds (Collected facts)

-

Social vitality- Rate of population change due to births and deaths, rate of population change due to migration (collected facts)

-

Emission trading- Contribution in CO2 reduction in other regions (Collected 89


facts) -

Adequate quality of housing, traffic safety, crime prevention, disaster preparedness

-

(subjective evidence) Social services- Adequacy of education services, adequacy of cultural services, adequacy of medical services, adequacy of childcare services (subjective evidence)

-

Social vitality- Rate of population change due to births and deaths, rate of population change due to migration (Subjective evidence)

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

• How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? Yes. Nature conservation, environmental quality, resources recycling with social services and financial viability. • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Yes.

Innovation

-

Efficient equipment

-

Renewable energy

-

Energy efficient transportation

-

Alternative water sources

-

recycling

-

Metering

• Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? Yes. CASBEE Development Development of CASBEE started from perception that the existing situation required a reconstruction of the current environmental performance assessment framework into a new system clearly based on the perspective of sustainably. Stage 3 in environmental assessment began when it was recognised that the capacities of local environments, and the world as a whole, were reaching a limit. As a result, the concept of closed ecosystems became essential for determining environmental capacities when conducting environmental assessment. Therefore a hypothetical enclosed space bounded by the borders of the building site In 2008, in order to facilitate active participation in CO2 reduction initiatives, improvements were made to include life cycle CO2 (LCCO2) assessment tools used 90


to evaluate efforts to reduce operating energy, a causal factor in climate change, as well as efforts that contribute to reducing embodied CO2 associated with the manufacturing of construction materials. New versions of CASBEE with assessments which explicitly include such climate-change reduction measures were published as CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition), CASBEE for Existing Building (2008 Edition) and CASBEE for Renovation (2008 Edition) In order to further promote and improve a low carbon society a 2010 edition of CASBEE for New Construction has been developed. It is stated that the new edition promotes CO2 reduction initiatives that include energy efficiency improvements, use of ecological materials and extended building lifespan. • Who is the methodology pitched at? Municipal bodies, architects, engineers, planners, construction professionals, owner and building operators • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? It communicates with stakeholder with: Ease of Use

-

Certification/credits The labelling of buildings with superior low-carbon performance such as zero energy buildings (ZEBs), zero energy buildings (ZEHs) and with life cycle carbon minus (LCCM) houses. Award high assessments to superior buildings

• How user friendly is the tool to use? The tool requires a multi-disciplinary team (ie architect, planners, engineers and construction professionals) to carry out the assessment given its scope and complexity. • How does it communicate its outputs? -

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Certification/credits The labelling of buildings with superior low-carbon performance such as zero energy buildings (ZEBs), zero energy buildings (ZEHs) and with life cycle carbon minus (LCCM) houses. • Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? No. Does not consider alternatives • Does it allow the user to test different options? No, given the nature of the assessment. (Existing Cities) • Is the methodology time intensive to use? Required assessment indicators should be available from Municipal bodies and State Agencies. However, given the scope and complexity of the assessment a substantial period of time would be required to make the assessment. 91


Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? As above.

Education

• Does the methodology include an educational element? Yes. Given the requirement to gather information on numerous assessment indicators/items • Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Yes. Given the information/ research required relating to the energy needs of buildings to make an assessment.

Market Labelling

• Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, CASBEE advertises itself as a unique Japanese system that is widely known among people engaged in construction-related businesses as an environmental performance assessment tool for buildings and that the tool will be utilized in various fields and will help enhance urban environmental improvements in harmony with global environmental issues. Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? - Certification/credits - The labelling of buildings with superior low-carbon performance such as zero energy buildings (ZEBs), zero energy buildings (ZEHs) and with life cycle carbon minus (LCCM) houses. - Award high assessments to superior buildings • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? Yes.

Evidence of Use

CASBEE Pre Design CASBEE New Construction CASBEE Existing buildings CASBEE Renovation CASBEE Heat Island CASBEE School CASBEE Property Appraisal CASBEE Neighbourhood CASBEE City • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? CASBEE was developed in 2004 by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, involving committees in academic, industrial and government sectors and its family covers housing scale, building scale, and urban scale. It is a method of assessing and rating the environmental performance of a built environment 92


Monitoring Framework

In 2008, in order to facilitate active participation in CO2 reduction initiatives, improvements were made to include life cycle CO2 (LCCO2) assessment tools used to evaluate efforts to reduce operating energy, a causal factor in climate change, as well as efforts that contribute to reducing embodied CO2 associated with the manufacturing of construction materials. New versions of CASBEE with assessments which explicitly include such climate-change reduction measures were published as CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition), CASBEE for Existing Building (2008 Edition) and CASBEE for Renovation (2008 Edition) In order to further promote and improve a low carbon society a 2010 edition of CASBEE for New Construction has been developed. It is stated that the new edition promotes CO2 reduction initiatives that include energy efficiency improvements, use of ecological materials and extended building lifespan. â&#x20AC;˘ Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Yes. As above. CASBEE was developed in 2004 by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, involving committees in academic, industrial and government sectors and its family covers housing scale, building scale, and urban scale. It is a method of assessing and rating the environmental performance of a built environment In 2008, in order to facilitate active participation in CO2 reduction initiatives, improvements were made to include life cycle CO2 (LCCO2) assessment tools used to evaluate efforts to reduce operating energy, a causal factor in climate change, as well as efforts that contribute to reducing embodied CO2 associated with the manufacturing of construction materials. New versions of CASBEE with assessments which explicitly include such climate-change reduction measures were published as CASBEE for New Construction (2008 Edition), CASBEE for Existing Building (2008 Edition) and CASBEE for Renovation (2008 Edition) In order to further promote and improve a low carbon society a 2010 edition of CASBEE for New Construction has been developed. It is stated that the new edition promotes CO2 reduction initiatives that include energy efficiency improvements, use of ecological materials and extended building lifespan. CASBEE City (Edition) 2012 released to be used a technical guideline.

93


8.6 Appendix F– Methodology evaluation: Energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki This tool (Hedman et al., 2014a)was developed specifically for use within Finland, with a focus on energy at the city district scale. This tool has only been recently developed as a prototype and therefore has had limited impact. It is not included here as a comparison to BREEAM or similar internationally established methodologies per se, but as a more energy specific tool that has been developed to provide a rapid response tool that requires less knowledge and experience compared to BREEAM or LEED. Due to recent development of this tool and the fact that it has been independently by a Finnish research centre and is designed specifically for the Finnish context, there are many questions below which will not be applicable.

Energy efficiency rating tool for districts in Helsinki Theme

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components?

Methodology Objectives

According to the Headman et al (2014a) many existing methodologies such as BREAAM Communities, LEED Neighbourhood or CASBEE for Cities are too complex and too time intensive for many city planners to user. In response they have developed “An easy to use tool for the assessment of the energy efficiency of detailed city plans was developed. The aim of the tool is for city planners to easily be able to assess the energy efficiency of the proposed detailed city plan and to be able to compare the impacts of changes in the plan. The tool is designed to be used with no in-depth knowledge about energy or building technology. With a wide use of the tool many missed opportunities for improving energy efficiency can be avoided. It will provide better opportunities for sustainable solutions leading to less harmful environmental impact and reduced emissions”. (Hedman et al., 2014a.p.1) For the purposes of the tool the authors consider the ‘Detail city plan’ as a ‘District’ and this district becomes the unit of analysis. The authors also state that the tool is primarily aimed at city planners

• Does it incentivise anything through its use? As it focuses on city planners the main incentive is for city planners to produce more energy efficient Detailed city plans as part of the mandatory urban planning process in Finland. • Is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary ( and still only at prototype development)

94


• How does the assessment process work? The tool is a spread sheet based methodology with five main categories to be completed by the user which include 1) Buildings, 2) Electricity production in the district, 3) Transport solutions, 4) Distances to everyday services, 5) Workplaces. The information for each category is input for an entire district, along with the surface area of the district, the totalsfloor area of buildings, the number of residents, and the number of apartments. Once this information is input, the tool produces an energy efficiency result for the entire district similar to the energy efficiency rating of buildings, based on A,B,C,D,E, F, G ratings. Methodology Assessment Process

• Who undertakes the assessment? A city planner. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) It is not formally reviewed by a third party but instead functions as an internal decision support tool within the local authority. • Are they an independent or state body? Not applicable • Who participates and who is engaged? The process is principally completed by the city planner without any external engagement.

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Not specifically - it will not give you different results based on the stage of the project. It can however be used at any stage where all the relevant information is available • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Not specifically

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified?

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhood • City-scale. Methodology Assessment

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings.

Not specifically – it does not take into account whether something is new or existing, but again as long as the relevant information is available it can be used.

Yes – it is designed for district wide use and therefore all development types.

• Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? No – it is designed for district use only.

• What categories are assessed by the methodology?

95


Criteria

As outlined above, the following categories are covered; Buildings Electricity production in the district Transport solutions Distances to everyday services Workplaces ( number of remote workstations and number of workplaces in district) • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas?     

Buildings  Building energy - determined using the energy efficiency ratings available for most buildings (certain historic and religious buildings not rated), where such ratings are mandatory as part of energy labelling regulations (A,B,C,D,E,F, or G)

Electricity production in the district electricity generated from renewable in the district (% of overall electricity)

   

Transportation solutions % Centralised car parking at edges (present or not) Public Transport stops (present or not) Bicycle routes (present or not) Bike storage and parking facilities (present or not)

   

Distances to everyday services Grocery store (km) Health centre clinic (km) School (km) Daycare (km) Distances to everyday services Workplaces ( number of remote workstations and number of workplaces in district)

- Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? No • Is benchmarking used? Yes, the energy efficiency classes A,B,C,D,E,F, or G based on kWh/m2 for the entire district building where;    

A – 0- 154 kWh/m2 B – 155- 208 kWh/m2 C– 209- 154 kWh/m2 D – 155- 208 kWh/m2

96


  

E – 0- 154 kWh/m2 F – 155- 208 kWh/m2 G – 155- 208 kWh/m2

• How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? It doesn’t

Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? See above. • How are they measured? Available within the programme as default values. • How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? No – it is purely energy based • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Not specifically- other than encouraging a more energy efficient Detailed City Plan

Innovation

• Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? No – currently has set criteria ( however it is still at prototype stage) • Who is the methodology pitched at? City planners • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently?

Ease of Use

A,B,C,D,E,F, or G rating aligns with the established building rating so is well understood by various stakeholders • How user friendly is the tool to use? It is quite user friendly for city planners who would have much of the required information to hand. • How does it communicate its outputs? Through the A,B,C,D,E,F, or G classification system

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? Solutions/ Option Yes, is designed so that planners can quickly input different energy based solutions, however at the moment there are currently a limited set of parameters but it is still at Development prototype stage.

97


• Does it allow the user to test different options? Yes – see above • Is the methodology time intensive to use? No – it looks like it could be completed in a few hours with all information to hand. Timeliness

• Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? No – much of the information should be already available to city planners • Does the methodology include an educational element? No

Education

Market Labelling

• Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Not really - it is specifically aimed at city planners and other professionals who have limited knowledge of energy • Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Not really - could be used by a local authority for this reason but it is not one of the main objectives • Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? No –however it is still at prototype stage

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

• Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? No –however it is still at prototype stage • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Not applicable • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Not applicable • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Not applicable

98


8.7 Appendix Gâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Methodology evaluation: Green Globes Schemes Green Globes is one such tool and is advertised as a well established green building guidance and assessment program that offers ways to advance the environmental performance and sustainability of a variety of building types. Suitable for new construction and renovation building projects, the Green Globes NC program includes: -

Environmental assessment protocol

-

Online software tools

-

Best practices guidance for construction and operations

-

Rating/certification system

Green Globes for Existing Buildings Green Globes for Existing Buildings is a web application that aids building owners and property managers in the evaluation, documentation and improvement of the environmental performance of their buildings. Using this tool enables building teams to focus on sustainability, giving them options when considering capital improvements or implementation of best practices and allows them to benchmark and rate benefits of various building attributes and procedures.

Existing Buildings Theme

Methodology Objectives

Guiding Questions â&#x20AC;˘ What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? Utilizing entries entered into the CIEB survey, the tool provides an automatically generated report that can help evaluate opportunities to benefit from energy savings, reduced environmental impacts, integrated corporate goals and practices, and lower costs for maintenance. â&#x20AC;˘ Does it incentivise anything through its use? Client may obtain a Green Globes certification and rating for their environmental sustainability and achievements. Buildings that successfully complete a third party assessment are assigned a rating of one to four Green Globes, which is reflected in a plaque issued by the GBI Additional incentives: -

Benefit from energy savings

-

Reduced environmental impacts

-

Reduced maintenance costs 99


• Is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary

Methodology Assessment Process

• How does the assessment process work? Green Globes for Existing Buildings utilizes a weighted criterion in a recognised assessment protocol, assessing building environmental impacts on a 1,000 point scale in six categories. Each of these categories has an assigned number of points that quantify overall building performance. The scheme follows the same areas of assessment as Green Globes for New Buildings but does not include the section on Site Impact. Users can evaluate their systems based on the amount of applicable points in each category. The process is questionnaire-driven and users are walked thought a sequence of outline questions. Once the questionnaire is completed a report is generated that provides a list of achievements along with recommendations for sustainable building strategies. • Who undertakes the assessment? Expert with relevant qualifications in sustainable energy • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) Building assessments are preformed by a third-party, GBI –authorized assessor with expertise in green building design, engineering, construction and facility operations. The verifier performs an on site assessment of the building to ensure that the selfreported claims made in the outline documentation are verified and to suggest how to achieve different levels of certifications. • Are they an independent or state body? Third-party, GBI –authorized assessor with expertise in green building design, engineering, construction and facility operations • Who participates and who is engaged? Third parties, project teams and building owners/operators

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? N/A • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working?

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? N/A

Yes, scheme would require the collaboration within an organisation ie, planners, engineers, construction professionals, landscape designers etc

100


Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other.

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. No. Eligible buildings must: -

Score a minimum 35% of a total applicable points through preliminary selfevaluation Have at least 12 consecutive months of operational energy and water data Have conditioned space Be at least 400sqf in size

Development • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? Scales: N/A • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale. • What categories are assessed by the methodology? Energy Water Resources Emissions Indoor Environment Environmental Management • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas?

Methodology Assessment Criteria

-Performance, efficiency, management, CO2, Transportation -Performance, conservation, treatment -Waste reduction, recycling -Boilers, water effluent, hazmat -Air quality, lighting, noise -EMS documentation, purchasing, environmental awareness • Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? Yes. Energy receives 350 of the total 1000 points. Each of the categories has an assigned number of points that qualify overall building performance including a comprehensive approach to Energy Performance and an objective method for Life Cycle Assessment. • Is benchmarking used? Yes. 85-100% - 4 Globes- Demonstrates national leadership and excellence in the practice of energy, water and environmental efficiency 101


70- 84% - 3 Globes – Demonstrates leadership in applying best practices regarding water , energy and environmental efficiency 55-69% - 2 Globes- Demonstrates excellent progress in the reduction of environmental impacts and use of environmental efficiency practices 35-54% - 1 Globe- Demonstrates a commitment to environmental efficiency practices. • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? Energy - 350 points Water - 80 points Resources - 110 points Emissions - 175 points Indoor Environment - 185 points Environmental Management -100 points • What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? - Energy usage relating to lighting, heating, electricity etc (collected facts) Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

-

Environmental impact assessment (collected facts)

-

Construction methods and materials (collected facts)

-

Water consumption using metering etc (collected facts)

-

Design specifications (collected facts)

• How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? Building level- water, waste, emissions, planting, exterior lighting Existing building projects , place making principles not applicable. • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Yes.

