DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR SUSTAINABLE HOUSING Submitted to: Center for Sustainable Housing Yonsei University, South Korea

Submitted by: Center for Sustainable Building Research (CSBR) University of Minnesota

Authors: John Carmody William Weber Rolf Jacobson June 16, 2009

June 16, 2009—Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction 2. Overview of Guidelines, Assessment Tools and Rating Systems 3. Description of Selected Guidelines and Rating Systems • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Japan Hong Kong China Korea North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Canada Germany United Kingdom Sweden Australia Australia South Africa

CASBEE-Homes HK-Beam GOBAS GBCS-MURB LEED for Neighborhood Development LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Builder Program Living Building Challenge Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3) Green Communities Green Globes (ANSI Standard 01-2008P) Architecture 2030 SB Tool PassivHaus Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS-Homes NABERS-Office SBAT Lite

4. Comparison of Guidelines, Assessment Tools and Rating Systems by Attribute • • • • • • • • • • • •

Approach Format/system type Intended application and scope History and evolution Market context Topics addressed (such as site, water, energy, materials, IEQ) Program funding Market penetration (number of houses) Type of indicators (performance versus prescriptive) Certification method or other enforcement Documentation Post occupancy monitoring

5. Summary and Recommendations 6. Sustainability Metrics and Performance Indicators APPENDIX A: Guidelines, Assessment Tools and Rating Systems—Details APPENDIX B: Case Studies

June 16, 2009—Page 2

June 16, 2009—Page 3

1. INTRODUCTION The definition of sustainable development as it is known today began in 1987 with the Brundtland report from the United Nations that stated, “Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (United Nations, 1987). Sustainable design today draws from many roots that date back to the energy and environmental concerns of the 1970s but is based on a more holistic and comprehensive vision. There is now recognition that sustainability is not just about the environment and natural resources, it represents a balance between environment, economics and equity. During the 1990s, the impact of the built environment on people and the natural environment became more evident and widely discussed in the design professions throughout the world. The movement toward more ecological design principles is based on the growing understanding that conventional development practices are not sustainable. According to the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, “Over the last 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable period of time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber, and fuel. This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on Earth” (MEA, 2005). The worldwide impacts of climate change in particular have recently been documented in reports by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). According to the IPCC Synthesis report, “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level” (IPCC, 2007). According to the Architecture 2030 initiative in the United States, the built environment is responsible for 48% of carbon (CO2) emissions in the United States. The transportation sector is responsible for another 27% of carbon emissions. Recently, the American Institute of Architects endorsed the goals of Architecture 2030, which sets a target of zero carbon emissions from buildings by 2030 and requires emissions to be reduced by 60% by 2010 (Architecture 2030, 2007). It is well documented that the building sector in the United States uses large shares of the world’s wood, minerals, water, and energy and generates a large portion of the waste going to landfills (Worldwatch, 1995). Planning and design of the built environment not only results in environmental impacts from buildings themselves, but also impacts from the transportation patterns that are established by development. It is clear that an urgent, major transformation needs to happen in the design of the built environment in response to impending climate change and other environmental degradation. While there are many programs, emerging technologies, and motivated individuals in the design and construction community, there is a danger that systemic change will not occur quickly enough.

June 16, 2009—Page 4

The purpose of this study, Design Guidelines for Sustainable Housing, is to make recommendations to address these issues in the context of housing in Korea. The first task is surveying selected sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools and rating systems throughout the world (sections 2 and 3). Then the systems are compared across several key attributes (section 4). The results are summarized and general recommendations are made that can apply to housing guidelines in Korea. The recommendations include the use of performance-based guidelines with measurable performance indicators. These indicators are then described in more detail (section 6).

June 16, 2009—Page 5

2. OVERVIEW OF GUIDELINES, ASSESSMENT AND RATING SYSTEMS Several approaches can be applied to accelerate the transformation toward a more sustainable built environment. Stronger building codes and other required standards play a role along with tax and other incentives to building developers and owners. Beyond these formal mechanisms, building owners and design teams are motivated by the actual life cycle cost savings, recognition in the community, and the desire to do the right thing. Environmental assessment systems, ratings systems, and guidelines have played an important role in raising public awareness and transforming the market for more sustainable building practices throughout the world. These systems define criteria for sustainable building and may be used as the basis for establishing requirements or incentives. Voluntary, market-based guidelines may be viewed as a precursor to more formal changes to standards and codes. Most guidelines developed so far address the building scale and can be categorized into new commercial, existing commercial, and new residential buildings. The introduction of new assessment and rating systems and the continuous updating of existing ones represent an evolution driven by several factors. These include the expansion of guidelines into new scales of development, additional phases of the process, and customized versions for specific building types. The evolution of guidelines is also driven by the desire for regional variation as well as accommodating new knowledge developed about best methods and practices. A key question in the development and use of these systems is whether they lead to the desired environmental outcomes when applied to real projects. This is a difficult issue because of the varying definition of the scope and outcomes in sustainable design and the fact that some things are more easily measurable than others. Most guidelines consist of a mixture of recommended processes, best practices, and some performance outcomes. Processes and practices are not always measurable and cannot be translated into quantifiable environmental outcomes. One of the most common ways of combining information to obtain a single rating is the use of point-based rating systems. Relatively easy to understand and use, the points serve as surrogate indicators of real performance. This does not lead to rigorous assessment or esults that can be compared across projects (Cole, 2006). The drawback is that pointbased systems can simply become like a set of specified requirements without fundamentally influencing the approach to achieving high performance design. In addition, point-based systems reflect a subjective weighting of the various environmental practices and impacts. There is often no tracking of actual performance after a project is built. For sustainable design to evolve toward better performing buildings, this feedback loop must be more strongly established.

June 16, 2009—Page 6

3. DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED GUIDELINES, RATING SYSTEMS, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS This section contains a brief description of sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools and rating systems from around the world. More detailed information on each system appears in the Appendix. The systems selected for review are:

• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Japan Hong Kong China Korea North America North America North America North America North America North America North America North America Canada Germany United Kingdom Sweden Australia Australia South Africa

Figure 1: Map of Selected Systems

CASBEE-Homes HK-Beam GOBAS GBCS-MURB LEED for Neighborhood Development LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Builder Program Living Building Challenge Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3) Green Communities Green Globes (ANSI Standard 01-2008P) Architecture 2030 SB Tool PassivHaus Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS-Homes NABERS-Office SBAT Lite

June 16, 2009—Page 7

system: CASBEE Home location: Japan year developed: 2002 building type: new single family homes system type: rating tool, voluntary CASBEE Home is an innovative attempt to rate the efficiency of residences in terms of the quality of space they deliver compared to the negative environmental impacts they generate. CASBEE does this by generating a ratio, Q/L, of indoor and outdoor environmental Quality created on the site, divided by the environmental impacts or Loads generated external to the site. While this concept is defined clearly in principle, it is difficult to implement in practice. For example, there frequently appears to be difficulty deciding whether a particular credit should be scored as an environmental Quality or an environmental Load, with the result that many credits are scored redundantly as both. Presently, the rating tool is designed to favor ease of use, with only a self-assessment required. However, this first party certification diminishes the status and marketing power of the rating. In addition, the system appears to support the status quo rather than push the boundaries of sustainable design, with average scores frequently awarded for meeting basic building codes. Credits are generally prescriptive, with few performancebased indicators other than energy use.

system: HKBeam location: Hong Kong year developed: 1996 building type: new non-residential and multi-family buildings system type: rating tool, voluntary HK-BEAM is a long-standing and well-known rating tool based on the U.K.'s BREEAM, with 37,000 residential units and 70 million square feet of space certified to date. The tool is large, incorporating more than 100 different credits, many involving complex documentation that requires specialized professionals. This reflects the need to certify Hong Kong's complex, large-scale projects and the tool's use for a wide variety of building types. The rigor of documentation makes use of the tool during the design phase difficult. HK-BEAM has no special focus on post-occupancy monitoring or deep energy and water use reduction targets. However, the system reduces reliance on prescriptive criteria by incorporating many performance-based indicators. Performance-based indicators are available for a wide range of topics including total building energy use, water use, wastewater reduction, solid waste reduction, light pollution, and an embodied energy reduction based on a well-established life-cycle analysis method. To allow for the certification of many different building types, HK-BEAM allows credits to be excluded if they are not applicable. Therefore, the final score is based on the percentage of points earned out of those that were applicable. Second party certification is offered through the Business Environment Council, overseen by the HK-BEAM Society.