Innovation

-

Efficient equipment

-

Renewable energy

-

Energy efficient transportation

-

Alternative water sources

-

Metering

• Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? Yes. 102


New version of Green Globes for New Construction Launched in June 2013. The program includes:

Ease of Use

-

New criteria developed by an ANSI-Approved consensus body

-

Increased focus on Energy, with four paths for energy performance

-

Increased focus on Materials and Resources

-

Emphasis on life cycle assessment A new approach assessing building assemblies, furnishings, finishes and fit out by utilizing multi-attribute certifications, and/or third party assessments by approved standards development organizations White Papers, Green Globes for Construction

-

A/A Approved Course. Free 60 minute recorded online Webinar

• Who is the methodology pitched at? Owners, building operators, architects, engineers, construction professionals How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? It communicates with all stakeholder with the use of one to four Green Globes which is reflected in a certificate and plaque issued by the GBI. • How user friendly is the tool to use? The tool may be user friendly to an expert in this field (ie architect, construction professional) but a non qualified person may have difficulty obtaining the required information relating environmental performance of the building to use the tool constructively. • How does it communicate its outputs? -

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Certification Green Globes Plague

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? N/A • Does it allow the user to test different options? The system enables project teams to focus on sustainability, giving them options when considering capital improvements or the implementation of best practices • Is the methodology time intensive to use? After meeting the eligibility requirements, existing buildings may seek Green Globes certification and rating for their environmental sustainability and achievements. • Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? 103


Approximately 2 weeks to source the required information to make the assessment.

• Does the methodology include an educational element? Yes.The Green Globes Professionals program (GGP) is a network of certified individuals trained to manage the Green Globes assessment and certification process. These industry professionals may act as consultants on Green Globes projects, facilitate the building certification, provide project management for their clients or employees, or make recommendations on how to achieve different ratings. The GGP curriculum covers green building concepts, Green Globes assessment protocols, Green Globes rating and certification and case studies. Each lesson includes an outline presentation, study guide and quiz; the course also includes a final certification test. Building professionals who successfully complete the course and pass the final test become Green Globe Certified. • Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Yes. Given the information/ research required relating to the energy needs/performance of the building to make an assessment.

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

• Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, Green Globes advertises itself as a well established green building guidance and assessment program that offers a practical and affordable way to advance the environmental performance and sustainability of a wide variety of building types • Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? Buildings that successfully complete a third party assessment are assigned a rating of one to four Green Globes, which is reflected in a certificate or optional plague issued by the GBI. • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? The Green Globes website states that the program is a well established and has been used to improve operations and management in existing buildings, campuses and nationwide building portofolios and that Green Globes has been used to on-site assess over 200 existing hospitals and long term buildings, more than any other sustainability program in the U.S. • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Green Globes originated from a system started in 1990 in the Unit Kingdom called BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). In an effort to make the tool more user-friendly, the Building Research Establishment , merged the BREEAM strandard with a questionnaire based tool. Later, it was converted to a wed-based format and renamed Green Globes. The Green Globes Initiative acquired the U.S rights to the Canadian Green Globes building assessment and certification program in 2004 and adapted it for the US 104


market as an alternative to the LEED building rating systems. In 2005, the GBI was accredited as a standards developer through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The GBI developed the ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings to guide the development of Green Globes products. In 2011 the GBI developed the Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles for Sustainable Buildings as required by Executive Order 13515 signed in 2009 • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Yes. New version of Green Globes for New Construction Launched in June 2013. The program includes:

Monitoring Framework

-

New criteria developed by an ANSI-Approved consensus body

-

Increased focus on Energy, with four paths for energy performance

-

Increased focus on Materials and Resources

-

Emphasis on life cycle assessment A new approach assessing building assemblies, furnishings, finishes and fit out by utilizing multi-attribute certifications, and/or third party assessments by approved standards development organizations White Papers, Green Globes for Construction

-

A/A Approved Course. Free 60 minute recorded online Webinar

In June 2011, the GBI launched the Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings program for Healthcare (CIEB-Healthcare) tailored to existing hospital and long term care facilities. The program is based on the Green Globes – CIEB program • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Green Globes originated from a system started in 1990 in the Unit Kingdom called BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). In an effort to make the tool more user-friendly, the Building Research Establishment , merged the BREEAM strandard with a questionnaire based tool. Later, it was converted to a wed-based format and renamed Green Globes. The Green Globes Initiative acquired the U.S rights to the Canadian Green Globes building assessment and certification program in 2004 and adapted it for the US market as an alternative to the LEED building rating systems. In 2005, the GBI was accredited as a standards developer through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The GBI developed the ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings to guide the development of Green Globes products. In 2011 the GBI developed the Guiding Principles Compliance 105


Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles for Sustainable Buildings as required by Executive Order 13515 signed in 2009

106


Green Globes for New Construction Green Globes for New Construction is a web based application that aids professionals in evaluating, quantifying and improving the environmental friendliness and sustainability of new building projects by allowing teams to evaluate and rate the benefits of different design scenarios. Utilizing entries into the New Construction Survey and weighted criteria, the application generates reports to evaluate opportunities to benefit from energy savings, reducing environmental impacts and lower costs for maintenance.

New Construction Theme

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? To provide guidance and assessment program that offers a practical and affordable way to advance the environmental performance and sustainability of a wide variety of building types. Suitable for new construction and major renovation building projects.

Methodology Objectives

• Does it incentivise anything through its use? Client may obtain a Green Globes certification and rating for their environmental sustainability and achievements. Buildings that successfully complete a third party assessment are assigned a rating of one to four Green Globes, which is reflected in a plaque issued by the GBI Additional incentives: -

Benefit from energy savings

-

Reduced environmental impacts

-

Reduced maintenance costs

• Is it mandatory or voluntary? Voluntary

Methodology Assessment Process

• How does the assessment process work? Green Globes for New Construction utilizes a weighted criterion in a recognised assessment protocol, assessing building environmental impacts on a 1,000 point scale in seven categories. Each of these categories has an assigned number of points that quantify overall building performance. The scheme is carried out in two stages for assessment and certification. The preliminary assessment occurs after concept design when construction documents are available, while the final assessment occurs after construction. Users can evaluate their systems based on the amount of applicable points in each categories. The process is questionnaire-driven and users are walked thought a sequence of outline questions. Once the questionnaire is completed a report is generated that provides a list of achievements along with recommendations for sustainable building strategies. • Who undertakes the assessment? Expert with relevant qualifications in sustainable energy • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or

107


similar as part of the final evaluation) Building assessments are preformed by a third-party, GBI –authorized assessor with expertise in green building design, engineering, construction and facility operations. The verifier performs an on site assessment of the building to ensure that the self-reported claims made in the outline documentation are verified and to suggest how to achieve different levels of certifications. • Are they an independent or state body? Third-party, GBI –authorized assessor with expertise in green building design, engineering, construction and facility operations • Who participates and who is engaged? Third parties, project teams and building owners/operators Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Yes. -

Project initiation (outline questionnaire)

-

Design (Stage 1: 3rd Party Assessment)

-

Construction (Finalize Online Questionnaire) Stage 2: 3rd Party Assessment)

-

Commissioning (Post Assessment)

-

Occupancy (Certification and Recognition)

• Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Yes, scheme would require the collaboration within an organisation ie, planners, engineers, construction professionals, landscape designers etc Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other.

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? Yes. The methodology covers new building, existing buildings, major renovations etc

Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhood • City-scale. Methodology

• Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? Appears to be building specific/level only

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. No. Eligible buildings must: -

Score a minimum 35% of a total applicable points through preliminary selfevaluation Have no more than 18 months of occupancy at the time assessment is ordered Be at least 400sqf in size

• What categories are assessed by the methodology?

108


Assessment Criteria

Project mgt Site Energy Water Materials and Resources Emissions Indoor Environment • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? -Integrated Design Process, meetings, performance goals, environmental mgt, Commissioning -Development Area, Ecological impacts, Stormwater Mgt, Landscaping, Exterior Light Pollution -Performance, Demand ,Metering, Measurement and Verification, Building Opaque Envelope, Lighting, HVAC Systems and Controls, Efficient Equipment, Renewable Energy, Energy Efficient Transportation -Consumption, Cooling Towers, Boilers and Water Heaters, Water Intensive Applications, Treatment, Alternate Sources, Metering and Irrigation -Building Assembly, Interior Fit-outs, Re-use, Waste, Building Service Life Plan, Resource Conservation, Building Envelope -Heating , Ozone-depleting Potential, Global Warming Potential -Ventilation, Source Control and Measurement, lighting Design and Systems • Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? Yes. Energy receives 390 of the total 1000 points. Each of the categories has an assigned number of points that qualify overall building performance including a comprehensive approach to Energy Performance and an objective method for Life Cycle Assessment. • Is benchmarking used? Yes. 85-100% - 4 Globes- Demonstrates national leadership and excellence in the practice of energy, water and environmental efficiency 70- 84% - 3 Globes – Demonstrates leadership in applying best practices regarding water , energy and environmental efficiency 55-69% - 2 Globes- Demonstrates excellent progress in the reduction of environmental impacts and use of environmental efficiency practices 35-54% - 1 Globe- Demonstrates a commitment to environmental efficiency practices. • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? Project management - 50 points Site - 115 points Energy - 390 points Water - 110 points Materials and resources - 125 points Emissions - 50 points Indoor environment - 160 points

109


• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? - Energy usage relating to lighting, heating, electricity etc (collected facts) Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

-

Environmental impact assessment (collected facts)

-

Construction methods and materials (collected facts)

-

Water consumption using metering etc (collected facts)

-

Design specifications (collected facts)

• How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? Building level- water, waste, emissions, planting, exterior lighting Single building projects , place making principles not applicable. • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Yes.

Innovation

Ease of Use

-

Efficient equipment

-

Renewable energy

-

Energy efficient transportation

-

Alternative water sources

-

Metering

• Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? Yes. New version of Green Globes for New Construction Launched in June 2013. The program includes: -

New criteria developed by an ANSI-Approved consensus body

-

Increased focus on Energy, with four paths for energy performance

-

Increased focus on Materials and Resources

-

Emphasis on life cycle assessment A new approach assessing building assemblies, furnishings, finishes and fit out by utilizing multi-attribute certifications, and/or third party assessments by approved standards development organizations White Papers, Green Globes for Construction

-

A/A Approved Course. Free 60 minute recorded online Webinar

• Who is the methodology pitched at? Architects, engineers, planners, construction professionals, owner and building operators • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? It communicates with all stakeholder with the use of one to four Green Globes which is reflected in a certificate and plaque issued by the GBI. • How user friendly is the tool to use? The tool may be user friendly to an expert in this field (ie architect, construction

110


professional) but a non qualified person may not have the required information environmental performance and sustainability to use the tool constructively. • How does it communicate its outputs? -

Certification Green Globes Plague

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? No. Does not consider alternatives Solutions/ Option • Does it allow the user to test different options? The system enables project teams to focus on sustainability, giving them options when Development considering environmental improvements during the design and delivery process and allows teams to evaluate and rate the benefits of different design scenarios.

Timeliness

• Is the methodology time intensive to use? 4- 6 weeks is the timeline associated with the assessment and certification of a Green Globes construction project. • Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? Approximately 2 weeks to source the required information to make the assessment.

Education

• Does the methodology include an educational element? The Green Globes Professionals program (GGP) is a network of certified individuals trained to manage the Green Globes assessment and certification process. These industry professionals may act as consultants on Green Globes projects, facilitate the building certification, provide project management for their clients or employees, or make recommendations on how to achieve different ratings. The GGP curriculum covers green building concepts, Green Globes assessment protocols, Green Globes rating and certification and case studies. Each lesson includes an outline presentation, study guide and quiz; the course also includes a final certification test. Building professionals who successfully complete the course and pass the final test become Green Globe Certified. • Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Yes. Given the information/ research required relating to the energy needs of the building to make an assessment.

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

• Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, Green Globes advertises itself as a well established green building guidance and assessment program that offers a practical and affordable way to advance the environmental performance and sustainability of a wide variety of building types • Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? Buildings that successfully complete a third party assessment are assigned a rating of one to four Green Globes, which is reflected in a certificate or optional plague issued by the GBI. • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? The Green Globes website states that the program is a well established and has been used to improve operations and management in existing buildings, campuses and nationwide building portofolios and that Green Globes has been used to on-site assess over 200 existing hospitals and long term buildings, more than any other sustainability program in the U.S. • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Green Globes originated from a system started in 1990 in the Unit Kingdom called BREEAM

111


(Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). In an effort to make the tool more user-friendly, the Building Research Establishment , merged the BREEAM strandard with a questionnaire based tool. Later, it was converted to a wed-based format and renamed Green Globes. The Green Globes Initiative acquired the U.S rights to the Canadian Green Globes building assessment and certification program in 2004 and adapted it for the US market as an alternative to the LEED building rating systems. In 2005, the GBI was accredited as a standards developer through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The GBI developed the ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings to guide the development of Green Globes products. In 2011 the GBI developed the Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles for Sustainable Buildings as required by Executive Order 13515 signed in 2009 • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Yes. New version of Green Globes for New Construction Launched in June 2013. The program includes:

Monitoring Framework

-

New criteria developed by an ANSI-Approved consensus body

-

Increased focus on Energy, with four paths for energy performance

-

Increased focus on Materials and Resources

-

Emphasis on life cycle assessment A new approach assessing building assemblies, furnishings, finishes and fit out by utilizing multi-attribute certifications, and/or third party assessments by approved standards development organizations White Papers, Green Globes for Construction

-

A/A Approved Course. Free 60 minute recorded online Webinar

In June 2011, the GBI launched the Green Globes Continual Improvement of Existing Buildings program for Healthcare (CIEB-Healthcare) tailored to existing hospital and long term care facilities. The program is based on the Green Globes – CIEB program • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Green Globes originated from a system started in 1990 in the Unit Kingdom called BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method). In an effort to make the tool more user-friendly, the Building Research Establishment , merged the BREEAM strandard with a questionnaire based tool. Later, it was converted to a wed-based format and renamed Green Globes. The Green Globes Initiative acquired the U.S rights to the Canadian Green Globes building assessment and certification program in 2004 and adapted it for the US market as an alternative to the LEED building rating systems. In 2005, the GBI was accredited as a standards developer through the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). The GBI developed the ANSI/GBI 01-2010: Green Building Assessment Protocol for Commercial Buildings to guide the development of Green Globes products. In 2011 the GBI developed the Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles Compliance Program (GPC) to measure compliance with the Federal Guiding Principles for Sustainable Buildings as required by Executive Order 13515 signed in 2009

112


113


8.8 Appendix H – Methodology evaluation: Green Star Schemes

Green Star Theme

Methodology Objectives

Methodology Assessment Process

Guiding Questions •What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? Green Star was developed for the property industry in order to: establish a common language set a standard of measurement for built environment sustainability promote integrated, holistic design; recognise environmental leadership; identify and improve life-cycle impacts; and raise awareness of the benefits of sustainable design, construction and urban planning. •Does it incentivise anything through its use? A Green Star rating offers more than reduced environmental impact and cost savings. Your Green Star project can unlock real marketing opportunities for your organisation. Marketing your Green Star project can generate a range of benefits and publicity for your organisation, including: Positive brand recognition for your project and company. Competitive advantage by differentiating your project in the marketplace Greater awareness of the environmental initiatives among your staff, clients and other stakeholders. •Is it mandatory or voluntary? Green Star is a comprehensive, national, voluntary environmental rating system that evaluates the environmental design and construction of buildings and communities. With more than 7.2 million square metres of Green Star-certified space around Australia, and a further 8 million square metres of Green Star-registered space, Green Star is transforming Australia's built environment. •How does the assessment process work? Green Star – Performance assesses your building's operations against nine categories: management, indoor environment quality, energy, transport, water, materials, Land use and ecology, emissions, innovation. Based on this independent, third-party assessment, you gain a Green Star certified rating ranging from 1 Star Green Star – representing 'Minimum Practice'through to 6 Star Green Star – representing 'World Leadership'in sustainable building operations. •Who undertakes the assessment? The Green Star Continuing Professional Development (CPD)program provides built environment professionals with a range of qualification options that reflect and 114


support the diverse and specialised nature of the Green Star project work they undertake. An Assessment Panel consists of Certified Assessors, an Independent Chair and a GBCA representative. Each Certified Assessor will review the entire submission in their own time and meet to discuss the results of their review. The Independent Chair mediates this discussion to ensure the assessment process is followed and that all projects are assessed equitably. A GBCA representative will also be present during each Assessment to record the results. •Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) Green Star – Performance assesses the operational performance of buildings allowing owners and managers to identify opportunities for improvement and make informed decisions about how to generate greater efficiencies and reduce the environmental impacts of their assets. Green Star - Performance ratings are valid for three years. Ongoing monitoring throughout the three year certification period will allow you to undertake re-assessment and re-certification once the certification period is up. •Are they an independent or state body? The GBCA is a national, not-for-profit organisation that is committed to developing a sustainable property industry for Australia by encouraging the adoption of green building practices. •Who participates and who is engaged? The GBCA has over 750 member companies who work together to support the Council and its activities. Our membership base is drawn from a diverse crosssection of developers, local, state and federal governments, owners, professional services firms, investors, manufacturers, suppliers and distributors, facility and asset managers, universities, professional societies, utilities and contractors. Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

•Does the methodology cover the different project stages? Developers (private and public) register development projects for certification under the rating tool and implement various initiatives throughout the planning, design, and construction phases to achieve benchmarks (or ‘credits’) under each of the framework principles - governance, liveability, design, economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and innovation. •Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Green Star Certification is a formal process which involves a project using a Green Star rating tool to guide the design or construction process during which a documentation-based submission is collated as proof of this achievement. There are two (2) rounds of Assessment available to a project in which to achieve validation of credits claimed. Project teams are notified of their score based on the recommendation of the Assessment Panel and, where applicable, of any 115


innovation credits that have been awarded by the GBCA. If a Certified Rating is awarded, the project will receive a framed certificate, award letter, marketing kit and relevant Green Star logos. Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

•Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? The Green Star rating system assesses the sustainability of projects at all stages of the built environment lifecycle. Ratings can be achieved at the planning phase for communities, during the design, construction or fitout phase of buildings, or during the ongoing operational phase. The system considers assesses and rates buildings, fitouts and communities against a range of environmental impact categories, and aims to encourage leadership in environmentally sustainable design and construction, showcase innovation in sustainable building practices, and consider occupant health, productivity and operational cost savings. Certifying a property using Green Star – Performance can make an older building more competitive with the many new Green Star-certified buildings being designed and built, helping to mitigate the risk of obsolescence in older properties.

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other.

•Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. Since the GBCA launched the first Green Star rating tool for offices in 2003, we have focused on the design and construction of new and refurbished buildings – just a fraction of the market. Now we’re tackling the far greater challenge of ‘greening’ our existing building stock. Green Star – Performance will establish best practice benchmarks for the operations of a range of building types, and for buildings with or without Green Star Design &As Built ratings. The rating tool won’t just be limited to offices. Green Star – Performance will also be applicable to schools, universities, shopping centres and industrial facilities, and will be used toidentify areas for incremental improvement. In the future, Green Star – Performance will be able to assess many other building uses.

Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

•Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? The Green Star – Communities Guide is a resource for local governments to encourage community development projects in their local government areas (LGAs) that will enhance liveability, contribute to local economic prosperity and deliver sustainable outcomes. The guide is a valuable resource for local government staff across a range of disciplines, including: •Master planning; •Strategic planning; •Town planning; 116


•Development control; •Social planning; •Sustainability and environment; •Economics; •Asset management.

Methodology Assessment Criteria

•What categories are assessed by the methodology? The categories evaluated by the methodology are: •Environmental Management; •Green Cleaning; •Commitment to Performance; •Indoor Environment Quality; •Quality of Indoor Air; •Lighting Comfort; •Daylight &Views ; •Thermal Comfort ; •Acoustic Comfort ; •Occupant Comfort and Satisfaction; •Energy; •Greenhouse Gas Emissions; •Peak Electricity Demand; •Transport; •Alternative Transport Program; •Transport Modes Survey; •Water; •Potable Water; •Fire Protection Testing Water; •Materials; •Procurement and Purchasing; •Waste from Operations; •Waste from Refurbishments; •Land Use and Ecology; •Ecological Value; •Groundskeeping Practices; •Emissions; •Stormwater; •Light Pollution; •Impacts from Refrigeration; •Innovation. •What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? The criteria can be depending on the type of category: meter readings, national or international standards (eg ISO) or good building practices. •How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types 117


and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? The criteria are different for the different states of development (design, construction and use of the property), the criteria of the different categories can be balanced.

Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

•What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? The data for the evaluation can be objective type, for example, meter readings and / or subjective, for example the data occupant comfort and satisfaction. In order for a building to operate at its optimum performance level, continuous and effective best practice tuning, commissioning, recommissioning and retrocommissioning processes must be undertaken throughout the building lifecycle. The ‘Tuning and Commissioning’ credit awards points for the implementation of a continuous and comprehensive tuning process for nominated building systems during the performance period and subsequent certification period. •How are they measured? Through metering and monitoring systems, facilities management teams can monitor water and energy use, conduct audits and manage consumption. Effective monitoring and metering strategies also offer a solid method for detecting leaks in water and energy systems, and are an effective means by which to fine tune operational procedures. The ‘Ongoing Monitoring and Metering’ credit rewards the installation of water and energy meters and the implementation of metering and monitoring strategies that inform facilities management teams about usage patterns for their building. The credit rewards both a basic monitoring strategy that relies on regular readings, and an automated monitoring strategy that relies on automated data collection and interpretation. •How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? In the context of Green Star – Performance, effective environmental management involves the identification, management and reduction of negative impacts to the environment that result from a building’s operation. Comprehensive, site specific oversight mechanisms and the implementation of appropriate environmental management systems assist facilities management teams to monitor, track and report on the environmental impacts associated with the operation of their building. Using this information, facilities management teams can take action to mitigate or minimise negative impacts where necessary and identify opportunities for ongoing improvement. The ‘Environmental Management’ credit awards points where a comprehensive, site specific Environmental Management Plan (EMP) has been implemented and adhered to by subcontractors throughout the performance period. Additional points are awarded where teams can demonstrate a formalised, systematic and methodical approach to the planning,implementation and ongoing 118


review of the EMP. Further points are available when the formalised management system has been certified by a third-party organisation. Third-party certifiers must be members of the International Accreditation Forum and be able to provide independent verification of International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) standards, or Australian Standard equivalents. •Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Project Specific Queries are submitted when project teams require GBCA approval for an issue that has arisen during the certification process for their project. Credit Interpretation (CIR) Request To provide a formal process through which project teams can propose an alternative yet equivalent method of meeting credit aims.

Innovation

•Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? It is through creative ideas, and the pioneering application of these ideas, that the built environment will progress to more sustainable and greener outcomes. This category relates to innovative technologies or processes in building operations, improvements on Green Star benchmarks, exceeding the scope of Green Star, or taking on what will be known as ‘Green Star Challenges’. These challenges will be designed to encourage building owners and operators to go beyond best practice and develop more stringent environmental requirements for the continuous improvement of Green Star – Performance. •Who is the methodology pitched at? The communication is specific to the various stakeholders, in particular for designers on the website which is an entire section reserved for training, both for companies that want to invest in a green project which is dedicated to a guide in which I explained all ways in which you can exploit the results of a project.

Ease of Use

•How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? The Green Star Program Continuing Professional Development (CPD) provides professionals of the built environment, with a range of qualification options that reflect and support the diverse and specialized nature of the work of Green Star project they undertake. The Green Star Marketing Kits &Style Guide describes all the ways in which you can exploit the results of your project, how you can work with us to promote the certification, and the best methods to get the word within their corporate networks. •How user friendly is the tool to use? In a first for Green Star, this rating tool will be accessed via a simple and easy to use online format. 119


Assessments will be quick and easy, so gaining a Green Star – Performance rating will be a cost-effective and efficient process. •How does it communicate its outputs? The Green Star Project Directory (www.gbca.org.au/project-directory.asp) provides information on registered and certified projects that have provided the Green Building Council of Australia with written permission to promote their achievements.

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

•Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? Project Specific Queries are submitted when project teams require GBCA approval for an issue that has arisen during the certification process for their project. Such queries are formally lodged through the Project Manager Portal. Credit Interpretation (CIR) Request:To provide a formal process through which project teams can propose an alternative yet equivalent method of meeting credit aims. •Does it allow the user to test different options? The ‘Commitment to Performance’ credit rewards meaningful engagement and collaboration between building owners and occupants to set, monitor and share environmental targets. The credit acknowledges that optimum building performance is more easily realised when building owners and occupants work together to achieve set targets and implement improvement strategies.

•Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? The data can be collected during the construction and early years of use of the building. The data collection can last several years. The activity of collecting objective data takes up little time, but must be repeated over the years. •Does the methodology include an educational element? A vital part of the Green Building Council of Australia's (GBCA's) role is to educate built environment professionals on green building, and the application of the Green Star sustainability rating system.

Education

•Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? It’s no longer enough to say your company operates responsibly and sustainably – employees, customers and the wider community are increasingly expecting organisations to walk the talk, and demonstrate their sustainable approach. A Green Star – Performance rating is the third-party tick of approval you need to show that you are meeting your sustainability obligations. Green Star – Performance also gives you the opportunity to shape the future of sustainable 120


building management by rewarding your innovation and commitment to sustainable leadership.

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

•Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? The Building Better Returns report, published by the Australian Property Institute and Property Funds Association, found that Green Star-rated buildings are delivering a 12% ‘green premium’ in value and a 5% premium in rent, when compared to nonrated buildings. Similarly, the IPD Green Investment Index, developed in conjunction with the Property Council of Australia, indicates that in the two years to March 2011, Green Star-rated office buildings outperformed non-rated buildings. Star Green Starrated buildings (signifying ‘Best Practice’) delivered a 10.8% return over the two years to March, compared with a 4% return for non-rated buildings. Capitalisation rates were on average around 30 basis points lower than nonrated buildings. According to IPD’s Research Manager, Peter McGuinness: “Lower cap rates are consistent with capital value stability and indicate that Green Starrated assets have less investment risk.” •Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? The system considers assesses and rates buildings, fitouts and communities against a range of environmental impact categories, and aims to encourage leadership in environmentally sustainable design and construction, showcase innovation in sustainable building practices, and consider occupant health, productivity and operational cost savings. •If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Green Building Council of Australia. Based on this independent,third-party assessment, you gain a Green Star certified rating ranging from: 1 Star Green Star - representing ‘Minimum Practice’, through to 6 Star Green Star – representing ‘World Leadership’ in sustainable building operations. Green Star – Performance certifications are valid for three years. Ongoing monitoring of your building’s operational performance throughout the three year certification period will allow you to undertake re-assessment and re-certification once the certification period is up. •Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? The motivation for green buildings does not end with purely financial benefits. It extends to many other tangible and intangible benefits, including productivity and health gains, public relations, employee retention and building a reputation as a sustainable organisation. Legislation such as commercial building disclosure, coupled with the introduction of carbon reporting requirements will also drive the business case for energy efficiency upgrades by owners and operators of large buildings. Assessing your building with the Green Star – Performance rating tool will help you capitalise on these benefits and ‘future proof’ your investment. 121


•Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Innovation drives progress through the creation of better and more effective products, processes, services, technologies and ideas. The ‘Innovation’ category rewards creativity and the pioneering application of new ideas and approaches in order to facilitate the progression of the facilities management sector towards more sustainable outcomes. The ‘Innovation’ credit assesses and rewards innovative technologies or processes in building operations, improvements upon Green Star credit benchmarks, projects that exceed the scope of Green Star - Performance, or that take on ‘Green Star Challenges’. Green Star Challenges will encourage building owners and operators to go beyond best practice and develop more stringent environmental processes and operational procedures.

122


8.9 Appendix I – Methodology evaluation: LEED Schemes

LEED Design and Construction Theme

Methodology Objectives

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components?  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - is a buildings certification system established on a voluntary basis and applied in more than 140 countries worldwide. LEED was born in Americ through the USGreen Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit association founded in 1993, which now counts more than 20,000 members . Its purpose is the promotion and development of a comprehensive approach to sustainability, giving recognition to a virtuous performance in key areas of human and environmental health.  It includes people behavior, encouraging reduction of waste generated by building occupants and disposed of in landfills and incinerators through reduction, reuse, recycling and composting. • Does it incentivise anything through its use?  In addition, to promote energy efficiency buildings it has been encouraged using materials with low VOC emissions and other pollutants, in order to improve the quality of living and reduce the environmental impacts from the manufacture, use and disposal of furniture. • Is it mandatory or voluntary?  Although adherence to the protocol is voluntary, the LEED prerequisites are necessary but not sufficient to be credited and they are:  establish and implement a multi-stakeholder collaborative goal setting and design process;  establish human health as a fundamental evaluative criterion for building design;  construction, and operational strategies;  reduce pollution from construction activities;  reduce potable water use;  provide a commissioning of the building energy systems;  reduce the environmental and economic harms of excessive energy use by achieving a minimum level of energy efficiency for the building and its systems;  support energy management and identify opportunities for additional energy savings by tracking building-level energy use;  reduce ozone depletion; 123


    reduce the building mold;

Methodology Assessment Process

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

facilitate the reduction of waste; eliminate mercury; establish minimum indoor air quality; prevent exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS); occupant’s potential exposure to asbestos, mercury, lead, and

• How does the assessment process work?  The project team prepares the documents who meets the requirements and credits. • Who undertakes the assessment?  The local GBC issues the certification, after analyzing the documentation. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation)  This certification is a third party verification, independent of the performance of a whole building (or part thereof).  This certification is a third indipendent party verification. • Are they an independent or state body?  Yes they are indipendent. • Who participates and who is engaged? Local GBC is the entity that certifies projects GBC, and the local GBC employs Verification Bodies who control projects thrgough use of Qualified Inspectors. • Does the methodology cover the different project stages?  Planning for sustainable sites selection criteria channeling development to urban areas with existing infrastructure.  Design for most of the criteria of judgment of the methodology.  Operation for:  commissioning of the energy related systems, provide for the ongoing accountability of building energy consumption over time;  divert construction, demolition and land-clearing debris from disposal in landfills and incinerators. Redirect recyclable recovered resources back to the manufacturing process. Redirect reusable materials to appropriate sites. Redirect hazardous waste in compliance with federal and state regulations;  implement site and materials management practices during construction to minimize adverse impacts;  minimize air and noise pollution from fossil fueled vehicle and construction equipment during the construction process. Implement conservation and efficiency practices for temporary utilities;  reduce the release of persistent bioaccumulative and toxic chemicals (PBTs) associated with the life cycle of building 124


materials;  reduce indoor air quality problems resulting from the construction/ renovation process in order to help sustain comfort and wellbeing of construction workers and building occupants;  provide the assessment of building thermal comfort over time. • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? encouraging innovation and design process to provide design teams and projects the opportunity to achieve points for exceptional performance. Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

Methodology Assessment Criteria

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified?  new construction and major renovation;  core and shell construction;  interior construction;  existing buildings undergoing improvement work; • extend the life cycle of existing building stock, conserve resources, retain cultural resources, reduce waste and reduce environmental impacts of new buildings as they relate to materials manufacturing and transport. • Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings.  Residential;  non residential;  schools;  healthcare; commercial. • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels?  Encourage the development and use of grid-source, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis;  rreduce pollution and land development impacts from automobile use;  reduce pollution and land development impacts from single occupancy vehicle use; conserve, preserve and enhance existing natural areas and restore damaged areas to provide habitat for native flora and fauna and to promote biodiversity. • What categories are assessed by the methodology?  Integrated design;  sustainable sites;  water efficiency;  energy and atmosphere;  material and resources;  environmental quality; 125


 innovation and design process. • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas?  Many are mathematical criteria, some refer to the application of best management practices (BMPs) others from meeting ASHRAE requirements, or reference standards and rules. • Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified?  Yes they are:  maximize potable water efficiency within buildings to reduce the burden on municipal water supply and wastewater systems;  achieve increasing levels of energy performance above the baseline;  encourage the development and use of grid-source, renewable energy technologies on a net zero pollution basis;  encourage construction waste management  reduce the environmental impacts of the materials acquired for use in the construction of buildings and in the upgrading of building services  provide building occupants with a connection between indoor spaces and the outdoors by introducing daylight and views into the building’s regularly occupied areas • Is benchmarking used?  No it is not. • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? Documentation reviews are provided both in design and construction to accompany the team of designers at various stages of implementation.

Data Requirements

• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence?  They are derived from the dimensional data of the project, and out of the application of rules and reference standards. • How are they measured? Many are mathematical criteria, some refer to the application of best management practices (BMPs) others from meeting ASHRAE requirements, or reference standards and rules.

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

• How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? It promotes to create exterior open space that encourages interaction with the environment, social interaction, passive recreation, and physical activities.

126


Innovation

• Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? • Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? It encourages innovation and design process.

Ease of Use

• Who is the methodology pitched at?  Project teams. • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently?  The methodology is unclear in the system of prerequisites and credits. • How user friendly is the tool to use?  No, the calculation of compliance with the requirements is often rather laborious. • How does it communicate its outputs? Through a simple scoring system divided into groups.