June 16, 2009—Page 8

system: GOBAS location: Asia year developed: 2003 building type: new and existing non-residential and multi-family buildings and complexes system type: assessment and rating tool, mandatory and voluntary The Green Olympic Building Assessment System (GOBAS) is a rating tool and building assessment developed in 2003 for use with building projects for China’s 2008 Olympics. The tool was developed at Tsinghua University with international partners including the Natural Resources Defense Council and Japan’s CASBEE, on which the tool is based. Similar to CASBEE, GOBAS rates buildings based on a ratio score Q/L, which measures both the building’s design Quality and environmental Loading. However, GOBAS goes beyond CASBEE in many respects including a format that is designed to accommodate all stages of a building’s life cycle, from planning though construction to building operation. Notably, full post-occupancy evaluation is required during the operations stage. Although the rating system was mandatory for Olympic buildings, the tool is now used on a voluntary basis on a wide variety of building types including academic, apartment, and office buildings. At this time, the certification party (1st, 2nd, or 3rd party) is not known.

system: GBCS-MURB location: Asia year developed: 2002 building type: multi-family residential buildings system type: rating tool, voluntary The Green Building Certification System-MURB is a fairly comprehensive rating tool used to rate new multi-unit residential buildings. Developed by the Korean Institute of Energy Research, it is formally based on GBtool, though it’s category structure and credit grouping is altered significantly. An innovative two-stage building certification is offered through the Korean Green Building Council. The first certification is awarded following design completion, while the second certification is awarded following construction and is valid for five years. In general, the rating system is not performancebased and many credits may be evaluated in a relatively subjective manner without performance metrics.

June 16, 2009—Page 9

system: LEED for Neighborhoods location: North America year developed: 2007 – first pilot building type: new neighborhoods and infill projects system type: rating tool, voluntary LEED for Neighborhoods is an innovative rating tool undergoing development by the U.S. Green Building Council, Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. LEED for Neighborhoods addresses sustainable design issues beyond the scale of individual buildings, such as walkability and density of neighborhoods, ease of access to public transportation, stores, and civic institutions, preservation and improvement of ecologically valuable land, and neighborhood-wide energy sources such as district heating or combined heat and power plants. LEED for Neighborhoods offers a unique, staged certification system that allows developers in the early stages of design to attain a preliminary certification. The preliminary certification assists developers in obtaining land-use permits, financing, and occupant commitments. Additional certifications are necessary as the project approaches construction and then completion. At this time, it is unknown whether the system will utilize a second or third party certification process. LEED for Neighborhoods incorporates many innovative performance indicators used to measure performance of the neighborhood design, such as street grid density, diversity and equity of housing types, vehicle miles travelled, light pollution, stormwater runoff, and energy and water use of the neighborhood’s buildings.

system: LEED for Homes location: North America year developed: 2008 building type: new single and small multi-family homes system type: rating tool, voluntary LEED for Homes is a relatively new LEED rating tool that was finalized in 2008. LEED for Homes borrows much of its structure and categories from the widely known LEEDNC. However, in recognition of the smaller budgets and shorter timelines in the homebuilding industry, LEED for Homes attempts to streamline the certification process with fewer documentation requirements. In addition, the system shifts much of the documentation burden away from the architects and builders to third party “Green Raters”, who perform most of the technical performance testing, and a designated third party “LEED for Homes Provider” responsible for overseeing the certification. Although most credits are still prescriptive in nature, LEED for Homes adds a performance-based “path” towards certification in the energy section: rather than fulfilling a series of prescriptive credits, a home can score points by demonstrating a certain level of energy performance, tied to the national HERS benchmarking system. In an innovative attempt to account for the extra resources required to build and condition large homes, the rating system forces large homes to earn more points to achieve a certain rating. Homes that are smaller than a defined “neutral size” are required to earn fewer points to achieve the same rating.

June 16, 2009—Page 10

system: Austin Energy Green Building location: Texas, U.S. year developed: 1992 building type: new single and multi-family homes system type: rating tool, voluntary The Austin Energy Green Building program is a long-standing and well-known green building rating tool, run by the city-owned utility, Austin Energy. With over 7000 single family homes and 8000 units of multi-family housing certified, AEGB is also one of the largest green building programs in the U.S. Staff members provide second party certification services, including an innovative series of meetings that teach integrated design and guide homeowners, designers, and contractors through the certification and construction process. Second party certification is supplemented by a suite of performance tests conducted by third party testers, including a blower door test, a ductleakage test, a back-drafting test, and several other HVAC system tests, which are now a mandatory part of the city’s building code. However, the rating system in general is not performance-based, with most credits offering prescriptive measures to reduce energy use, water use, and improve indoor environmental quality. At this time there are no performance benchmarks for overall energy use, water use, or carbon emissions, and there is no post-occupancy monitoring of any kind. But implementation of DOE-2 energy modeling during the home’s design phase is planned for the near future, which will provide energy use estimates and assist in benchmarking energy performance.

system: Living Building Challenge location: North America year developed: 2006 building type: all new buildings system type: guideline and assessment, voluntary The Living Building Challenge is one of only two biocentric tools that were reviewed. The innovative concept of a building that has no negative impact on the environment is advanced by the system's all-mandatory set of performance requirements: no net energy use, no net water use, no new land use, management of 100% of wastewater and stormwater on-site, high rates of recycling and material re-use, and use of the highest indoor environmental quality standards. These performance benchmarks are some of the most challenging anywhere in the world, and The Living Building Challenge has not been achieved to date; however, roughly 60 buildings are in-process. In addition, the tool is designed to break into modules (water, energy, materials, indoor quality, etc) which have been completed individually. Second party certification is offered by the Cascadia Region Green Building Council (part of the USGBC) and is contingent on one year of post-occupancy monitoring that clearly demonstrates compliance with the mandatory requirements. The demanding level of the performance targets requires an integrated, holistic approach to all stages of project development - from design to construction to occupancy - spurring real innovation in building design, systems engineering, and sustainable living.

June 16, 2009—Page 11

system: Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (B3) location: Minnesota, U.S. year developed: 2004 building type: new or existing non-residential and multi-family buildings system type: guideline and assessment, mandatory The Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines are a mandatory set of guidelines required for all new construction and major renovations that are funded in whole or in part by state money. The program has essentially tied all state-sponsored building projects to sustainable design and green building practices. The performance-based guidelines go well beyond prescriptive measures by assigning performance benchmarks to a myriad of building systems and functions. Building energy use, water use, stormwater retention, light pollution, and a large variety of indoor environmental quality issues are assigned overall performance targets. This allows architects and engineers flexibility to determine how the targets will be met, while guaranteeing certain levels of building performance. Several issues such as energy and water use require postoccupancy monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the performance benchmarks. Projects are first party certified through a self-assessment, although documentation is still collected by the Center for Sustainable Building Research. The complex and lengthy documentation requirements, combined with a lack of second or third party certification make compliance difficult to achieve and verify. An upcoming web-based tool will greatly simplify compliance and verification.

system: Green Communities location: North America year developed: 2004 building type: new or existing affordable single and multi-family homes system type: guideline, mandatory Green Communities is a green, affordable housing program tied to a set of mandatory guidelines and developed by Enterprise Community Partners, a national non-profit funding source for affordable housing. The guidelines must be followed by any affordable housing project seeking funding from Enterprise. As a national leader in the affordable housing market, Enterprise’s Green Communities program has been able to initiate an industry-wide transformation in affordable housing. Many state agencies and other non-profit funding sources like Enterprise have now adopted the Green Communities guidelines as a mandatory component of qualifying for funding. This is the case in Minnesota, for example. The guidelines themselves are not particularly performance-based. However, utility bills for energy use are collected post-occupancy. Originally, this was to certify energy use through the U.S. EPA Energy Star program.

June 16, 2009—Page 12

This third party certification has been largely abandoned due to cost, although the energy bills are still required to benchmark building performance against national standards. The remaining parts of the guidelines are first party certified through a self-assessment. Due in large part to the self-assessment and a lack of familiarity with the new practices and procedures required by Green Communities, it can be difficult to achieve and verify compliance.

system: Green Globes, location: North America year developed: 2004 building type: new or existing non-residential and multi-family buildings system type: rating system and green building standard, voluntary The Green Globes rating system originated in Canada based on the BREEAM™ system from England and was introduced to the U.S. market by the Green Building Initiative. It is a point-based system with four levels of achievement from one to four globes. Some of the points can be designated as not applicable to a particular project and the ratings calculated based on the remaining points. This means that a particular site or building type is not penalized if points are not achievable, and the development of multiple ratings systems for special purposes is not as necessary. An existing building rating system called BOMA GoGreen in Canada is being introduced in the United States as the Green Globes Existing Building guidelines. Similar to other rating systems, points are given for processes, practices, and performance outcomes. Performance indicators are given for energy and water use, stormwater, solid waste, light pollution, and carbon footprint, including an integrated LCA module that calculates the environmental impact of building materials and assemblies. As an alternative to the short performance-based criteria in the energy and materials topic areas, Green Globes offers alternate “paths” that rely on lists of prescriptive measures. However, this results in a vast number of credits, many of them quite technical, with 1000 potential points. To make the system easier to use, Green Globes utilizes an innovative web-based tool that guides designers through the early and latter stages of design, with questions and feedback tailored to address issues pertinent at each stage of design. The Green Globes rating system is going through the ANSI standards process where major revisions are being made to the rating system by the Technical Committee.

system: The 2030 Challenge location: North America year developed: 2003 building type: new and existing buildings of all types system type: energy guideline, voluntary The 2030 Challenge is unlike other systems discussed in this report. It is not a sustainable building assessment or rating system. Rather, it takes the form of a building

June 16, 2009—Page 13

guideline focused entirely on energy issues, using a series of increasingly challenging energy performance benchmarks. The guideline calls for every new building design to immediately reduce site energy-use-intensity derived from fossil fuels by 50%, followed by a 60% reduction in 2010, a 70% reduction by 2015, 80% by 2020, 90% by 2025, and 100% (or greenhouse-gas-emissions free) by 2030. In effect, the Challenge takes a “biocentric” approach, with the goal of reducing the building sector’s greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels by the year 2030. However, the guideline uses existing buildings and practice as a reference point. Since the Challenge does not attach any prescriptive guidelines for how these performance benchmarks should be met, architects and developers have flexibility to meet the Challenge in a manner that best suits their individual project. This may include on-site generation of renewable energy, implementation of sustainable design strategies, improvements in energy efficiency, the purchase of a limited amount of renewable energy from the electric grid, or a combination of all these approaches. There is no official certification offered, and no documentation is submitted for any individual project. Rather, organizations such as architectural firms or developers commit to design and build buildings that meet the Challenge’s energy performance benchmarks as part of their ongoing practice. In addition, the 2030 Challenge is becoming the basis for various voluntary and mandatory government programs in states such as Minnesota and California.

system: SBtool location: North America year developed: 1996 building type: flexible (18 types possible), new and existing buildings system type: assessment framework for tool development, voluntary or mandatory SBtool is essentially an educational and research tool designed to help local sustainable building organizations develop their own assessment systems. SBtool provides a wide range of criteria that can be selected and weighted according to the needs and goals of the local organization, while maintaining an assessment structure and language common to systems around the world. Well-known in academic circles, SBtool has been under continuous development since 1996 and has been used as the basis for numerous assessment tools including Korea's GBCS. SBtool is flexible to accommodate the various needs of sustainable building organizations around the world; for example, it is structured to recognize 18 different building types, can be used for first, second, or third party certifications, and can be adjusted for use during different phases of a building's life cycle. The sustainable building organization responsible for developing their version of SBtool can determine the final documentation requirements and set exact benchmarks for relevant performance indicators. SBtool is remarkable for its use of performance indicators that measure performance in terms of annual person hours, an important metric that no other assessment system uses on a consistent basis.

June 16, 2009—Page 14

system: Passiv Haus location: international year developed: 1996 building type: new single and multi-family homes system type: assessment tool focused on energy issues, voluntary Passiv Haus is one of only two biocentric assessment systems that were reviewed. A goal of reducing the housing sector’s carbon emissions to a scientifically-justified sustainable level is advanced through strict performance-based requirements for air leakage, heating and cooling energy use, and overall energy use during occupancy. These performance requirements typically reduce energy consumption by 80% compared to standard construction, enabling the economical use of renewable energy to meet the remaining demand. The demanding level of the energy performance targets requires an integrated, holistic approach to all stages of project development - from design to construction to occupancy - spurring real innovation in building design, systems engineering, and sustainable living. Although the Passiv Haus standard deals primarily with energy issues, good indoor air quality and proper ventilation are also integral components. In response to the growth of the Passiv Haus standard in Europe, manufacturers have begun to develop specialized components such as windows, heat recovery ventilators, insulation assemblies, and plug-and-play ventilation ducts that are certified for use in Passiv Haus projects. As a result of this industry support and increasing familiarity with the standard, some European builders are now able to construct Passiv Haus projects for the same cost as standard construction. Second party certification is offered through the Passiv Haus Institutes in Germany and the United States.

system: Code for Sustainable Homes location: England year developed: 2007 building type: new single and multi-family homes system type: rating tool and national building code, mandatory by 2016 The Code for Sustainable Homes is a challenging, performance-based rating system that is scheduled to phase into national building codes by 2016. The system awards ratings based largely on carbon emissions reduction and water use reduction targets. This guarantees homebuyers certain levels of performance depending on the rating of the home they buy. In addition, the rating provides a solid basis for determining the carbon footprints of homes, for compliance with national and international mandates and treaties. Between 2010 and 2016, progressively higher levels of performance will be phased into the building code, with 25% carbon emissions reduction required by 2010 and zero carbon homes required by 2016. In effect, the Challenge takes a “biocentric” approach, with the goal of reducing the housing sector’s greenhouse gas emissions to sustainable levels. However, the guideline uses existing buildings and practice as a reference point. In general, the rating system focuses on performance-based credits rather than

June 16, 2009—Page 15

prescriptive measures for such topics as stormwater run-off, construction waste, land use, and preservation of biodiversity. However, the Code for Sustainable Homes does not require post-occupancy monitoring for any of these credits, relying instead on energy modeling, site inspections, and limited testing to generate the performance estimates. Certification is through a third party assessor, in charge of assisting the design team, reviewing submitted documentation, organizing necessary performance testing, and conducting several site inspections.