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Education

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions?  No, the choices are left to the designers, the methodology is not prescriptive, are judged the results achieved. • Does it allow the user to test different options? Yes. Living Building Challenge can be quite time intensive in terms of its application. There is an associated time investment in doing things right and making your development an exemplar ‘green development’. The whole certification process can be done on a two-stage basis, but and some elements within the certification criteria can only be assessed after a 12-month operational period. • Does the methodology include an educational element?  Yes the GBC promotes a training. • Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Not only, depth are all issues of the Protocol. • Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label?  Yes and it is very successful. • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology?  It is widespread and successful. • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users?  Yes it is. • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? 127


Yes.

128


LEED for Neighbourhood Development Theme

Guiding Questions

Methodology Objectives

• What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components?  Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design - is a system of certification of buildings that was established on a voluntary basis and is applied in more than 140 countries worldwide. LEED was born in America to work USGreen Building Council (USGBC), a non-profit association founded in 1993, which now counts more than 20,000 members. Its purpose is the promotion and development of a comprehensive approach to sustainability, giving recognition to a virtuous performance in key areas of human and environmental health. • Does it incentivise anything through its use?  Promote projects that have high levels of internal connection and are well connected with the community to urban and territorial scale. Encourage development within existing communities by promoting the efficiency of travel through multimodal transport. Improve public health by encouraging physical activity daily. • Is it mandatory or voluntary?  It is a system of voluntary certification of sustainability. This doesn't mean that is a national standard which shall replace the codes, nor is structured to certify planning tools.  Although adherence to the protocol is voluntary, the LEED prerequisites are necessary but not sufficient to be credited and they are: The choice of the proper location of the site may therefore constitute a substantial difference in terms of environmental benefits and human health . Loans in this category are pushing for urban development in areas already heavily populated and linked to many basic services , discouraging dependency on the use of the private car

Methodology Assessment Process

• How does the assessment process work?  The project team prepares the documentS meets the requirements and credits. • Who undertakes the assessment?  the local GBC issuing the certification, after analyzing the documentation. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation)  This certification is a third party verification, independent of the performance of a whole building (or part thereof). • Are they an independent or state body? 129


Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

 Yes they are. • Who participates and who is engaged? Local GBC is the entity that certifies projects GBC, employs Verification Bodies to control which make use of Qualified Inspectors. • Does the methodology cover the different project stages?  It is possible to perform a preliminary review of the prerequisites of the location and connections of the Site (LCS) to determine the compatibility of a project with the certification standards.  The evaluation of compatibility (phase 1)  Pre-certification (phase 2)  The final stage takes place when the proposer may submit documentation of all of the prerequisites and credits attempted. • Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? Work with qualified professionals such as a biologist, agronomist, forestry, naturalist to ensure that the areas have recovered a composition of native species, a hydrological structure and other habitat characteristics as similar as possible to those in the pre-development conditions and in any case consistent with the existing vegetation or otherwise suitable for the site conditions. • Does the methodology cover the different project types identified?  Completion of projects that integrate the seniority and contribute to the functional mix, social and economic development of the surroundings, can apply for certification;  even the existing neighborhoods and redevelopment projects can use this evaluation system and its application in this context could be particularly useful in urban areas and historic districts • Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings. It is applicable to monofunctional small interventions to complement existing neighborhoods that integrate relationships and quality of services to the residents, or multi-purpose. • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels?  An area that possesses a minimum of two buildings which constitutes with surroundings a set of relationships that will contribute to create a functional and social mix, and the characteristics of permanent settlement;  reasonable minimum size of the project is at least two buildings ; the maximum size of the project is such that they can govern in a single process (about 1.3 km2), otherwise it should be divided into several areas; 130


Methodology Assessment Criteria

• What categories are assessed by the methodology?  Location and site links  This category focuses its lending in the selection of areas to develop or recover so as to minimize the negative effects on the environment. These may be due to improper planning of land areas for new and existing and tries to counteract the dispersal of settlements and the negative consequences that it entails. The urban sprawl, understood as a nonhomogeneous urban areas, especially residential , may in fact be due to the local destruction of natural habitats , destruction of wetlands , the increase in greenhouse gas emissions and runoff rainwater , but especially the increase in the use of the car to gain access to basic services.  Organization and programming of the neighborhood  This category focuses on the requirements of a land area strongly linked and connected to other adjacent communities. In particular, we took into account the efficiency of infrastructure and urban density . Is promoted a mix of urban services and public spaces, which is strongly related to bicycle and pedestrian networks.  The involvement of the community in the design and planning can help the project to integrate with adjacent neighborhoods, meet the needs of residents and workers, and cultivate a collaborative relationship between the actors involved by the transformations.  Infrastructure and sustainable buildings  This category focuses on reducing the environmental impacts that the construction and maintenance of buildings and infrastructure fee. The sustainability of an area derives from the proper management of urban development that the proper construction and operation of highly sustainable buildings and infrastructure. This includes sustainability performance of buildings and infrastructure that are all the issues of proper water management, energy efficiency, proper use / disposal of materials, with reference to LEED and GBC systems;  innovation in design;  regional/local priorities;  this category currency strategies that address specific priorities of geographical areas • What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas?  The applicability of the projects is estimated substantially from a verification of compliance with the prerequisites of quality and performance of the score board certification, then analyzing, comparing and standardizing the intent of the project with the 131


intent of the various claims that promoter, planners and stakeholders to choose pursuing. The protocol is in fact organized according to a system of measurable elements that allows to identify the potential of the area to be redeveloped or regenerate (infrastructure, facilities, buildings, services, transportation ...) to design and implement a sustainable neighborhood. • Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified?  Yes they are:  Locate the project on a site served by existing infrastructure of water supply and sewerage system or locate the project within a planning instrument implementation will be carried out where the water supply and sewerage from the Public Administration, public service or directly by the Company actuator ;  encourage urban development in areas served by multiple modes of transportation, or for which it is possible to use a reduced motor vehicle ;  encourage development within cities and suburbs in place to reduce the negative effects on the environment and public health caused by the uncontrolled growth of urban development;  rehabilitate or restore native plants, natural habitat, wetlands and surface water bodies that have been damaged by human actions earlier;  this category focuses on the requirements of a land area strongly linked and connected to other adjacent communities. In particular, we took into account the efficiency of infrastructure and urban density . Is promoted a mix of urban services and public spaces, which is strongly related to bicycle and pedestrian networks;  the characteristics associated with a compact neighborhood encourage walking and cycling due to increased connectivity, lower distances to traffic slower, and a more inviting environment for pedestrians, with benefits for both the environment and for the human health. The reduced traffic speeds densified own developments can also reduce the number of accidents;  community with diverse building types allow you to accommodate different needs and profiles of the presence of integrated services and workplaces helping the community to keep residents and enabling the inhabitants to cultivate neighborly relations;  promote the efficiency of transport, including the reduction of kilometers traveled by private car. Promoting walking through the creation of trails in urban environments safe, 132


 

 

attractive and comfortable, with the aim of promoting public health, reduce accidents involving pedestrians and encouraging daily physical activity; public spaces such as parks, squares and urban gardens can encourage social interaction and recreational activities and at the same time help to control stormwater runoff and reduce heat island effects ; design so that the residential and non-residential component comply with specific density for each 10,000 m2 of building area; grouping and make accessible different uses in the central areas of the district; promote a fair and equitable communities, allowing a wide range of residents belonging to different levels of economic and social life in the same community; include in the project a sufficient variety of housing types, and existing project or Include a portion of housing units for rent and / or sale at a reduced price; encourage the design, construction and restoration of buildings that take environmental sustainability practices; design, construct, or retrofit one whole building within the project to be certified through a LEED rating system, or through a green building rating system requiring review by independent, impartial, third-party certifying bodies; encourage the design and construction of energy-efficient buildings that reduce air, water, and land pollution and environmental damage from energy production and consumption. Demonstrate an average improvement of 5% for new buildings, 3% for major building renovations, or 2% for core and shell buildings over ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2010. Another rewarding element is to demonstrate that the new buildings have an average improvement of 18% (1 point) or 26% (2 points) compared to the reference case. The buildings undergoing renovation must show an average improvement of 14% (1 point) or 22% (2 points) compared to the reference case; reduce the exploitation of natural water resources, limiting the supply of municipal water networks and the impact on wastewater; reduce pollution from construction activities by controlling soil erosion, sedimentation in the receiving water and dust production ; reduce runoff volume and improve water quality by replicating the natural hydrology and water balance of the site, based on historical conditions and undeveloped 133


Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

Innovation

ecosystems in the region;  incorporate on-site non polluting renewable energy generation, such as solar, wind, geothermal, small-scale or micro-hydroelectric, or biomass, with production capacity of at least 5% of the project’s annual electrical and thermal energy cost (exclusive of existing buildings);  encourage the development of energy-efficient neighborhoods by employing district heating and cooling strategies that reduce energy use and energy-related environmental harms. Incorporate a district heating and/or cooling system for space conditioning and/or water heating of new buildings (at least two buildings total) such that at least 80% of the project’s annual heating and/or cooling consumption is provided by the district plant. • Is benchmarking used?  No it is not • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria?  documentation reviews are provided both in design and construction to accompany the team of designers at various stages of implementation • What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence?  They are derived from the dimensional data of the project, and out of the application of rules and reference standards • How are they measured?  Reference standard: it has, when possible, the regulatory and legislative reference devices that allow you to verify the achievement of credits and of which the design team should take full vision before pursuing the claim ;  calculations: proposed procedures and examples of calculations for determining the fulfillment of the prerequisites and credits. • How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles?  Endangered species and ecological communities.  conservation of wetlands and water bodies;  preserving agricultural resources.  Prevention of areas subject to flooding • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation?  Innovative design and exemplary performance that exceed the levels contained in specific credit score card • Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? 134


Yes it is

Ease of Use

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Education

• Who is the methodology pitched at?  The actors who may be interested in the certification process are first of all the actors in the proposed guidance and the government of the territory, in order to determine the relationship between the design team and the subjects of the surroundings, that is, for example, municipal services, land management (eg, green transportation, etc.)., infrastructure, etc.  The involvement of the community in the design and planning can help the project to integrate with adjacent neighborhoods, meet the needs of residents and workers, and cultivate a collaborative relationship between the actors involved by the transformations. • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently?  The methodology is unclear in the system of prerequisites and credits. • How user friendly is the tool to use?  No, the calculation of compliance with the requirements is often rather laborious. • How does it communicate its outputs? Through a simple scoring system divided into groups • Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions?  No, the choices are left to the designers, the methodology is not prescriptive, are judged the results achieved. • Does it allow the user to test different options? Yes • Is the methodology time intensive to use?  Yes it is. • Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? Yes, because the data can only be descended from a very in-depth level of project. • Does the methodology include an educational element?  Yes the GBC promotes a training. • Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Not only, depth are all issues of the Protocol.

135


Market Labelling

• Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label?  Yes. Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes?

Evidence of Use

• Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology?  It is widespread. If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does?

Monitoring Framework

• Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users?  Yes it is. • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? Yes.

136


8.10 Appendix J – Methodology evaluation: Living Building Challenge

Living Building Challenge Theme

Guiding Questions The International Living Future Institute, creators of the Living Building Challenge, issues the following challenge and objective:

Methodology Objectives

‘To all design professionals, contractors and building owners to create the foundation for a sustainable future in the fabric of our communities. To politicians and government officials to remove barriers to systemic change, and to realign incentives and market signals that truly protect the health, safety and welfare of all beings. To all of humanity to reconcile the built environment with the natural environment, into a civilisation that creates greater biodiversity, resilience and opportunities for life with each adaptation and development’. Projects that achieve this level of performance can claim to be the ‘greenest’ anywhere, and will serve as role models for others that follow. Whether the project is restorative, regenerative or operates with a net zero impact, it has a home in the construct of the Living Building Challenge.

Methodology Assessment Process

The certification process of The Living Building Challenge includes a review of written elements and a site visit by an independent auditor. The assessment is comprised of seven performance areas, or ‘Petals’: Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty. Petals are subdivided into a total of twenty imperatives, each of which focuses on a specific sphere of influence. This compilation of imperatives can be applied to almost every conceivable typology, or project type, be it a building (both renovation of an existing structure or new construction), infrastructure, landscape or community development. Naturally, strategies to create Living Landscapes, Infrastructure, Renovations, Buildings or Neighbourhoods will vary widely by occupancy, use, construction type and location – this is necessary – but the fundamental considerations remain the same. There are two rules: 1. All imperatives assigned to a Typology are mandatory. 2. Living Building Challenge Certification is based on actual facts, rather than modelled or anticipated performance. The Living Building Challenge is versatile. There are four Typologies, and teams must identify the one that aligns with the project to determine which Imperatives 137


(assessment categories) apply. • •

• •

Renovation. Landscape or Infrastructure (non-conditioned development) – This typology is for any project that does not include a physical structure as part of its primary program, although open-air ‘park-like’ structures, restrooms, amphitheatres and the like to fall within this category. E.g. Roads, Bridges, Plazas, Sports Facilities or trails. Buildings Neighbourhood – This typology is for any project that contains multiple buildings in a continuous campus, neighbourhood, district or village. Sample projects include university/college/corporate campus’ residential streets; business or industrial districts or small villages of towns.

Once one of the above typologies is selected according to the description/plans of the subject project/development, the subject project/development must then apply itself to a further filtering process to encourage proper development in specific settings and to ensure the correct and relevant certification assessment categories are applied. Living Building Challenge advocates the incorporation of the New Urbanism Transect model for rural to urban categorisation. The Transect model is a powerful basis for Planning, and demonstrates that different types of standards befit different development realities. The Challenge promotes the transition of suburban zones either to grow into new urban areas with greater density, or be dismantled and repurposed as new rural zones for food production, habitat and ecosystem services. As a result, every project must select a Living Transect category from the following options:

138


Living Transect Category Natural Habitat Preserve (Greenfield Sites) Rural Agriculture Zone

Village or Campus Zone

General Urban Zone

Urban Centre Zone

Urban Core Zone

Explanation Land that is set aside as a nature preserve or is defined as sensitive ecological habitat. Land with a primary function for agriculture and development that relates specifically to the production of food as described in Imperative Two: Urban Agriculture. Relatively low-density mixed-use development found in rural villages and towns, and may also include colleges or university campuses. Relatively low-density mixed-use development found in larger villages, small towns or at the edge of larger cities Medium-to high-density mixed-use development found in small to medium sized cities or in the first ‘ring’ of a larger city. High-to-very high-density mixed use development found in large cities or metropolises.

Living Building Challenge consists of eight categories which analyse and sets out the schemes assessment parameters, consulting the following areas: • • • • • • •

Site: Limits to Growth; Urban Agriculture; Habitat Exchange & Car Free Living. Water: Net Zero Water; and Ecological Water Flow Energy: Net Zero Energy Health: Civilised Environment; Healthy Air; and Biophilia Materials: Red List; Embodied Carbon Footprint; Responsible Industry; Appropriate Sourcing; and Conservation and Reuse. Equity: Human Scale & Human Places; Democracy & Social Justice; and Rights to Nature Beauty: Beauty and Spirit; and Inspiration & Education.

 Site: Limits to Growth – The project may only be constructed on previously developed sites, Greyfields and/or Brownfield that are not classified as any of the following: • • • •

Sensitive ecological habitats Prime farmland Within the 100-year flood plan The project team must document conditions prior to the start of work & on site landscape may only include native and/or naturalised species planted in such a way that emulates density and biodiversity 139


of indigenous ecosystems and supports succession. Urban Agriculture – The project must integrate opportunities for agriculture appropriate to its scale and density using Floor Area Ratio (FAR) as a basis for calculation. An outline integration scale is provided in the programme manual. Habitat Exchange – For each hectare of development, an equal amount of land away from the project site must be set aside in perpetuity as part of a habitat exchange. Car Free Living – The project should contribute towards the creation of walk-able, pedestrian-orientated communities. Evaluate the potential for the project to enhance the ability of a community to support a car free lifestyle based on the density and the ratio of the following occupancy types within a defined catchment area surrounding the project site: • • •

Residential Commercial (Business or Mercantile), Assembly, Educational, Institutional Light Industrial (Factory, Storage)

Pedestrian-orientated communities are optimised when all three are represented and not one is demonstrably dominant. For a building or neighbourhood project, the proposed development may not lower the density of the existing site or catchment area of the Transect.  Water: Net Zero Water – One hundred percent of the project’s water needs must be supplied by captured precipitation or other natural closed loop water systems that account for downstream ecosystem impacts, or by re-cycling used project water. Water must be appropriately purified without the use of chemicals. Ecological Water Flow – One hundred percent of the storm water and used, project water discharge must be managed onsite to feed the project’s internal water demands or released onto adjacent sites for management through acceptable natural time-scale surface flow, groundwater recharge, agricultural use or adjacent property needs.  Energy: Net Zero Energy – One hundred percent of the project’s energy needs must be supplied by on-site renewable energy on a net annual basis.  Health: 140


Civilized Environment – Every occupiable interior space of the project must have operable windows that provide access to fresh air and daylight. Healthy Air – To promote good indoor air quality, a Renovation, Building and Building(s) completed as part of a Neighbourhood project must meet the following criteria: • •

Entryways must have an external dirt track-in system and an internal dirt track-in system contained within a separate entry space. All kitchens, bathrooms, copy rooms, janitorial closets and chemical storage spaces must be separately ventilated and exhaust directly to outside air. Ventilation rates must be designed to comply with ASHRAE 62 and equipment must be installed to monitor levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), temperature and humidity. Smoking must be prohibited within the project boundary.