system: EcoEffect location: Sweden year developed: 2007 building type: new or existing multi-family housing and non-residential buildings system type: assessment tool, voluntary EcoEffect is a complex and largely academic software-based assessment tool. It uses an integral national database in an innovative process that translates building performance indicators into mid and end-point indicators such as nutrification, acidification, global warming, and specific human health problems. The database is also used to conduct lifecycle analysis on materials and various building components used in Sweden. However, the complexity of the tool makes it difficult to use in practice, and the tool remains unfinished. The tool's complexity is illustrated by the scoring system, which operates in three ways. 1) There are individual scores for each subject area, which are designed for use as stand-alone modules, if desired. 2) There is an overall building rating comprised of a 1-6 star score for lack of environmental impacts, and another 1-6 star score for interior environmental quality. 3) There is a ratio score similar to CASBEE that balances internal environmental quality offered vs. environmental loads generated. Overall, the scoring system is further complicated by the addition of a credit weighting system that can change from project to project, and by the tool's hierarchical structure that reduces the transparency of the scoring system. Under development since 2000, the tool still lacks assessment modules for waste and water. Substantial documentation is necessary to provide adequate data for calculation of the environmental impacts. This hampers use of the tool during the design phase. Certifications are not offered at this time since the tool is still under development.

system: NABERS Home location: Australia year developed: 2005 building type: existing single and small multifamily homes system type: rating and assessment tool, voluntary NABERS Home is a performance-based rating and assessment tool for single and multifamily homes without stacked units. Homeowners enter utility information regarding

June 16, 2009—Page 16

energy and water use, and the tool compares the performance to other homes in the region using a large national database. The tool also calculates carbon emissions based on average emission rates for power sources in the region. Ratings are based on a comparison of absolute energy and water use, regardless of home size. While this makes it difficult to judge the energy and water efficiency of a home on a square meter basis, it promotes the goal of smaller home size while suggesting absolute limits on energy and water use per household. These are appropriate measures in a country already faced with severe water shortages and worsening prospects under global warming. Since the rating tool is a self-assessment meant to assist homeowners in tracking energy and water performance, no official certification is offered.

system: NABERS Office location: Australia year developed: 2005 building type: existing non-residential buildings system type: rating and assessment tool, voluntary Although this system only applies to non-residential buildings, it is included here as a good example of the variety of post-occupancy monitoring that can be tailored to suit different building users and stakeholders. In general, NABERS Office is a performancebased rating and assessment tool for existing office buildings. In an effort to recognize the variety of interests and spheres of influence of different building users and stakeholders, the program offers three tracks. 1) A self-assessment that building owners and managers can use to track building performance metrics vital to the efficient and cost-effective operation of the building, such as energy use, water use, and occupant comfort. 2) A self-assessment geared towards building tenants that tracks performance issues in which tenants have a stake, such as recycling. 3) A third party assessment covering a wider range of performance metrics including estimated carbon emissions. The third party assessment results in an official certification and a marketable building rating. This rating is based on a ranked comparison to similar buildings from a national database. NABERS Office uses post-occupancy monitoring to examine the operational stage of buildings only, and does not provide guidelines for issues related to design, engineering, or maintenance of the building and systems. This can make it difficult to determine the relative impacts of occupant behavior vs. building design and engineering of systems.

June 16, 2009—Page 17

system: SBATlite location: South Africa year developed: 2004 building type: new or existing non-residential and multi-family buildings system type: rating tool, voluntary A quick, easy, and innovative rating tool arranged around the 3-e's (environment, economy, and equity) principle, SBATlite was developed by South Africa’s Council for Scientific and Industrial Research. The system is designed for use with relatively small projects built in developing countries. It appropriately focuses on issues such as improving the local economy by using local materials, training unskilled local laborers, and growing food on site. The tool also focuses on low-cost passive means of heating, cooling, ventilation, and lighting. Credits are easy to assess and responses given in percentages allow for approximations. If desired, more documentation can be gathered and used to calculate responses exactly. This flexibility allows SBATlite to be used in the initial stages of design as a design tool, as well as at the completion of a project as an assessment. SBATlite is a free, self-assessment tool that does not offer official certification. It is unclear what provides the motivation for use of this tool since it is not tied to performance benchmarks, official labels or certifications for marketing, or government-mandated programs (known to the author). Unfortunately, most performance indicators are prescriptive, failing to directly measure important elements such as water use per person or building energy consumption per square meter.

June 16, 2009—Page 18

4. COMPARISON OF GUIDELINES, RATING SYSTEMS, AND ASSESSMENT TOOLS BY CATEGORY This section contains a comparison of the selected sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems. The organization of this section follows the attributes that were researched as part of the survey. A detailed description of the attributes for each system appears in the Appendix. The attributes addressed in this section are • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Approach Format/system type Intended application and scope History and evolution Market context Topics addressed (such as site, water, energy, materials, IEQ) Program funding Market penetration (number of houses) Type of indicators (performance versus prescriptive) Certification method or other enforcement Documentation Post occupancy monitoring Successful features and outcomes Unsuccessful features and outcomes Innovations Education component

Approach Researchers developing sustainable building assessments, guidelines, and rating tools increasingly ask whether typical performance benchmarks can lead to truly sustainable buildings. The concern is that typical performance benchmarks focus on being “less bad” by minimizing pollution or other building impacts, rather than establishing a level of performance that is truly sustainable into the future. A performance benchmark that establishes a goal of 40% energy reduction compared to current code by the year 2020 is an example of the “less bad” approach. Typically, such benchmarks are tied to incremental improvements over time. One term used to describe this process is the “bottom up” approach because industry starts with the worst-performing buildings and attempts to incrementally improve their performance. This approach can be problematic because the efficiencies of existing systems can only be pushed so far. Researchers are now beginning to consider the potential of the reverse process, or “top down” approach. With this approach, the performance and features of a sustainable building are defined first. Then performance benchmarks are determined that can show clear progress towards the sustainable endpoint. The top-down approach has the benefit of encouraging fresh ideas and holistic design thinking, in addition to identifying synergies that can be exploited from the outset.

June 16, 2009—Page 19

This debate can also be framed in terms of anthropocentric tools versus biocentric tools. Anthropocentric tools use performance benchmarks that are tied to historical, engineering-related levels of performance, such as the 2006 International Energy Conservation Code (IECC). Prescriptive measures, such as required insulation levels or air tightness levels are also hallmarks of anthropocentric tools because they use current practice as a baseline. But energy codes and current practice were not intended to measure sustainability. In contrast, biocentric tools use performance benchmarks that are tied to the carrying capacity of the earth. In other words, building impacts are measured in terms of the level that can be sustained by the biosphere. This approach is intended to yield a more accurate measure of progress towards sustainability. The major difficulty with a biocentric approach is determining the actual carrying capacity of the earth for various human activities. Of the tools reviewed, the vast majority take the bottom-up, anthropocentric approach. As examples, LEED for Homes and LEED for Neighborhoods measure energy performance by estimating the percentage reduction in energy use compared to the 2006 IECC. NABERS Home and Office measure energy use compared to a national average determined from a large database of existing buildings. Austin’s Green Building program reduces energy use by prescribing better efficiencies for various appliances compared to standard installations. The two tools that take a top-down, biocentric approach are the Living Building Challenge and PassivHaus. The Living Building Challenge largely avoids the difficulties involved in determining the earth’s carrying capacities for water and energy use by simply requiring that the building should not use any net energy or net water from off site. Zero environmental impact in these categories will surely remain below any carrying capacity scientists might determine. The PassivHaus approach is more refined, and results in a slightly less challenging energy performance benchmark. The overall energy performance requirement of 120 kWh/m2 per year is determined by calculating the maximum energy use per household required to cut global carbon emissions by 80%, a reduction that climate scientists have tied to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Finally, two tools combine biocentric goals with bottom-up approaches. Architecture 2030 and the U.K.’s Code for Sustainable Homes clearly achieve a sustainable level of carbon emissions by requiring net zero carbon buildings, but these tools take a bottom up approach since they use the existing building stock as a baseline for incremental improvement.

June 16, 2009—Page 20

Table 1: Approach anthropocentric X X X X X X X

biocentric

X* X X X X X X* X

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

X X X X 15 4 * biocentric with top-down approach

Format/System Type Sustainable building tools come in a wide variety of evolving formats, but the tools reviewed in this research fall into three main categories: building guidelines, building assessments, and building ratings. Each format accomplishes different goals and creates different effects. Therefore, the format of a tool is chosen with the end goals in mind. GUIDELINES: As defined in this report, building guidelines lack scores and ratings. They are not used as labels to gain marketing advantages or assist in advertising efforts. Sometimes, sustainable building guidelines are written as recommendations or guides to assist developers, builders, and architects in designing and constructing sustainable buildings. But governments and other agencies may also choose to use guidelines as mandatory procedures. The Minnesota Sustainable Building Guidelines (United States) is an example of a guideline that is mandatory for all buildings built with money from the state government. The goal is to ensure that state money is used wisely to design buildings that are long lasting, energy efficient, and impose as few impacts as possible on local infrastructure, such as storm sewers and roads. Since guidelines are designed to play a large instructional/educational role and do not require scores or points, they often have more mandatory credits. In every case, they are meant to be integral to the design process. ASSESSMENTS: Compared to building guidelines, assessments may be used less frequently during the design phase of a project. Although they may be consulted

June 16, 2009—Page 21

during the design work, the depth and complexity of the investigation often warrants their use after construction is complete. A building assessment measures performance based on predetermined criteria. Typically, the assessment covers a wide range of criteria from construction methods and materials to energy and water use. Scores are awarded in each of these categories to develop a comprehensive picture of building performance. The goal of a building assessment is to accurately determine the environmental impact of a particular project. For this reason, assessments may integrate especially well with government environmental initiatives and programs designed to measure and reduce such impacts. RATING SYSTEMS: Compared to building assessments and guidelines, rating systems are the most market-oriented tool. Rating systems attach importance to the power of labeling. Rating systems are often point-based, which helps them group building performance by tiers to increase market value and public recognition. But an increased focus on points may come with decreased emphasis on calculating exact environmental impacts. In general, the goal of rating systems is market transformation through the acknowledgement and public recognition of superior building performance and design. Table 2: Format/System Type Format/System Type guideline

rating X X X X X X X

X X X

assessment

X X

X

X X X

X

5

building code

X

X X X

standard

X X X 13

X X X X 8

1

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

1

Often, the distinctions between different formats are not clear, and one tool may incorporate two or more formats. NABERS-Home is an example of a tool that functions both as a rating tool and an assessment. It uses post-occupancy monitoring to calculate the energy and water use - and associated environmental impacts - of an existing home, and then rates the home’s performance compared to similar homes

June 16, 2009—Page 22

from a national database. All three formats are also evolving for use as official sustainable building standards and improved building codes. The U.K.’s Code for Sustainable Homes is an example of a voluntary rating tool that will transition into mandatory national building code by 2016. In fact, many local governments are beginning to adopt these tools for use. For example, the city of Portland is now requiring publicly-funded buildings to meet LEED silver, and Boston is requiring LEED silver for all commercial buildings in the city. Several sustainable building organizations, such as the Green Building Initiative’s Green Globes program and the U.S. Green Building Council are now developing official ANSI and ASHRAE standards for non-residential green buildings. The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) is also developing an ANSI standard for residential projects. Green building standards will be easy to adopt into a variety of building codes. Guidelines, assessments and rating systems are usually intended for application during the design phase. However, organizations developing these systems are focusing more attention on actual performance measurement during operations. Some systems, such as the Minnesota B3 Guidelines, include operations within the guideline. Others, such as LEED, Green Globes, and CASBEE use separate rating tools or assessments for existing buildings and ongoing operations.

Application/Scope Table 3: Application/Scope single family ho using X

multifamily housing

nonresidential X X

X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

11

X 17

X X X X X X X X X

X

X X X X X

X X X 11

building scale X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 19

neighbor hood new existing scale building s buildings X ? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 17 7

renovations

X X X X X X

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Aus tin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Pas siv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

6

The guidelines, rating systems, and assessment tools chosen for review address housing either as a sole focus or as part of a broader approach to sustainable buildings. The one exception is NABERS-Office, which is incorporated because of its singular focus on addressing the separate needs and interests of different user groups with post-occupancy monitoring.

June 16, 2009—Page 23

In general, the systems can be broken down into two categories – those that address single and multi-family housing, and those that address non-residential and larger multi-family buildings. With the exception of CASBEE-Homes, all the systems that deal with single family homes also incorporate multi-family housing. Similarly, all the systems that address non-residential buildings also address multi-family housing, with the exception of NABERS-Office. Thus, nearly every system can be applied to multi-family homes. As expected, every guideline, rating tool, and building assessment addresses the building scale, defined as a single building or connected complex. Only a few of the selected systems address the larger neighborhood scale, defined as a grouping of unconnected buildings, at a minimum. Of these, GOBAS has been used to assess the design of Olympic housing “villages”, and Architecture 2030 supports more generally the implementation of neighborhood systems and infrastructure such as district heat and energy plants. However, LEED for Neighborhoods is the only system that truly focuses on neighborhood design and planning, and proposes several innovative performance indicators to measure their sustainability. Such large-scale planning is likely to become critical for cities attempting to implement large carbon emission reductions and other environmental goals. Guidelines, rating tools and assessment systems can also be divided into those that address new buildings, existing buildings, or existing buildings that are undergoing major renovations. Many of the systems that address only new construction are paired with other rating tools or assessment systems designed explicitly for existing buildings. For example, CASBEE, LEED, and Green Globes all have separate versions of the system that focus on existing buildings. Other guidelines, rating tools, and assessments deal with existing buildings only when the buildings are undergoing substantial renovations. Examples of these systems include the Minnesota B3 Guidelines and Green Communities. SBtool takes a flexible approach that allows users to adapt it for almost any circumstance, whether assessing a new building, an existing building, or a renovation project. In any case, building scientists have acknowledged that addressing existing buildings through re-commissioning and through monitoring of their on-going operations is critical to achieving long-term savings and environmental benefits. In addition, the greater use of post occupancy monitoring will likely require more guidelines, rating tools, and assessment systems to address existing buildings.