Biophilia – The project must be designed to include elements that nurture the innate human attraction to natural systems and processes. Each of the six established Biophilic Design Elements must be represented for every 2000m2 of the project: • Environmental features • Natural shapes and forms • Natural patterns and processes • Light and Space • Place-based relationships • Evolved human-nature relationships  Materials: Red List – The project cannot contain any of the following Red List materials or chemicals: Asbestos; Cadmium; Lead; Mercury; PVC; HCFC’s; etc. Embodied Carbon Footprint – The project must account for the total footprint of embodied carbon (tCO2e) from its construction through a one-time carbon offset tied to the project boundary. Responsible Industry – The project must advocate for the creation and adoption of third-party certified standards for sustainable resource extraction and fair labour practices. Applicable raw materials include stone and rock, metal, minerals and timber. For timber, all wood must be certified to Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) 100% labelling standards, from salvaged sources, or from the intentional harvest of 141


timber onsite for the purpose of clearing the area for construction or restoration/maintaining the continued ecological function of the onsite bionetwork. Appropriate Sourcing – The project must incorporate place-based solutions and contribute to the expansion of a regional economy rooted in sustainable practices, products and services. Restrictions with respect to source locations for materials and services are set out in the assessment manual. Conservation & Reuse – The project team must strive to reduce or eliminate the production of waste during design, construction, operation, and end of life in order to conserve natural resources. The project team must create a Material Conservation Management Plan that explains how the project optimises materials in each of the following phases: • • • •

Design Phase, including the consideration of appropriate durability in product specification Construction Phase, including product optimisation and collection of wasted materials Operation Phase, including a collection plan for consumables and durables End of Life Phase, including a plan for adaptable reuse and deconstruction.

 Equity: Human Scales & Humane Places – The project must be designed to create humanscaled rather than automobile-scaled places, so that the experience brings out the best in humanity and promotes culture and interaction. In context of the character of each Transect, there are specific maximum (and sometimes minimum) requirements for paved areas, street and block design, building scale and signage that contribute to liveable places. The assessment manual identifies a range of design guidelines on which projects can be based to comply with the parameters of the assessment. Democracy & Social Justice – All primary transportation, roads and non-building infrastructure that are considered externally focused must be equally accessible to all members of the public regardless of background, age and socioeconomic class – including the homeless – with reasonable steps taken to ensure that all people can benefit from the project’s creation. For the Neighbourhood typology, a minimum of fifteen percent of housing units must meet an affordable housing standard. Provisions must be in place for these 142


units to remain affordable through time. Rights to Nature – The project may not block access to, nor diminish the quality of, fresh air, sunlight and natural waterways for any member of society or adjacent developments. •

Fresh Air – The project must not protect adjacent properties from any noxious emissions that would compromise its ability to use natural ventilation. All operational emissions must be free of Red List items, persistent bio accumulative toxicants, and known or suspect carcinogenic, mutagenic and reprotoxic chemicals. Sunlight – The project may not block sunlight to adjacent building facades and rooftops such that they are shaded above the maximum height allotted in the calculation table provided in the assessment manual. Natural Waterways (Such as Ocean Shoreline, Rivers, Lakes, Wetlands, Ponds and Creeks) – The project may not restrict access to the edge of any natural waterway, except where such access can be proven to be a hazard to public safety or would severely compromise the function of the development.

 Beauty: Beauty & Spirit – The project must contain design features intended solely for human delight and celebration of culture, spirit and place appropriate to its function. Inspiration & Education – Educational material about the operation and performance of the project must be provided to the public to share successful solutions and to motivate others to make change. Non-sensitive areas of the project must be open to the public at least one day per year to facilitate direct contact with the Living Building Challenge. Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

Living Building Challenge is applicable at the Planning, Design and Operations stages of the development process. The achievement of the rating is contingent on detailed consideration across these stages. Numerous references are made to this: Planning; - ‘The project should contribute towards the creation of walk-able pedestrian-orientated communities. Evaluate the potential for the project to enhance the ability of a community to support a car free lifestyle’. Design; - ‘The project must contain design features intended solely for human delight and celebration of culture, spirit and place appropriate to its 143


function’. Operations: - ‘The project team must strive to reduce or eliminate the production of waste during design, construction, operation, and end of life in order to conserve natural resources’. Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

The Living Building Challenge is versatile. There are four Typologies, and teams must identify the one that aligns with the project to determine which Imperatives apply. • •

• •

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale. Methodology Assessment Criteria

Renovation. Landscape or Infrastructure (non-conditioned development) – This typology is for any project that does not include a physical structure as part of its primary program, although open-air ‘park-like’ structures, restrooms, amphitheatres and the like to fall within this category. E.g. Roads, Bridges, Plazas, Sports Facilities or trails. Buildings Neighbourhood – This typology is for any project that contains multiple buildings in a continuous campus, neighbourhood, district or village. Sample projects include university/college/corporate campus’ residential streets; business or industrial districts or small villages of towns.

Living Building Challenge is applicable to all development types, citing that ‘whether the project is a single building, a park, a college campus or even a complete neighbourhood community, Living Building Challenge provides a framework for design, construction and symbolic relationship between people and all aspects of the built environment. The methodology is site-based and does not incorporate criteria for the assessment of elements on a greater scale such as neighbourhood or city level assessment.

Detailed above under Assessment Processes.

144


Data Requirements

Certification is based on actual, rather than modelled or anticipated performance. To earn ‘Living’ status (full program certification), projects must meet all assigned Imperatives and have proven performance through at least 12 consecutive months of operation. Submission information extends to copies of plans for any development proposals; evidence of correspondence with ILBI on project development; statements of compliance on all prerequisites (Including flood plans, historical site survey, evidence of volunteerism etc); required essays for some prerequisites; completion of case study questionnaires;, and following occupation, monthly bills to evidence performance etc. Submission is via an upload to a project portal.

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

The Living Building Challenge advocates the consideration and integration of the natural environment throughout the entire assessment/rating process. Each of the seven ‘petals’ incorporate distinctly environmental elements such as ‘Ecological water Flow’, Habitat Exchange’ and ‘Healthy Air’. As well as this, the assessment obliges the project team to reduce or eliminate the production of waste during design, construction, operation, and end of life stages in order to conserve resources and bans the use or incorporation within the subject development of ‘red listed’ materials. The rating is fundamentally about restoration, as evidenced by requirements for equal amounts of habitat exchange, relative to hectares of development.

Innovation

Innovation is considered to be an innate part of the Living Building Challenge. The standard is an evolving document and in the words of the International Living Futures Institute (ILFI), “to achieve the progressive standard, it is assumed that typical best practices are being met”. The implementation of the standard requires cutting-edge technical knowledge, including design and construction teams well versed in advanced practices relating to ‘green building’. Displaying innovation in response to site-specific issues is a requirement for certification, but the onus to do, including the means in which it is achieved, rests with the applicant.

Ease of Use

The principles behind the methodology are generally well conveyed and understood in supporting guidance. The high level nature of the different transects and differing pathways for compliance means that ease of use is contingent on clear dialogue with ILFI to enable scheme delivery.

Solutions/ Option Development

As a performance-based standard, some of the requirements can only be evaluated after a project is fully completed and operational for at least 12 months. Since May 2012, however, project teams pursuing ‘Living’ status (version 2.0 or newer) may opt to undergo a separate preliminary audit to receive a conditional assessment of those imperatives whose requirements are less likely to be impacted by the operational phase. The preliminary audit may take place any time after 145


construction is complete, and relies on the review of written elements and a site inspection by the auditor. Again, upfront engagement with the ILFI and cognisance of best practice is considered key to solution and option development.

Timeliness

Education

Living Building Challenge can be quite time intensive in terms of its application. There is an associated time investment in doing things right and making your development an exemplar â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;green developmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. The whole certification process can be done on a two-stage basis, but and some elements within the certification criteria can only be assessed after a 12-month operational period. Living Building Challenge is designed to be an advocacy tool that promotes the most advanced measurement of sustainability in the built environment. Restorative education is at its core and the iterative nature of scheme development, through engagement, is a learning process itself. The Institute offers different levels of technical assistance, including in-house and charrette facilitation to lead and customise learning to match a projects needs. All certified schemes subsequently form part of a growing community of network of schemes and practitioners which inform the continued sharing of ideas etc.

Market Labelling

Projects that achieve full certification or Petal Recognition receive an award from the International Living Future Institute. The award celebrates an achievement by the architects that have earned it, but is also something of which the public and building inhabitants can observe and promote the Living Buildings Challenge and the concept of Sustainable/Green Buildings as a whole. The Living Building Challenge Award functions as a door handle, meaning each person entering a certified building will be able to feel and personally experience the award. The utility and installation of the award such that it is becomes a tactile reminder of this notable accomplishment and achievement.

Evidence of Use

Significant evidence of uptake since the Living Building Challenge was launched in 2006. Significant concentrations in North America, with include schemes for individual schemes, community initiatives, educational institutes etc.

Monitoring Framework

The post accreditation process typically means that the methodology is self reinforcing once instigated. It ensures that buildings designed for a particular purpose deliver on those aspirations. Living Building Challenge also encourages periodic review of the certified projects following completion of the assessment process. It does this through the holding of seminars and information events around the world.

146


147


8.11 Appendix K – Methodology evaluation: Pearl Schemes

The Pearl Building Rating Theme

Methodology Objectives

Methodology Assessment Process

Guiding Questions The Pearl Rating System forms part of the wider Estidama (‘sustainability’) initiative which aims to transform Abu Dhabi into a model of sustainable urbanisation. Estidama is incorporated into planning policy, as well as the Urban Planning Council Development Code and, as such, is a mandatory framework. Key aspirations include the creation of more sustainable communities, cities and global enterprises and to balance the four pillars of sustainability: Environment; Economy; Culture; and Society. The Pearl Rating System itself aims to address the sustainability of a given development throughout its lifecycle from design, through construction to operation. The Pearl Building Rating System seeks to promote the development of sustainable buildings as a common practice within the construction industry.

The Pearl Rating System is organised into three different and specific strands consisting of Pearl Building Rating; Pearl Community Rating System; and Pearl Villa Rating System. Within this, each strand is measured against seven categories (see Section 7 below). Within each of these seven categories are both mandatory and optional credits, as well as credit points being awarded for each optional credit achieved. To achieve a 1 Pearl rating, it is necessary to achieve all mandatory credit requirements. To achieve a higher Pearl rating, all mandatory credit requirements must be met along with a minimum number of optional credit points. A breakdown of the point requirements and the corresponding Pearl Rating Level are given in the table below: Requirements All mandatory credits All mandatory credits + 60 credit points All mandatory credits + 85 credit points All mandatory credits + 115 credits points All mandatory credits + 140 credits points

Pearl Rating Achieved 1 Pearl 2 Pearl 3 Pearl 4 Pearl 5 Pearl

The number of credit points available in a given section determines the weighting of that section. Different building uses may have a different number of credit points for a particular component. This is intended to reinforce the critical issues that should be addressed for a particular building use. For a mixed-use building, the total number of credit points available will vary depending on the different uses 148


that are present. The table below illustrates the Credit allowances for Pearl Building Rating System: Credit Section IDP – Integrated Development Process NS – Natural Systems LB - Liveable Buildings PW – Precious Water RE – Resourceful Energy SM – Stewarding Materials IP – Innovating Practice

Maximum Credit Points 13 12 37* 43* 44 28 3

* LB: Maximum of 36 credit points available for Offices and 30 credit points for Retail. PW: Maximum of 45 credit points available for Schools. Total: Excludes Innovating Practice credit points which are offered as bonus credits.

The assessment process requires the following key team members: • Pearl Assessor: The Pearl Assessor is an Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council representative who assesses the Pearl submission documents. • Pearl Qualified Professional: A mandatory member of the design team who facilitates the Pearl Rating System for both Design & Construction stages. The PQP’s role is to:  Understand the requirements of the Pearl Building and Community Rating Systems and associated Guides;  Facilitate the rating process; and  Provide quality assurance to documents prior to submission. The Pearl Rating System is designed to facilitate an effective and educational way to assess the sustainability of a specific development. The practical steps required to be undertaken by developers and their consultants in the process are summarised below: All Pearl Ratings Step 1: Register the development with the UPC for the relevant Pearl Rating Systems. Each project will be provided with a unique identification number. Step 2: Appoint a PQP to facilitate the rating process and co-ordinate the submission. Step 3: Conduct workshops in compliance with the Integrated Development Process (IDP) with facilitation by the PQP. Pearl Design Rating Step DR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the design process. Step DR5: Issue the final design credit submissions to UPC at the end of the construction documentation stage. Step DR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Peal Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP as necessary. Step DR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Design Rating based on the credits achieved by the development. Pearl Construction Rating 149


Step CR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the construction process. Step CR5: Issue the final construction credit submissions to UPC after construction is complete. Step CR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Pearl Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP. Site visits are allowed if deemed necessary. Step CR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Construction Rating based on the credits achieved by the development. Pearl Operational Rating Two years following construction completion, once a building has reached a minimum of 80% occupancy, submissions can be made for the Pearl Operational Rating. The process for achieving a Pearl Operational Rating is set out in the separate Pearl Operational Rating system, which is currently under development. The Operational Rating functions as final certification for the overall scheme.

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

The Pearl Rating System recognises the reality of ownership and responsibility transitions as a project evolves from a design team to a construction team to a facility management team. Accordingly, three rating stages have been established: Design, Construction and Operational. Pearl Design Rating – The Design Rating rewards measures adopted during the design development of the project that meet the intent and requirements of each credit. The Design Rating recognises the additional marketing value and branding a Pearl Rating will afford a development in its early sale or lease phase. A Pearl Design Rating is valid only until construction is complete, and requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Design Rated project. Pearl Construction Rating – The Construction Rating ensures that the commitments made for the Design Rating have been achieved. The Construction Rating requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Construction Rated Project. Pearl Operational Rating – The operational rating assesses the built-in features and operational performance of an existing building and ensures the building is operating sustainably. The operational rating can only be achieved a minimum of two years after construction completion and when the building has reached a minimum occupancy of 80%.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation;

The Pearl Building Rating System can be used across the following project types: •

New Build

Extension/Renovation 150


• Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other.

Retrofit

The Pearl Building Rating System is designed to address the following uses of buildings, their sites and associated facilities: •

• •

• • •

General: This applies to all building uses and covers the common requirements. Within individual credits, exemptions or different requirements may be specified for the following building uses: Office: This applies to offices and associated spaces. Retail: This applies to display and sale of goods, food retail (Supermarkets, Convenience stores), food preparation (restaurants, cafes, takeaways) and service providers (banks, post offices, travel agencies). This category also includes shopping centres, department stores and retail parks. However, it does not include isolated single use warehouse-type retail space. Multi-Residential: This applies to multi-family residential developments. School: This applies to primary, secondary, sixth form colleges and higher education colleges or universities. Mixed Use: This applies to combinations of two or more of the above usage categories. Where relevant, individual credit calculations should be based on an area-weighted average.

Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

As specified above the development scales applicable to the Pearl Building Rating System incorporate building and site level projects. Groups of buildings or sites can be assessed through the Pearl Building Rating System assessment criteria however greater merits may be achieved through the adoption of the Pearl Community Rating System for such circumstances.

Methodology Assessment Criteria

The Pearl Building Rating System is organised into seven categories that are fundamental to more sustainable development. These form the heart of the Pearl Rating System:

151


Category Integrated Development Process Natural Systems Liveable Buildings Precious Water Resourceful Energy Stewarding Materials Innovating Practice

Data Requirements

Outline Encouraging cross-disciplinary teamwork to deliver environmental and quality management. Conserving, preserving and restoring critical natur environments and habitats. Ensuring quality of outdoor and indoor spaces. Reducing water demand and encouraging alternativ water sources. Targeting energy conservation through passive desig measures, reduced demand, energy efficiency and renewable sources. Ensuring consideration of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;whole-of-lifeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; cycle when selecting and specifying materials. encouraging innovation in building design and construction to facilitate market and industry transformation.

Having regard to the assessment criteria, the methodology requires the submission of both quantitative and qualitative data. Input is required from a range of practitioners involved in the project team for such purposes. Credit requirements are identified across all assessment criteria, which frame the level of data required, including the methodology approach to be taken, required calculations, units of measurement, performance targets to achieve different credit points etc. The following is an example of same:

152


Intent

Credit Requirements

Awarding Credit Points

Credit Submission: (Design Rating)

Calculations and Methodology

LV-9: Indoor Noise To provide acoustic conditions that are commensurate with sensitivity and acoustic privacy requirements. Demonstrate that internal ambient noise levels do not exceed 35 dB(A)Leq (8 hour) and 45 dB(A) Lmax, fast in bedrooms (during the period 23:00 – 07:00 hours) and do not exceed 40dB(A)Leq in other areas. 1 maximum, where internal ambient noise levels are less than 35dB(A)Leq(8hour) and 45DB(A)Lmax,fast in bedrooms and less than 40dB(A)Leq in other areas. Noise design report containing the following: • Brief narrative describing how the project will meet the credit requirements in relation to all relevant internal and external noise sources, noise control features and any underlying assumptions; • Results of calculations or supporting tests demonstrating compliance with the requirements (expressed in parameters that are consistent with the test and/or calculation methods); • Plans, elevations and drawings marked up to indicate noise control features; • Attested qualifications and professional memberships of the acoustic engineer. For the purposes of the calculations or measurements, only noise from building services and external sources should be included and all operable windows must be considered open. Noise from occupants or equipment/appliances should be excluded from the measurements and calculations.

Other sample datasets include minimum energy performance requirements and specifications, minimum water efficiency performance and more discursive cool building strategies such as high levels of external shading. All data/information requirements are entered into an excel-based submission form. All data outputs are reviewed by the assessor for authenticity and compliance with methodology protocols. Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

The methodology considers interactions with the national environment and place making in significant detail. This is explored via 2 of the 7 assessment categories. The Natural Systems category includes 3 mandatory evaluation requirements on natural system assessment, protection, and design and management strategy sub categories. Higher rating assessments (2+ Pearls) include consideration of the reuse 153


Innovation

Ease of Use

of land, remediation of contaminated land, ecological enhancement, and habitat creation and restoration. In addition to environmental aspects, place making aspects are considered in detail via the Livable Buildings: Outdoor Category, which assess elements such as accessibility, private outdoor space, thermal comfort and light pollution reduction. It is acknowledged that some of these aspects are distinctive to life in Abu Dhabi. The methodology does encourage and reward innovation via the granting of extra credit points for success in this area. In particular, it places an emphasis on celebrating cultural and regional practices via design, which is indicative of broader aims to promote distinctive aspects of urban life through the development of the urban environment. Importantly, these practices should also contribute to the environmental performance of the building. An important emphasis is also placed on sharing learning around innovation. Extra credit points are granted for the development, documentation and implementation of innovative design and/or construction solutions that addresses one or more of the four pillars of Estidama. Crucially, there is also a requirement to develop a guideline document that enables the innovative solution to be repeated, before points are awarded in this category. There are also a number of unique credit categories within the voluntary credits of the New Buildings Rating methodology which foster innovation. These include Offsite Renewable Energy generation and Biodiversity Offset Agreements with NGOs in other countries; Socially Sustainable Products and Materials including FSC Certified and Approved NGO community program sourced timber with additional credits where FSC advantages indigenous peoples; Life cycle impacts of Materials; Life cycle costing of projects; Detailed Ecotoxicity and Health impact assessments of materials; Net Positive Energy and Water Generation; and use of detailed Ecoconcrete Calculator. The principles behind the framework and the direction of assessment are generally well presented and easily understood. The approach is not overly prescriptive in some areas (similar to LEED) in that in many cases, it states the intention behind an assessment category and leaves it to the applicants discretion to subsequently decide how best to comply. In theory, this places a greater burden of proof on applicants. In terms of undertaking the assessment itself, it is important to note that it is a mandatory requirement to have a Pearl Qualified Professional as part of the project team. A number of the required assessment datasets have to be produced by qualified professionals and while this is important for validation purposes, this adds to complexity of use.

154


Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Education

Market Labelling

The Pearl Building Rating System promotes the exploration of different solutions across the different project stages of Design, Construction and Operation. Given that the requirements are not overly prescriptive, there is sufficient flexibility for designers to examine different options, as necessary. The opposite side of this point is that the methodology does not specifically signpost other option solutions per say. However, it should be noted that the Pearl Rating System is not a standalone document, but part of the Pearls Design System, which includes complementary design guides and supplementary application guides for public works, parks and infrastructure. Over time, the requirement to catalogue innovation aspects (see section 9) could lead to the development of a library or inventory of solution options. The achievement of a full Pearl Building Rating can be quite time intensive, as the final certificate is only granted at the third and final stage of the project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Operational Rating. While the design and construction rating certificates can be used for marketing purposes, they must state that the rating advertised is a Design Rating or a Construction Rating and must not be used beyond their respective stages. The third and final stage of rating is only awarded after 2 years of at least 80% occupancy. The amount of time required to undertake the assessment itself across each individual stage depends on the rating level being pursued (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 Pearls) as well as prospective amendments or revisions to schemes, which require the reassessment of variables involved. The methodology is strongly linked to the Estidama Integrative Design Process (EIDP) which encourages an integrated and coordinated approach to design among professionals, who will benefit from shared learning. The design aspect of the methodology is very iterative in nature with the submission and resubmission of assessment criteria to take account of scheme amendments. The unique credit categories available may engender â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;freshâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thinking and the development of new educative aspects in approaches to sustainability. The Operational Rating is something that is designed to endure. This living rating will deliver key benefits in supporting building owners and managers to maintain the building at the peak of its design performance and encourage awareness of good facilities management practices avoiding unnecessary energy and water infrastructure and saving significant operation costs. The Pearl Rating System is a market label system by design, as evidenced by the availability of different types of certification through the design, construction and operational stages. A 3 Pearl rating is considered to be a high level achievement in 155


Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

comparison to other schemes globally. The 5th Pearl is the highest certification level and represents an extremely advanced level that is intentionally high, commensurate or indeed in advance of the Living Building Challenge. This 5th Pearl requires a net positive benefit to the environment in terms of net positive energy, water, and improving diversity and health of living systems or measurement of the whole of life impacts of the entire building. As a marketing agent, the robust nature of the assessment invariably gives considerable weight to higher levels of performance achieved by any project. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Rating System is still in its infancy, particularly given the prospective lifecycle of projects from scheme design stage to operation/occupation stage. This point is underlined by the fact that Operational Rating elements are still being refined for use. Enshrined in local policy and the regulatory development framework, it is a statutory requirement to meet the 1 Pearl rating in Abu Dhabi and uptake in use reflects this. It is, as of yet, unclear whether enhanced rating levels are being pursued. In many respects, the framework is self reinforcing with respect to monitoring. For example, the new building certification awarded at design stage as a target rating and confirmed at completion of construction by the certified pearl rating after inspection, demonstrates that the building has been built and commissioned according to the target rating performance commitments. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Building Rating System is a relatively new methodology. It has sought to learn from established predecessors such as LEED and BREEAM. Elements are continually being refined and in particular, the Operational Rating process is still being developed to take account of evolving best practice.

156


The Pearl Villa Rating Theme

Methodology Objectives

Methodology Assessment Process

Guiding Questions The Pearl Rating System forms part of the wider Estidama (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sustainabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) initiative which aims to transform Abu Dhabi into a model of sustainable urbanisation. Estidama is incorporated into planning policy, as well as the Urban Planning Council Development Code and, as such, is a mandatory framework. Key aspirations include the creation of more sustainable communities, cities and global enterprises and to balance the four pillars of sustainability: Environment; Economy; Culture; and Society. The Pearl Rating System itself aims to address the sustainability of a given development throughout its lifecycle from design, through construction to operation. The Pearl Villa Rating System seeks to promote the development of sustainable villas and improve quality of life in conditions that respect traditional Arab cultural and ethical values. The Villa Rating System encourages water, energy and waste minimization, local material use and aims to improve supply chains for sustainable and recycled materials and products. The Pearl Rating System is organised into three different and specific strands consisting of Pearl Building Rating; Pearl Community Rating System; and Pearl Villa Rating System. Within this, each strand is measured against seven categories (see Section 7 below). Within each of these seven categories are both mandatory and optional credits, as well as credit points being awarded for each optional credit achieved. To achieve a 1 Pearl rating, it is necessary to achieve all mandatory credit requirements. To achieve a higher Pearl rating, all mandatory credit requirements must be met along with a minimum number of optional credit points. A breakdown of the point requirements and the corresponding Pearl Rating Level are given in the table below: Requirements All mandatory credits All mandatory credits + 60 credit points All mandatory credits + 85 credit points All mandatory credits + 115 credits points All mandatory credits + 140 credits points

Pearl Rating Achieved 1 Pearl 2 Pearl 3 Pearl 4 Pearl 5 Pearl

The number of credit points available in a given section determines the weighting of that section. Different building uses may have a different number of credit points for a particular component. This is intended to reinforce the critical issues that should be addressed for a particular building use. For a mixed-use building, the total number of credit points available will vary depending on the different uses 157


that are present. The table below illustrates the Credit allowances for the Pearl Villa Rating System: Credit Section IDP – Integrated Development Process NS – Natural Systems LB - Liveable Buildings PW – Precious Water RE – Resourceful Energy SM – Stewarding Materials IP – Innovating Practice Total:

Maximum Credit Points 10 5 15 21 21 18 3 90*

*Total: Excludes Innovating Practice credit points which are offered as bonus credits.

The assessment process requires the following key team members: •

Pearl Assessor: The Pearl Assessor is an Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council representative who assesses the Pearl submission documents. • Pearl Qualified Professional: A mandatory member of the design team who facilitates the Pearl Rating System for both Design & Construction stages. The PQP’s role is to:  Understand the requirements of the Pearl Building and Community Rating Systems and associated Guides;  Facilitate the rating process; and  Provide quality assurance to documents prior to submission. The Pearl Rating System is designed to facilitate an effective and educational way to assess the sustainability of a specific development. The practical steps required to be undertaken by developers and their consultants in the process are summarised below: All Pearl Ratings Step 1: Register the development with the UPC for the relevant Pearl Rating Systems. Each project will be provided with a unique identification number. Step 2: Appoint a PQP to facilitate the rating process and co-ordinate the submission. Step 3: Conduct workshops in compliance with the Integrated Development Process (IDP) with facilitation by the PQP. Pearl Design Rating Step DR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the design process. Step DR5: Issue the final design credit submissions to UPC at the end of the construction documentation stage. Step DR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Peal Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP as necessary. Step DR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Design Rating based on the 158


credits achieved by the development. Pearl Construction Rating Step CR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the construction process. Step CR5: Issue the final construction credit submissions to UPC after construction is complete. Step CR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Pearl Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP. Site visits are allowed if deemed necessary. Step CR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Construction Rating based on the credits achieved by the development. Pearl Operational Rating Two years following construction completion, once a building has reached a minimum of 80% occupancy, submissions can be made for the Pearl Operational Rating. The process for achieving a Pearl Operational Rating is set out in the separate Pearl Operational Rating system, which is currently under development. The Operational Rating functions as final certification for the overall scheme.

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

The Pearl Rating System recognises the reality of ownership and responsibility transitions as a project evolves from a design team to a construction team to a facility management team. Accordingly, three rating stages have been established: Design, Construction and Operational. Pearl Design Rating – The Design Rating rewards measures adopted during the design development of the project that meet the intent and requirements of each credit. The Design Rating recognises the additional marketing value and branding a Pearl Rating will afford a development in its early sale or lease phase. A Pearl Design Rating is valid only until construction is complete, and requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Design Rated project. Pearl Construction Rating – The Construction Rating ensures that the commitments made for the Design Rating have been achieved. The Construction Rating requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Construction Rated Project. Pearl Operational Rating – The operational rating assesses the built-in features and operational performance of an existing building and ensures the building is operating sustainably. The operational rating can only be achieved a minimum of two years after construction completion and when the building has reached a minimum occupancy of 80%.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/

This methodology is focused in nature and is used exclusive for the assessment of single residential buildings, of three stories or less, consisting of one or more 159


Renovation; • Retrofit. Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

households. The Pearl Villa Rating System applies to any new stand-alone enclosed permanent structure to be built on a new or existing plot, and containing one dwelling unit for use by a single household, or multi residential building of three or less stories above that houses multiple dwelling units (Max. Size of unit is 2000m2).

The methodology is site-based and does not incorporate criteria for the assessment of elements on a greater scale such as neighbourhood or city level assessment.

The Pearl Building Rating System is organised into seven categories that are fundamental to more sustainable development. These form the heart of the Pearl Rating System: Category Integrated Development Process

Methodology Assessment Criteria

Natural Systems Liveable Buildings Precious Water Resourceful Energy Stewarding Materials Innovating Practice

Data Requirements

Outline Encouraging cross-disciplinary teamwork to deliver environmental and quality management. Conserving, preserving and restoring critical natur environments and habitats. Ensuring quality of outdoor and indoor spaces. Reducing water demand and encouraging alternativ water sources. Targeting energy conservation through passive desig measures, reduced demand, energy efficiency and renewable sources. Ensuring consideration of the ‘whole-of-life’ cycle when selecting and specifying materials. encouraging innovation in building design and construction to facilitate market and industry transformation.

Having regard to the assessment criteria, the methodology requires the submission of both quantitative and qualitative data. Input is required from a range of practitioners involved in the project team for such purposes. Credit requirements are identified across all assessment criteria, which frame the level of data required, including the methodology approach to be taken, required calculations, units of measurement, performance targets to achieve different credit points etc. The following is an example of same: 160


PW-R1: Minimum Interior Water Use Reduction To develop and implement a comprehensive water strategy during the early stages of Intent design as a tool to minimize the villa’s interior potable water consumption Demonstrate that the villa’s predicted interior potable water consumption will be no greater Credit Requirements than the baseline villa water consumption using efficiency measures only. This is a requirement. There are no Credit Points Awarding Credit are awarded. Points • Villa Water Calculator confirming that the villa’s predicted interior potable water consumption will be no greater than the baseline villa interior potable water consumption using efficiency measures only; Credit Submission: • Brief narrative describing all proposed (Design Rating) water conservation strategies; • Extracts from specifications for all proposed fixtures and fittings indicating flow rates and flow regulation systems; an • Extracts from specifications for all proposed appliances including information on their water use. The baseline and proposed villa interior water consumption is determined using the Villa Water Calculator which serves as the foundation for numerous calculations within the Precious Water section. • Interior water use is defined as the water demand that relates solely to fixtures, fittings, and appliances. • Efficiency measures are all measures which Calculations and reduce the overall demand for water from Methodology the baseline requirement. Reductions in potable water cannot be claimed through the use of any recycled water within this prerequisite. • Calculations are based on villa occupancy and include all interior water use relating to fixtures, fittings and appliances. • The baseline villa water demand is based on the following flow rates/volumes:

Other sample datasets include minimum energy performance requirements and specifications, minimum water efficiency performance and more discursive cool building strategies such as high levels of external shading. All data/information 161


requirements are entered into an excel-based submission form. All data outputs are reviewed by the assessor for authenticity and compliance with methodology protocols.