History and Evolution The use of sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems is increasing in the building industry. A few pioneering systems developed in the 1990s have rapidly diversified and spread around the world. Such pioneering systems include U.K.’s BREEAM, and several local programs such as the city of Austin’s Green Building Program. These systems became the basis for many of today’s best known systems such as LEED, HK-BEAM, and GB-tool (now SB-Tool). To this

June 16, 2009—Page 24

point, the evolution of guidelines has been driven by a desire for regional variation as well as the desire to accommodate new building types and new sustainable building knowledge. Now, the need to verify performance and measure the outcomes of sustainable building design and practice has spurred a new shift in the development of these systems. Guidelines, assessments, and rating systems are being rewritten with an increased emphasis on performance indicators rather than prescriptive measures. Some of the newest systems such as LEED for Neighborhoods (still in the pilot phase), the U.K.'s Code for Sustainable Homes, and Sweden's EcoEffect have developed innovative new performance indicators to measure outcomes in areas previously addressed solely with prescriptive measures. Other new developments include an increased focus on post-occupancy monitoring (often addressed with separate systems developed for existing buildings), development of green building standards by organizations such as ASHRAE and ANSI, and the adoption of guidelines and rating tools for different scales, including the development/neighborhood scale and the infrastructure scale. Table 4: History and Evolution

Market Penetration As expected, the market penetration of a particular guideline, assessment tool, or rating system increases over time. The longest-standing systems such as the Austin Energy Green Building Program, HK-BEAM, and Passiv Haus have some of the highest numbers of certifications. However, it is interesting to note that two relatively recent systems - Green Communities, launched by Enterprise Community Partners, and LEED for Homes, launched by the USGBC - have achieved high numbers of certifications in a relatively short time span. The size and influence these organizations wield over their respective sectors of the building industry have

June 16, 2009—Page 25

allowed them to quickly ramp-up and establish large programs with broad-based support. Perhaps more importantly, they have been able to modify well-known, preexisting programs that already have a network of partners and users, rather than build new programs from scratch. Table 5: Market Penetration more than 1000

100 to 1000

less than 100 unknown X?

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 5

4

4

X 6

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

Market Context Most sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems can be divided into those that are mandatory and those that are voluntary. A few systems span both categories, such as LEED-NC (New Construction), which is a voluntary system that has been adopted as mandatory in cities such as Portland and Boston. The success of voluntary guidelines, assessment tools and rating systems relies heavily on market recognition. This is because the value of a voluntary label such as LEED increases as more people become familiar with it. For this reason, voluntary systems with greater market penetration are likely to remain industry leaders. Meanwhile, smaller systems have a hard time gaining market penetration because their label is not well recognized and is therefore worth less. For relatively new programs with new certification systems, there are a few ways to address this issue. For voluntary systems, one method is finding a niche market. For example, the Living Building Challenge has positioned itself to attract those in the

June 16, 2009—Page 26

building industry who are already accomplished in green building and are looking for a new and greater challenge. Another method for achieving greater market penetration is to develop guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems that are mandatory. This can be done through adoption or adaptation of voluntary systems by governments or standards organizations, such as ASHRAE or ANSI. For example, the voluntary performance benchmarks set by Architecture 2030 are now being adopted by state governments such as California and Minnesota. And Green Globes, based on a voluntary Canadian system, is now being developed by ANSI into a green building standard. The expectation is that green building standards will lend themselves to quick and easy adoption by various building codes. Table 6: Market Context voluntary X X X X X X X X

mandatory

X

X X X X X X

X X*

X X X X

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

* intended to become nation-wide building code

Green building organizations can also develop mandatory guidelines, assessments, and rating systems from the start. Green Communities is an example of a program that was designed as a mandatory green building guideline for affordable housing projects seeking funding from Enterprise Community Partners. But because of the size of Enterprise and the nature of funding in the U.S. affordable housing market, Green Communities now impacts affordable housing projects throughout the industry. The U.K.’s Code for Sustainable Homes is another example of a guideline designed to be mandatory. However, the Code will be initiated in phases, and began as a voluntary measure in 2007. By 2010, the government will make the first phase of the program mandatory, requiring a drop in CO2 emissions of 25%. By 2016, a 100% drop in CO2 emissions will be mandatory. Mandatory guidelines may have more success if they are phased in this manner, allowing the building industry to develop a learning curve.

June 16, 2009—Page 27

Sources of Funding Applying rating tools and design guidelines, conducting building assessments, and certifying building performance can be expensive. To cover these costs, a variety of strategies can be implemented. In general, these strategies break down into two groups: 1) fee based, in which a sustainable building organization recovers the costs of certification and program development by charging fees based on the size and complexity of the project. 2) non-fee based, in which program and certification costs are covered by outside funding, such as taxes. Sustainable building guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems that incorporate second or 3rd party certifications are typically the most expensive. These programs must generally be paid for through project-based fees. In addition, the sustainable building organization that developed the system or tool in use typically encourages users to become members. They pay a yearly fee to maintain membership, which provides another revenue stream for the sustainable building organization. One innovative program that does not follow this trend is the Austin Energy Green Building Program. While the program is second party-certified, there are no fees. This is because the program is run through the city-owned utility, which distributes the costs of green building certification to ratepayers over its entire service territory. However, these costs are minimal because it is cheaper for the utility to reduce energy use through efficiency improvements than it is to build new power plants. Ultimately, project-based fees are reflected in increased costs paid for by the developer or building owner. This can be a major reason for a lack of participation in green building programs. For this reason, sustainable building organizations often strive to keep costs as low as possible, through development of streamlined certification systems and web-based tools, such as those found in Green Globes. Interestingly, building guidelines, assessment tools, and rating systems that are funded with state or non-profit money are typically either self-assessments or programs in which no official certification is offered. This is done in an effort to keep costs as low as possible. However, the outcomes of these programs are not as well documented, and a lack of compliance with guidelines and credits may result. One interesting approach to this issue can be found with NABERS-Office. If building owners simply desire a quick check on the performance of their building, a free web-based self-assessment service is offered, paid for by the government. But if the building owner desires an official certification and rating label, along with the potential marketing advantage that can bring, the building owner is required to pay a fee for the services of a third party certification official.

June 16, 2009—Page 28

Table 7: Sources of Funding fees

no fees

unknown X

X

donations + certification fee/unit

membership + certification fee/unit

membership + certification fee/unit

X

X X

utility funded program

Austin Energy Green Building

membership + certification fee/unit

Living Building Challenge X

state funded program

X

non-profit funded program

MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities

certification fee/project

Green Globes X

X

non-profit funded program

Architecture 2030

membership + software fees certification fee/unit + software fee

Sbtool Passiv Haus

membership fee

8

LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes

X X

GOBAS GBCS - MURBs

X X

CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM

X X

system

X

university funded program

X

state funded program

X

state funded program

X

state funded program 8

X

UK Code for Sustainable Homes

X

EcoEffect NABERS - Homes

X

NABERS - Office SBAT lite

6

June 16, 2009—Page 29

Topics Addressed Every sustainable building guideline, rating tool, and assessment system has a unique set of topic areas. These topic areas typically provide the general organization for the tool or system, and are used to differentiate between different sets of credits or criteria. Some systems choose to focus on a limited set of topics. For example, Architecture 2030 and Passiv Haus deal strictly with energy issues. Other systems attempt to cover the full range of sustainable building issues. HK-BEAM, the Minnesota B3 Guidelines, and SBATlite feature a very comprehensive suite of credits and criteria that span almost all of the potential topic areas. A survey of the systems shows that sustainable building credits and criteria typically fall into fourteen general topic areas or categories. These categories are shown in the topics chart. However, a tally shows that some topic areas form the basis of almost every single guideline. These topic areas are Energy, Water, Materials and Resources, IEQ/ Occupant health, Waste, and Site issues. Together, these topics are considered the basic elements of any reasonably comprehensive sustainable building assessment, guideline, or rating system. Other frequently used topic areas include Location/Transport, Integrated Design, Operations/Maintenance, and Education/Awareness. While many systems have topic areas that closely match these fourteen categories, some systems have credits and criteria that fit the topics but are arranged differently. For example, CASBEE-Homes, GOBAS, and EcoEffect all group credits into two main categories: indoor and outdoor environmental quality (Q), and environmental impacts or loads (L). This allows the systems to generate a ratio Q/L, which measures a building’s efficiency in terms of the quality of space created divided by the pollution generated. While this concept is clear in principle, it is difficult to implement in practice since many credits can be considered from either a quality or a load perspective. Regardless, the two main categories, Q and L, are divided into several subcategories which generally match the fourteen topic areas discussed above. SBATlite also approaches topic areas from an innovative perspective. The rating tool is organized based on the “3-E’s” principle of sustainability – Ecology, Economy, and Equity. The ecology section contains credits that relate to pollution and environmental issues. The economy section contains credits that address sustainability in terms of supporting the local economy, reducing life-cycle costs, and improving the service quality of the building. The Equity section contains credits that deal with public safety, human health and comfort, access to facilities, and tenant participation. By utilizing the 3-E’s principle, SBATlite is able to comprehensively address the entire suite of topic areas typically used for sustainable building.