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

Innovation

Ease of Use

The methodology considers interactions with the national environment and place making in significant detail. This is explored via 2 of the 7 assessment categories. The Natural Systems category includes 3 mandatory evaluation requirements on natural system assessment, protection, and design and management strategy sub categories. Higher rating assessments (2+ Pearls) include consideration of the reuse of land, remediation of contaminated land, ecological enhancement, and habitat creation and restoration. In addition to environmental aspects, place making aspects are considered in detail via the Livable Buildings: Outdoor Category, which assess elements such as accessibility, private outdoor space, thermal comfort and light pollution reduction. It is acknowledged that some of these aspects are distinctive to life in Abu Dhabi. The methodology does encourage and reward innovation via the granting of extra credit points for success in this area. In particular, it places an emphasis on celebrating cultural and regional practices via design, which is indicative of broader aims to promote distinctive aspects of urban life through the development of the urban environment. Importantly, these practices should also contribute to the environmental performance of the building. An important emphasis is also placed on sharing learning around innovation. Extra credit points are granted for the development, documentation and implementation of innovative design and/or construction solutions that addresses one or more of the four pillars of Estidama. Crucially, there is also a requirement to develop a guideline document that enables the innovative solution to be repeated, before points are awarded in this category. There are also a number of unique credit categories within the voluntary credits of the New Buildings Rating methodology which foster innovation. These include Offsite Renewable Energy generation and Biodiversity Offset Agreements with NGOs in other countries; Socially Sustainable Products and Materials including FSC Certified and Approved NGO community program sourced timber with additional credits where FSC advantages indigenous peoples; Life cycle impacts of Materials; Life cycle costing of projects; Detailed Ecotoxicity and Health impact assessments of materials; Net Positive Energy and Water Generation; and use of detailed Ecoconcrete Calculator. The principles behind the framework and the direction of assessment are generally well presented and easily understood. The approach is not overly prescriptive in some areas (similar to LEED) in that in many cases, it states the intention behind an assessment category and leaves it to the applicants discretion to subsequently decide how best to comply. In theory, this places a greater burden of proof on 162


applicants. In terms of undertaking the assessment itself, it is important to note that it is a mandatory requirement to have a Pearl Qualified Professional as part of the project team. A number of the required assessment datasets have to be produced by qualified professionals and while this is important for validation purposes, this adds to complexity of use. The Operational Rating process is still under development and it will be interesting to see if/how ease of use considerations are incorporated to include prospective occupiers of buildings.

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Education

The Pearl Villa Rating System promotes the exploration of different solutions across the different project stages of Design, Construction and Operation. Given that the requirements are not overly prescriptive, there is sufficient flexibility for designers to examine different options, as necessary. The opposite side of this point is that the methodology does not specifically signpost other option solutions per say. However, it should be noted that the Pearl Rating System is not a standalone document, but part of the Pearls Design System, which includes complementary design guides and supplementary application guides for public works, parks and infrastructure. Over time, the requirement to catalogue innovation aspects (see section 9) could lead to the development of a library or inventory of solution options. The achievement of a full Pearl Building Rating can be quite time intensive, as the final certificate is only granted at the third and final stage of the project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Operational Rating. While the design and construction rating certificates can be used for marketing purposes, they must state that the rating advertised is a Design Rating or a Construction Rating and must not be used beyond their respective stages. The third and final stage of rating is only awarded after 2 years of at least 80% occupancy. The amount of time required to undertake the assessment itself across each individual stage depends on the rating level being pursued (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 Pearls) as well as prospective amendments or revisions to schemes, which require the reassessment of variables involved. The methodology is strongly linked to the Estidama Integrative Design Process (EIDP) which encourages an integrated and coordinated approach to design among professionals, who will benefit from shared learning. The design aspect of the methodology is very iterative in nature with the submission and resubmission of assessment criteria to take account of scheme amendments. The unique credit categories available may engender â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;freshâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thinking and the development of new educative aspects in approaches to sustainability. 163


The Operational Rating is something that is designed to endure. This living rating will deliver key benefits in supporting building owners and managers to maintain the building at the peak of its design performance and encourage awareness of good facilities management practices avoiding unnecessary energy and water infrastructure and saving significant operation costs.

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

The Pearl Rating System is a market label system by design, as evidenced by the availability of different types of certification through the design, construction and operational stages. A 3 Pearl rating is considered to be a high level achievement in comparison to other schemes globally. The 5th Pearl is the highest certification level and represents an extremely advanced level that is intentionally high, commensurate or indeed in advance of the Living Building Challenge. This 5th Pearl requires a net positive benefit to the environment in terms of net positive energy, water, and improving diversity and health of living systems or measurement of the whole of life impacts of the entire building. As a marketing agent, the robust nature of the assessment invariably gives considerable weight to higher levels of performance achieved by any project. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Rating System is still in its infancy, particularly given the prospective lifecycle of projects from scheme design stage to operation/occupation stage. This point is underlined by the fact that Operational Rating elements are still being refined for use. Enshrined in local policy and the regulatory development framework, it is a statutory requirement to meet the 1 Pearl rating in Abu Dhabi and uptake in use reflects this. It is, as of yet, unclear whether enhanced rating levels are being pursued. In many respects, the framework is self reinforcing with respect to monitoring. For example, the new building certification awarded at design stage as a target rating and confirmed at completion of construction by the certified pearl rating after inspection, demonstrates that the building has been built and commissioned according to the target rating performance commitments. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Rating System is a relatively new methodology. It has sought to learn from established predecessors such as LEED and BREEAM. Elements are continually being refined and in particular, the Operational Rating process is still being developed to take account of evolving best practice.

164


The Pearl Communities Rating Theme

Methodology Objectives

Guiding Questions The Pearl Rating System forms part of the wider Estidama (â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;sustainabilityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;) initiative which aims to transform Abu Dhabi into a model of sustainable urbanisation. Estidama is incorporated into planning policy, as well as the Urban Planning Council Development Code and, as such, is a mandatory framework. Key aspirations include the creation of more sustainable communities, cities and global enterprises and to balance the four pillars of sustainability: Environment; Economy; Culture; and Society. The Pearl Rating System itself aims to address the sustainability of a given development throughout its lifecycle from design, through construction to operation. The Pearl Communities Rating System seeks to promote the development of sustainable communities and improve quality of life. The Pearl Rating System is organised into three different and specific strands consisting of Pearl Building Rating; Pearl Community Rating System; and Pearl Villa Rating System. Within this, each strand is measured against seven categories (see Section 7 below). Within each of these seven categories are both mandatory and optional credits, as well as credit points being awarded for each optional credit achieved. To achieve a 1 Pearl rating, it is necessary to achieve all mandatory credit requirements. To achieve a higher Pearl rating, all mandatory credit requirements must be met along with a minimum number of optional credit points. A breakdown of the point requirements and the corresponding Pearl Rating Level are given in the table below:

Methodology Assessment Process

Requirements All mandatory credits All mandatory credits + 60 credit points All mandatory credits + 85 credit points All mandatory credits + 115 credits points All mandatory credits + 140 credits points

Pearl Rating Achieved 1 Pearl 2 Pearl 3 Pearl 4 Pearl 5 Pearl

The number of credit points available in a given section determines the weighting of that section. Different building uses may have a different number of credit points for a particular component. This is intended to reinforce the critical issues that should be addressed for a particular building use. For a mixed-use building, the total number of credit points available will vary depending on the different uses that are present. The table below illustrates the Credit allowances for the Pearl Communities Rating System: 165


Credit Section IDP – Integrated Development Process NS – Natural Systems LB - Liveable Buildings PW – Precious Water RE – Resourceful Energy SM – Stewarding Materials IP – Innovating Practice Total:

*

Maximum Credit Points 10 14 38 37 42 18 3 159*

Total: Excludes Innovating Practice credit points which are offered as bonus credits. While the Credit Sections are the

same as Pearl Building Rating, the sub-categories within each Credit Section are different to comply with the needs of the Community based rating scheme.

The assessment process requires the following key team members: • Pearl Assessor: The Pearl Assessor is an Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council representative who assesses the Pearl submission documents. • Pearl Qualified Professional: A mandatory member of the design team who facilitates the Pearl Rating System for both Design & Construction stages. The PQP’s role is to:  Understand the requirements of the Pearl Building and Community Rating Systems and associated Guides;  Facilitate the rating process; and  Provide quality assurance to documents prior to submission. The Pearl Rating System is designed to facilitate an effective and educational way to assess the sustainability of a specific development. The practical steps required to be undertaken by developers and their consultants in the process are summarised below: All Pearl Ratings Step 1: Register the development with the UPC for the relevant Pearl Rating Systems. Each project will be provided with a unique identification number. Step 2: Appoint a PQP to facilitate the rating process and co-ordinate the submission. Step 3: Conduct workshops in compliance with the Integrated Development Process (IDP) with facilitation by the PQP. Pearl Design Rating Step DR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the design process. Step DR5: Issue the final design credit submissions to UPC at the end of the construction documentation stage. Step DR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Peal Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP as necessary. Step DR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Design Rating based on the credits achieved by the development. Pearl Construction Rating Step CR4: Review and update credit submissions on a regular basis throughout the construction process. 166


Step CR5: Issue the final construction credit submissions to UPC after construction is complete. Step CR6: The submission will be reviewed by a Pearl Assessor, who may request clarifications or additional information from the PQP. Site visits are allowed if deemed necessary. Step CR7: The Pearl Assessor will award a Pearl Construction Rating based on the credits achieved by the development. Pearl Operational Rating Two years following construction completion, once a building has reached a minimum of 80% occupancy, submissions can be made for the Pearl Operational Rating. The process for achieving a Pearl Operational Rating is set out in the separate Pearl Operational Rating system, which is currently under development. The Operational Rating functions as final certification for the overall scheme.

Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

The Pearl Rating System recognises the reality of ownership and responsibility transitions as a project evolves from a design team to a construction team to a facility management team. Accordingly, three rating stages have been established: Design, Construction and Operational. Pearl Design Rating – The Design Rating rewards measures adopted during the design development of the project that meet the intent and requirements of each credit. The Design Rating recognises the additional marketing value and branding a Pearl Rating will afford a development in its early sale or lease phase. A Pearl Design Rating is valid only until construction is complete, and requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Design Rated project. Pearl Construction Rating – The Construction Rating ensures that the commitments made for the Design Rating have been achieved. The Construction Rating requires that all collateral, branding and communication materials identify the project as a Pearl Construction Rated Project. Pearl Operational Rating – The operational rating assesses the built-in features and operational performance of an existing building and ensures the building is operating sustainably. The operational rating can only be achieved a minimum of two years after construction completion and when the building has reached a minimum occupancy of 80%.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

The Pearl Building Rating System can be used across the following project types: •

New Build

Extension/Renovation

Retrofit 167


Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other.

The Pearl Communities Rating System is designed for development projects, which will support a minimum permanent residential population of 1000 people, this being the minimum population for which community facilities are required to be provided in accordance with the Urban Planning Council community facility requirements.

Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhoo d • City-scale.

Subject to the requirements specified above in above, the development scales applicable to the Pearl Building Rating System incorporate building and site level projects. Groups of buildings or sites can be assessed through the Pearl Building Rating System assessment criteria however greater merits may be achieved through the adoption of the Pearl Community Rating System for such circumstances.

There is no maximum size of project which may apply for a Pearl Community Rating. However, for projects larger in size than a District, this being defined as a permanent residential population of between 20000 and 30000, the project is to be divided into individual Districts and separate application made for each of these Districts. A project may also submit a community rating application for a single component or phase of the project.

The Pearl Building Rating System is organised into seven categories that are fundamental to more sustainable development. These form the heart of the Pearl Rating System: Category Integrated Development Process

Methodology Assessment Criteria

Natural Systems Liveable Buildings Precious Water Resourceful Energy Stewarding Materials Innovating Practice

Outline Encouraging cross-disciplinary teamwork to deliver environmental and quality management. Conserving, preserving and restoring critical natur environments and habitats. Ensuring quality of outdoor and indoor spaces. Reducing water demand and encouraging alternativ water sources. Targeting energy conservation through passive desig measures, reduced demand, energy efficiency and renewable sources. Ensuring consideration of the ‘whole-of-life’ cycle when selecting and specifying materials. encouraging innovation in building design and construction to facilitate market and industry transformation.

168


Having regard to the assessment criteria, the methodology requires the submission of both quantitative and qualitative data. Input is required from a range of practitioners involved in the project team for such purposes. Credit requirements are identified across all assessment criteria, which frame the level of data required, including the methodology approach to be taken, required calculations, units of measurement, performance targets to achieve different credit points etc. The following is an example of same: NS3 – Ecological Enhancement To enhance the ecological value of the sit Intent Demonstrate enhancement of the ecolog Credit value of the site by planting native or adaptive species. Requirements •

Awarding Credit Points

Data Requirements

Credit Submission: (Design Rating)

Calculations and Methodology

1 Credit Point: 50% plants specified fo planting on the site to comprise nativ adaptive drought and/or saline tolera species, including a minimum of 5 dif types of species. • 2 Credit Points: 70% plants specified planting on the site to comprise nativ adaptive drought and/or saline tolera species, including a minimum of 10 different types of species. • Ecological/ landscape report and plan palette highlighting the proposed species,identifying those that are nat drought tolerant and saline tolerant; • Drawings highlighting the location an coverage of the proposed species; an • Confirmation of integration of monito and management requirements in NS The species qualifying for this credit must native or adaptive plant species which ar drought and / or saline tolerant with a pr track record to survive and thrive in an environment similar to the proposed site number of publications listing suitable species can be found under NS-R1 under References.

Other sample datasets include minimum energy performance requirements and specifications, minimum water efficiency performance and more discursive cool building strategies such as high levels of external shading. All data/information requirements are entered into an excel-based submission form. All data outputs are reviewed by the assessor for authenticity and compliance with methodology 169


protocols.

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

Innovation

Ease of Use

The methodology considers interactions with the national environment and place making in significant detail. This is explored via 2 of the 7 assessment categories. The Natural Systems category includes 3 mandatory evaluation requirements on natural system assessment, protection, and design and management strategy sub categories. Higher rating assessments (2+ Pearls) include consideration of the reuse of land, remediation of contaminated land, ecological enhancement, and habitat creation and restoration. In addition to environmental aspects, place making aspects are considered in detail via the Livable Buildings: Outdoor Category, which assess elements such as accessibility, private outdoor space, thermal comfort and light pollution reduction. It is acknowledged that some of these aspects are distinctive to life in Abu Dhabi. The methodology does encourage and reward innovation via the granting of extra credit points for success in this area. In particular, it places an emphasis on celebrating cultural and regional practices via design, which is indicative of broader aims to promote distinctive aspects of urban life through the development of the urban environment. Importantly, these practices should also contribute to the environmental performance of the building. An important emphasis is also placed on sharing learning around innovation. Extra credit points are granted for the development, documentation and implementation of innovative design and/or construction solutions that addresses one or more of the four pillars of Estidama. Crucially, there is also a requirement to develop a guideline document that enables the innovative solution to be repeated, before points are awarded in this category. There are also a number of unique credit categories within the voluntary credits of the New Buildings Rating methodology which foster innovation. These include Offsite Renewable Energy generation and Biodiversity Offset Agreements with NGOs in other countries; Socially Sustainable Products and Materials including FSC Certified and Approved NGO community program sourced timber with additional credits where FSC advantages indigenous peoples; Life cycle impacts of Materials; Life cycle costing of projects; Detailed Ecotoxicity and Health impact assessments of materials; Net Positive Energy and Water Generation; and use of detailed Ecoconcrete Calculator. The principles behind the framework and the direction of assessment are generally well presented and easily understood. The approach is not overly prescriptive in some areas (similar to LEED) in that in many cases, it states the intention behind an assessment category and leaves it to the applicants discretion to subsequently decide how best to comply. In theory, this places a greater burden of proof on 170


applicants. In terms of undertaking the assessment itself, it is important to note that it is a mandatory requirement to have a Pearl Qualified Professional as part of the project team. A number of the required assessment datasets have to be produced by qualified professionals and while this is important for validation purposes, this adds to complexity of use. The Operational Rating process is still under development and it will be interesting to see if/how ease of use considerations are incorporated to include prospective occupiers of buildings.