se

en e rgy us e em and i ss bui ion ldi ng s

X X

X

X 12

X

X

X X X 15

X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 18

X X

X X

wa ter u

re s ou rc e s an d

X X 15

X X X X

X X X X X X

X

X X

IEQ

he alt h oc cu pa nt

X X 13

X

X X X X X X X X

X X

wa ste

an d

ma ter ial s

X X

X 14

X X

X

X X X X X X X X

X 10

X X X X X X X X

X

X 9

X

X X X

X X X

X

X X X 10

X X X X

X

X X

X 7

X

X

X

X

X

X

X 4

X

X

X

X 4

X

X

X

X 9

X

X X

X

X

X

X X

si t e de sig n sto , eco r m log wa y a lo ter nd c at ne ion, tr ig h bo ansp rh oo ort a d int de nd eg sig r a n pr ted d oje e ct sig p lan n an nin d op e g ra ma tion in s a t e na nd nc e fun cti o n an qu d se r ali ty vice ec on o m life ic as cy pe c le cts a co cu sts nd ltu r a l an dp e a s pe rcep cts tua aw l are n e es d uc s an ati d on

X X

4

X X X

sy ste m

CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

in n ov ati on s

X

June 16, 2009—Page 30

Table 8: Topics Addressed

June 16, 2009—Page 31

Type of Indicator Sustainability indicators are commonly of two types: performance indicators and prescriptive indicators. Indicators are usually used to specify the action or performance goal that must be met to satisfy the criteria of a particular credit, group of credits, or topic area. However, there is an important difference between prescriptive and performance indicators. Prescriptive indicators are used to specify a certain set of actions that must be taken to satisfy the criteria or credit. This set of actions is chosen in advance by the organization that developed the rating tool, guideline, or assessment. The actions are then “prescribed” in the credit and must be completed as written. In general, the final outcome of a prescriptive indicator is not known, since the indicator is not tied to a measurement. Performance indicators are used to measure the outcome of a set of actions. However, the set of actions is not prescribed. It is up to the designer, architect, engineer, etc to decide how the desired outcome will be achieved. The performance indicator also determines how the outcome will be measured. A good example to illustrate the difference between a performance and a prescriptive indicator may be a credit with the goal of reducing energy use. A prescriptive indicator might address this credit by specifying that all furnaces must have an AFUE of 90 or better. By installing a high-efficiency 90 AFUE furnace, energy use will certainly decline compared to the case of a standard furnace installation. But what if the engineer has chosen to use a different kind of heating system without furnaces? More importantly, what is the end result or outcome in terms of the home’s overall energy use? A prescriptive indicator falls short of answering these questions. A performance indicator might address this credit by specifying that the home’s overall energy use must be reduced by 20%, compared to a standard code-based home. In this case, the engineer or architect has more discretion to decide how this reduction will be achieved. In addition, the overall outcome in terms of the home’s energy use is known. Performance and prescriptive indicators both have advantages. For example, many developers and contractors appreciate prescriptive indicators because they outline a series of actions that are easy to follow. Likewise, rating organizations appreciate prescriptive indicators because they are easy to enforce. However, performance indicators have significant advantages as well. Although they require additional work to measure building performance, performance indicators increase the flexibility designers have to achieve sustainable building goals. They also force designers, architects and engineers to measure the outcomes of the decisions they make. This helps them understand which strategies actually work to improve a building’s performance. If performance indicators are used for post-occupancy monitoring, they can also force building owners and tenants to measure their own environmental impacts. This can lead to behavioral or procedural changes which measurably improve a building’s performance. Another important aspect of performance indicators is their ability to measure compliance against government regulations regarding pollution levels, energy use, and greenhouse gas emissions. Building

June 16, 2009—Page 32

Table 9: Type of Indicator

June 16, 2009—Page 33

scientists have generally agreed that performance indicators are the only way to measure progress towards sustainability. Sustainable building organizations have developed a vast number of indicators to cover a broad range of topics and credits. However, building scientists have outlined a set of indicator categories that they consider the most important for designing, constructing, and operating sustainable buildings. In general, these categories are energy use, water use, wastewater, stormwater, indoor environmental quality (IEQ)/human health, carbon footprint, vehicle miles travelled, light pollution, sound pollution, heat island effect, land use, and biodiversity. The majority of topic areas found in sustainable building guidelines, rating tools, and assessment systems can be covered by indicators from these 12 categories. Some categories are easy to address with performance indicators. The indicator chart shows that energy-related credits are often addressed with performance indicators. Performance indicators for energy consumption are vitally important since building scientists need to know the actual energy performance of buildings to determine progress in combating global warming. Other categories are more difficult to define with performance indicators. For example, only the Code for Sustainable Homes has defined a performance indicator for measuring a site’s biodiversity. A couple categories cannot yet be measured with performance indicators. For example, building scientists have yet to determine a method for cost-effectively calculating or measuring a particular building’s contribution to the urban heat island. For this reason, performance indicators do not exist for the topic, and prescriptive indicators are used instead to prescribe a series of actions that will hopefully have a significant effect on the problem. Of the systems reviewed, many are now placing high priority on the use of performance indicators. In some cases, these systems have simply replaced many older, prescriptive indicators with performance indicators. Such systems include HKBEAM and the Minnesota B3 Guidelines. In other cases, systems have defined alternate “performance-based paths” that exist alongside longer lists of prescriptive indicators. The performance-based paths can be used to replace the prescriptive lists, at the user’s discretion. Such systems include LEED for Homes and Green Globes. Still other systems have worked to create new, innovative performance indicators in categories that are difficult to measure and define. LEED for Neighborhoods and the Code for Sustainable Homes are the only systems that have developed performance indicators for vehicle miles travelled and biodiversity, respectively. NABERS-Office is the only system that takes actual measurements of human health and comfort. It does this through post-occupancy monitoring and user surveys. All other systems rely on prescriptive lists such as unhealthy materials to avoid, or prescribed ventilation rates and daylight factors.