Solutions/ Option Development

Timeliness

Education

The Pearl Building Rating System promotes the exploration of different solutions across the different project stages of Design, Construction and Operation. Given that the requirements are not overly prescriptive, there is sufficient flexibility for designers to examine different options, as necessary. The opposite side of this point is that the methodology does not specifically signpost other option solutions per say. However, it should be noted that the Pearl Rating System is not a standalone document, but part of the Pearls Design System, which includes complementary design guides and supplementary application guides for public works, parks and infrastructure. Over time, the requirement to catalogue innovation aspects (see section 9) could lead to the development of a library or inventory of solution options. The achievement of a full Pearl Building Rating can be quite time intensive, as the final certificate is only granted at the third and final stage of the project â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the Operational Rating. While the design and construction rating certificates can be used for marketing purposes, they must state that the rating advertised is a Design Rating or a Construction Rating and must not be used beyond their respective stages. The third and final stage of rating is only awarded after 2 years of at least 80% occupancy. The amount of time required to undertake the assessment itself across each individual stage depends on the rating level being pursued (1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 Pearls) as well as prospective amendments or revisions to schemes, which require the reassessment of variables involved. The methodology is strongly linked to the Estidama Integrative Design Process (EIDP) which encourages an integrated and coordinated approach to design among professionals, who will benefit from shared learning. The design aspect of the methodology is very iterative in nature with the submission and resubmission of assessment criteria to take account of scheme amendments. The unique credit categories available may engender â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;freshâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; thinking and the development of new educative aspects in approaches to sustainability. 171


The Operational Rating is something that is designed to endure. This living rating will deliver key benefits in supporting building owners and managers to maintain the building at the peak of its design performance and encourage awareness of good facilities management practices avoiding unnecessary energy and water infrastructure and saving significant operation costs.

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

The Pearl Rating System is a market label system by design, as evidenced by the availability of different types of certification through the design, construction and operational stages. A 3 Pearl rating is considered to be a high level achievement in comparison to other schemes globally. The 5th Pearl is the highest certification level and represents an extremely advanced level that is intentionally high, commensurate or indeed in advance of the Living Building Challenge. This 5th Pearl requires a net positive benefit to the environment in terms of net positive energy, water, and improving diversity and health of living systems or measurement of the whole of life impacts of the entire building. As a marketing agent, the robust nature of the assessment invariably gives considerable weight to higher levels of performance achieved by any project. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Rating System is still in its infancy, particularly given the prospective lifecycle of projects from scheme design stage to operation/occupation stage. This point is underlined by the fact that Operational Rating elements are still being refined for use. Enshrined in local policy and the regulatory development framework, it is a statutory requirement to meet the 1 Pearl rating in Abu Dhabi and uptake in use reflects this. It is, as of yet, unclear whether enhanced rating levels are being pursued. In many respects, the framework is self reinforcing with respect to monitoring. For example, the new building certification awarded at design stage as a target rating and confirmed at completion of construction by the certified pearl rating after inspection, demonstrates that the building has been built and commissioned according to the target rating performance commitments. Introduced in 2010, the Pearl Building Rating System is a relatively new methodology. It has sought to learn from established predecessors such as LEED and BREEAM. Elements are continually being refined and in particular, the Operational Rating process is still being developed to take account of evolving best practice.

172


8.12 Appendix L – Methodology evaluation: Passive House Planning Package "A Passive House is a building, for which thermal comfort (ISO 7730) can be achieved solely by postheating or post-cooling of the fresh air mass which is required to achieve sufficient indoor air quality conditions – without the need for additional recirculation of air." (Feist, 2014) The PassivHaus (PH) standard and Passive House Planning Package (PHPP) is used for single building assessment which may be multi-unit (i.e. apartments) and can be used for a wide range of building uses form residential, to schools, to supermarkets. The PHPP is now outlined in detail below;

Passive House Planning Package Theme

Guiding Questions • What are the stated objectives of the methodology? Does this include technical and/or people components? The PH standard is an internationally accepted single-building construction standard developed by the ‘Passivhaus Institut’ in Germany (http://www.passiv.de) which can be met using a variety of design strategies, construction methods and technologies which can be applied to any building type. The PHPP is the approved ‘PassivHaus Institute’ methodology and has the following objectives; A) to provide a planning and design tool which can be used from the start of a building or renovation project to ensure that the building operates at a high level of energy efficiency while providing good internal comfort conditions and; B)

Methodology Objectives

to determine whether or not a building achieves the ‘PassivHaus’ standard.

• Does it incentivise anything through its use? Using the PHPP enables the production of the relevant documentation for submission to the Passive House Institute as part the application for PH Certification. PH Certification and the passive house standard have become synonymous with high quality construction, high levels of operating energy efficiency and a healthy internal environments, within the building industry and among ‘self-builders’. Certification is also accompanied by a wall plaque and the building is entered in the PH database. • Is it mandatory or voluntary? The PHPP is used internationally and is typically voluntary. However some countries, states and city authorities have stipulated that certain building projects must reach the PH standard. In Germany for instance the State of Bavaria, the city of Bremen, Frankfurt and Freiburg have stipulated that certain buildings, typically public buildings should achieve the PH standard. Similarly in Spain the municipality of Villamediana de Iregua passed a master plan which mandates that all public new builds must fulfil the Passive House Standard. It also addition, 10% of all dwellings built within new urban development areas must be

173


reach the passive standard. In the US, the City of San Francisco includes Passive House projects as an option for fast-track planning approval (International Passive House Association, 2014b). • How does the assessment process work? The PHPP is an excel-based program which provides the user with a number of worksheets in which to input data about the building including: floor areas and the overall areas of building elements such as walls, roofs or windows; U-Values of all materials; window orientation and shading factors; space and domestic hot water heating equipment, overall electricity demand; and other similar inputs. At the start of the program there is a PH verification worksheet which shows the results of the excel calculations including the four key calculations for Specific Space Heat Demand, Pressurization Test Result, Specific Primary Energy Demand. To comply with the PH standard these results must be less than or equal to the following - Specific Space Heat Demand:15 kWh/(m2a) or alternatively: heating load ≤ 10 W/m² - Cooling (including dehumidification2): Total cooling demand ≤ 15 kWh/(m²a) + 0.3 W/(m²aK) DDH (dry degree hours) or alternatively: cooling load ≤ 10 W/m² AND cooling demand ≤ 4 kWh/(m²aK) ϑe + 2 0.3 W/(m²aK) DDH – 75 kWh/(m²a) but not greater than: 45 kWh(m²a) + 0.3 W/(m²aK) DDH - Pressurization Test Result (airtightness) : 0.6 h-1 Methodology Assessment Process

- Specific Primary Energy Demand ( heating, cooling, hot water, auxiliary electricity, domestic and common area electricity) : 120 kWh/(m2a) Once the PHPP shows that the design or building complies with these the user must send a signed print out of the PHPP verification worksheet along with other key worksheets, the construction drawings, technical specifications, verification of the air-tightness testing, declaration construction supervisor, photographs of the building which document the construction, and other evidence that may support the application. • Who undertakes the assessment? The PHPP assessment is typically carried out by the building designer but may be conducted by any other individual (including the building owner) who has enough knowledge and experience to fully complete the assessment. However it is also possible to become a certified passive house designer by either taking exams set by the PH Institute (or approved third party), or by submitting a certified PH project to PH Institute which has been fully designed and supervised by the applicant, and which has been certified by a PH Institute accredited building certifier. • Who reviews the assessment? (i.e. is it reviewed by a third party such as the BRE or similar as part of the final evaluation) The PHPP results and PH application is reviewed by either the PH Institute or an Institute accredited Building Certifier (over 30 PH accredited certifiers worldwide) • Are they an independent or state body?

174


The PH Institute or any PH Institute accredited Building Certifiers are independent bodies. • Who participates and who is engaged? As stated above the assessment may be conducted by any person but additional assurance can be offered by engaging a PH Institute certified designer. Project Stages: Planning, Design, Operation.

• Does the methodology cover the different project stages? The PHPP covers planning and design but not operation.

Project Types: • New Build; • Extension/ Renovation; • Retrofit.

• Does the methodology cover the different project types identified? The PHPP covers all three project types and but for renovation projects there is also a specific PH package called ‘EnerPHit’ which is a PH certified refurbishment using PH components(Passive House Institute, 2014c) . This process is similar to the PHPP except that for refurbishment the heating requirement must be a maximum of 25 kWh / (m² a) as opposed to 15 kWh/(m2a) for new build. Alternatively there must be a consistent use of passive house certified components.

Development Use: • Residential; • Retail; • Commercial; • Community; • Other. Development Scales: • Building level • Site level • Neighbourhood • City-scale.

• Does the methodology cover different development uses or mixed use? Please provide details on the areas it covers and/or shortcomings.

• Does it foster collaboration across stages and cross-discipline working? For a building to become PH rated it requires a very integrated approach where designers, other associated consultants, building component suppliers, and very importantly the trades people, must understand the objectives and their role. In this regard, while there are not only are PH rated designers but also PH rated trades people and PH rated building components such as windows, doors, and heating or ventilation equipment.

While the PHPP is mostly used for domestic buildings it covers all building uses illustrated by recent examples of PH rated ‘skyscrapers’ and PH rated supermarkets (Passive House Institute, 2014b). • Does the methodology operate across different spatial scales, including building or site specific, neighbourhood and city-scale levels? The PHPP is used at the building level only.

• What categories are assessed by the methodology? The PHPP concentrates on operation energy mostly but will also assess the tendency for a building to overheat in the summer ( the overheating calculation is there to counteract the need for mechanical cooling in terms of energy) Methodology Assessment Criteria

• What criteria are used to assess performance in these areas? With regard to operating energy the PHPP assesses the heating, cooling and primary energy demand and the buildings air-tightness values. As discussed above the criteria for assessment focus on; -Specific Space Heat Demand:15 kWh/(m2a) or alternatively: heating load ≤ 10 W/m² - Cooling (including dehumidification2): Total cooling demand ≤ 15 kWh/(m²a) + 0.3

175


W/(m²aK) DDH (dry degree hours) or alternatively: cooling load ≤ 10 W/m² AND cooling demand ≤ 4 kWh/(m²aK) ϑe + 2 0.3 W/(m²aK) DDH – 75 kWh/(m²a) but not greater than: 45 kWh(m²a) + 0.3 W/(m²aK) DDH - Pressurization Test Result (airtightness) : 0.6 h-1 - Specific Primary Energy Demand: ≤ 120 kWh/(m²a) • Are certain criteria weighted over others? If so, how is this justified? As stated the PHPP is purely an operating energy based assessment and as outlined above the building or design is judged by the Specific Space Heat Demand, Cooling, the Pressurization Test Result, and the Specific Primary Energy Demand. • Is benchmarking used? Yes, as stated previously the PHPP sets maximum values for Specific Space Heat Demand, Cooling, Pressurization Test Result, and the Specific Primary Energy Demand. Typically if the results are above this the design is deemed not to comply with PH standards. • How do the assessment criteria apply to different stages, development types and development scales? Are there mandatory and optional criteria? The four assessment criteria are the same for all stages. For the ‘EnerPHit’ refurbishment standard the heating requirement maximum is set higher at 25 kWh / (m² a) as opposed to 15 kWh/(m2a) for new build.

Data Requirements

Interactions with Natural Environment/ Place Making

Innovation

• What are the different data requirements needed to undertake the assessment across the different criteria? Does this include collected facts and/or subjective evidence? The PHPP is completed using data from building drawings ( i.e. floor areas, orientation etc etc), from material specifications ( i.e. U-values), from thermal bridging calculations based on the building design details, and on air pressure test results from an onsite pressurisation test, local climate data available from climate data sets for a wide range of locations around the world, and other building and site details. • How are they measured? Taken from design drawings, calculated within the programme form user inputs, or available within the programme as default values. • How does the methodology consider interactions with the natural environment and/or place making principles? The PHPP is a very technical programme focusing only on the natural environment in terms of how this impacts on the energy performance of the building. • Does the methodology encourage and reward innovation? Not necessarily – This is not a negative per se, rather a reflection on the technical and energy focused nature of PHPP which provides a good design tool to achieve very specific results. • Is the assessment framework sufficiently flexible to absorb new and emerging practices? In order to cater to energy neutral or indeed energy positive buildings, it is proposed to introduce new categories into the PHPP to allow for the inclusion of energy supply to the building through renewable energy technologies. It is proposed to provide two new labels

176


including the ‘Passive House Plus’ which denotes a building that produces as much energy as it consumes, while the label of “Passive House Premium” signifies a building which creates an energy surplus. (International Passive House Association, 2014a) • Who is the methodology pitched at? The PHPP is a complex assessment programme aimed at expert users. In the case of non expert users such as a self builder the PHPP would require sufficient knowledge and a lot of time and dedication to successful complete. • How does it communicate with different stakeholders? Does it communicate with different groups such as planners, engineers or residents differently? The output from the PHPP is numerical result based upon kWh/(m²a) or air leakage results and therefore on one level comprises a very technical output. However once a PH standard is achieved this is communicated very simply as being PH rated. As mentioned before, a certificate, a wall plaque or listing on the PH database provides a very simply quality mark that needs little further explanation unless required. • How user friendly is the tool to use?

Ease of Use

The PHPP is a complex tool and requires the input of many technical values for a wide range of variables. In this way it is meant for expert users with much technical knowledge. Up until very recently the PHPP was purely an excel-based tool with no graphic or 3d data entry. In 2013 a new 3D data entry tool called ‘designPH’ was introduced for the PHPP described by the International Passive House association as a”Trimble Sketchup plug-in tool to input building geometry into PHPP. The designPH tool allows users to model their Passive House projects in 3D. The benefits of the tool are two-fold; firstly it simplifies the process of entering data into PHPP and secondly, it provides preliminary feedback on the performance of the design within Sketchup.” (International Passive House Association, 2014c) This makes the PHPP more user friendly and more attractive to designers where 3D models will communicate much more than previous excel based approach. • How does it communicate its outputs? Pre 2013 versions produced a numerical output as discussed above while the new 2013 version with designPH can now present 3D models.

• Does the methodology promote the use of or signpost different solutions? Yes, the PHPP can be used to test various design options by changing the inputs of many variables to test whether certain approaches will meet the PH standards or just to get a Solutions/ Option Specific Space Heat Demand or Specific Primary Energy Demand result from a particular Development approach (i.e. changing window sizes or wall U-Values) • Does it allow the user to test different options?

177


Yes – see above

Timeliness

• Is the methodology time intensive to use? Yes, due to the large input of detailed data the PHPP is time intensive. Depending on the size and complexity of the project, and depending on whether air tightness test needs to be carried out, a typical house sized project could take a experienced PHPP user 3 or 4 days to complete…. • Does it take a long time to gather the required data or conduct the modelling itself? Yes, see above. • Does the methodology include an educational element? Not particularly, it is aimed at expert users. There are however many PH training courses and education opportunities available internationally.

Education

Market Labelling

Evidence of Use

Monitoring Framework

• Does it foster learning on energy efficiency? Again, not particularly, as it is aimed at expert users it is expected that they have a good deal of energy efficiency knowledge. However, if a person is coming from a low level of knowledge and wants to become a proficient user they would need to acquire a good working knowledge of energy efficiency, so therefore in this regard it could be argued that it does foster learning! • Does the methodology promote itself as a ‘green’ market label? Yes, as stated above the PH certificate would be widely promoted and recognised as a green label, especially in terms of energy efficiency and issues around climate change. • Is it readily used by successful schemes for such purposes? Yes, building projects that achieve the PH standard will broadcast this fact and advertise that their building is PH certified. • Is there strong evidence on the use of the methodology? Yes, it is estimated that over 50,000 PH units have been built worldwide; there are over 30 approved Building Certifiers internationally and over 3,000 certified PH designers. There are 16 affiliated groups from Ireland and the UK, throughout Europe and as far as New Zealand while a number of Universities in Germany, Austria and Italy who have PH specific courses or course with significant references to PH ( see http://www.passivehouseinternational.org/) • If so, is it effective/ successful at what it does? Yes, very - See above • Is the methodology kept under regular review by its developers and users? Yes, the PH Institute and the International Passive House Association are very active with and the standard is gaining ground internationally in both new build and retrofit. • Does it adapt to changing needs or requirements? As pointed out above, the new PHPP contains the new designPH which can now present

178


3D models and this marks a major innovation in PHPP. Refer also to the proposed ‘Passive House Plus’ or ‘Passive House Premium’ discussed earlier.

179

Report 3.1 - Current Energy Efficiency Monitoring and Quantification Methodologies  

This report summarises the findings of Task 3.1 which aimed to examine and evaluate urban energy efficiency, including the interaction betwe...

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you