Certification Method Building certification is an integral part of nearly all building rating and assessment programs. An official certification demonstrates to the public that the building

June 16, 2009—Page 34

project has succeeded in meeting certain requirements and standards above and beyond the normal building regulations and codes. Certification is the process of verifying projects to the higher standard defined by a building standards/rating organization. Of the rating systems reviewed, certification methods vary from first party certification through third party certification, and some offer no official certification. Different certification methods vary in workload and documentation requirements, and carry different weight related to market perception and validity of the certification. Table 10: Certification Method 1st party 2nd party 3rd party X X

none offered

unknown

X X X X X X X X X X X

X X

X X X X X

5

5

5

2

X 3

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

No certification means no official certification is granted to the building owners by the building standards/rating organization. Two building rating/assessment systems do not offer an official certification. The purpose of the rating is simply to benchmark performance for comparison with peers, or to track building performance over time. Such rating systems are of most value to the building owners or managers who may be interested in reducing operating costs, for example. Examples of such a system include NABERS Home and Architecture 2030. FIRST PARTY: First party certification means that the development team, including the building owners, designers, and/or builders, assesses the project. This selfassessment is accepted by the building standards/rating organization as valid and an official certification is achieved. This approach has the important benefit of minimizing documentation work, but because the rating is self-assessed and not verified by any outside party, the certification has little marketing power or advertising advantage. In addition, the lack of oversight has the potential to lead to a

June 16, 2009—Page 35

lack of compliance with the system’s credits. First party certifications are not frequently offered. Of the rating systems reviewed, only CASBEE-Homes, Green Communities, and Minnesota B3 Guidelines use self-assessment as the sole means of compliance. Currently, CASBEE is moving away from this approach with their Accredited Professional Registration System, and Green Communities has attempted to provide third party certification for energy performance through the U.S. Energy Star program. SECOND PARTY: Second party certification occurs when the building standards/rating organization uses their own staff to verify the performance of building projects. This certification method carries added marketing weight because verification is one step removed from the building owners. Second party certifications are also a more acceptable form of verification for government programs, environmental goals, and green building initiatives. This type of certification is frequently used by the building standards/rating organizations to streamline the certification by keeping the evaluation process “in-house”. This approach may also allow the organization to better control the use and early development of the rating system. Of the tools reviewed, second party certifications are the most common type of certification. Examples include PassivHaus, HK BEAM, and the Living Building Challenge. THIRD PARTY: Third party certification occurs when a party independent of both the building owners and the building standards/rating organization verifies the performance of the building. In this case, the third party rater is often still certified and sometimes trained - by the building standards/rating organization, but he/she is not paid staff from that organization. A third party certification is regarded as the most impartial evaluation method because the rater is removed from both interested parties. As such, a third party certification offers the greatest marketing power and the most accurate method of comparison with government policies, goals, and initiatives. Several building rating systems that previously operated using second party certifications have now adopted third party certification. This shift increases the validity of the certification while allowing the building standards/rating organization to focus on the development of improved rating systems. Frequently, adoption of third party certification has occurred once the rating system is wellestablished and the volume of certifications has become large. Prime examples include LEED and the U.K.’s Code for Sustainable Homes.

Documentation Documentation is a necessary component of the certification process. Ideally, it demonstrates how the building project achieves the standards set forth by the building standards/rating organization. A wide range of individuals involved with the building project can provide documentation in a variety of formats and to differing extents. Generally, the depth of documentation is determined by the method of certification, with more documentation required for second and third party certifications and considerably less for first party certifications. In many cases a third party testing service is used on a limited basis to conduct and provide documentation from

June 16, 2009—Page 36

specialized tests such as blower door and HVAC system tests. If a certification involves post occupancy evaluation, building users/tenants may be asked to submit documentation or take part in a building survey. Table 11: Documentation design team X X

owner/ tenant

X

X

2nd/3rd party rater

none required unknown

X X X X X X

X X X X

X

X X X X

X

X X

X 12

X X

X X X X 7

X 8

1

certification method 1st party 2nd party unknown 1st party unknown 3rd party 2nd party 2nd party 1st party 1st party 3rd party none any 2nd party 3rd party unknown none 3rd party unknown

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

2

Third party certifications require documentation supplied and/or verified by third party assessors or testing services. Of the rating systems reviewed, all building rating systems offering third party certification - such as LEED for Homes, NABERS Office, and the Code for Sustainable Homes - require documentation from independent assessors. This requires contracting work from suitably qualified professionals outside the design, construction and project management team. This can considerably increase the expense of certification, but also increases the validity of the documentation and the certification process in general. To minimize complexity, the third party assessor is often a single person, in charge of assembling and verifying all the documentation in addition to conducting a limited number of performance tests. This approach may only be effective for smaller projects such as the single or multi-family homes built under the LEED for Homes and Code for Sustainable Homes rating systems. In addition to third party assessors, all three of these rating systems require some documentation from first party sources - typically the project development team including developers, architects, engineers, and builders. This first party documentation can be used to award a “pre-certification” before the project is complete, and is frequently verified during and after construction by third party assessors. For the rating systems reviewed, second party certifications frequently involved documentation from a mix of first, second, and third party sources. For example, HK

June 16, 2009—Page 37

BEAM requires documentation in the form of design drawings and specifications from the development team (first party), from “suitably qualified professionals” contracted to verify certain technical credits or aspects of building performance (third party), and from an HK BEAM assessor charged with conducting inspections to verify the project as built (second party). This level of complexity can be demanding, time-consuming, and expensive, but is often seen as necessary for rating systems used in complex, high-rise projects, or employing highly technical credits, as is the case with HK-BEAM. First party certifications, such as CASBEE, have much simpler documentation requirements. Although substantial information still needs to be gathered by the design and/or building development team to accurately respond to credits, none of this documentation is collected or verified by CASBEE. This greatly reduces the documentation workload, but also potentially reduces the validity of the assessment. Building rating systems that do not offer official certification, such as NABERS Home, or that are specifically designed to streamline the assessment process, such as SBATlite and Green Communities, have similar documentation requirements.

Post Occupancy Monitoring Post occupancy monitoring involves collecting data on building performance and occupant behavior once the building is occupied and used in a consistent manner. Historically, post-occupancy evaluation has been a small or non-existent component of sustainable building assessment/rating systems. Table 12: Post Occupancy Monitoring full monitoring

limited monitoring

optional

no X X

unknown

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 3

X 4

2

10

0

system CASBEE - Homes HK-BEAM GOBAS GBCS - MURBs LEED for Neighborhoods LEED for Homes Austin Energy Green Building Living Building Challenge MN B3 Guidelines Green Communities Green Globes Architecture 2030 Sbtool Passiv Haus UK Code for Sustainable Homes EcoEffect NABERS - Homes NABERS - Office SBAT lite

June 16, 2009—Page 38

This has led to a lack of data and an uncertain understanding of the impacts of sustainable design strategies, which is now recognized as a significant shortcoming. In addition, building performance is correlated to occupant behavior. This is especially true in the housing sector, and increases the importance of post-occupancy monitoring for residential buildings. Of the building assessment/rating systems reviewed, roughly half do not include any type of post occupancy evaluation, either as a mandatory requirement or an optional credit. This includes both LEED rating systems, the Code for Sustainable Homes, PassivHaus, and others. Seven systems require either limited or full post occupancy monitoring. Limited monitoring includes systems that simply monitor energy and water use, for example. Full monitoring includes systems that require a more robust suite of monitoring efforts, including those related to indoor environmental quality and occupant comfort. However, two of these seven systems focus exclusively on existing buildings, NABERS-Home and NABERS-Office. For these, post occupancy monitoring is relatively straightforward because performance records such as building energy and water use data already exist. This leaves five systems that require some level of post occupancy monitoring for new buildings. For example, SBATlite incorporates a number of credits that are answered using post occupancy data, such as hours of occupation, typical recycling rates, and patterns of occupant transportation to and from the site. However, no building operating energy or water use data is required. The Living Building Challenge incorporates the most stringent requirements for post occupancy monitoring. Final certification is not awarded until a full-year’s worth of data has been collected, showing that the building meets requirements for net zero energy, net zero water use, and on-site treatment of 100% of wastewater and storm water. As part of the efforts to meet these stringent requirements, water and energy meters are made easily visible so occupants can monitor their own behavior and adjust patterns of use accordingly. Such real-time feedback can be an important part of post occupancy monitoring because it encourages further conservation, especially when tied to performance goals. A significant difficulty with incorporating post occupancy monitoring into building assessment/rating systems has been timing. Frequently, developers undertake a building assessment/rating to gain a marketing advantage in selling or renting units. If the assessment/rating cannot be completed until a post occupancy evaluation is finished (i.e., after the residents have already occupied the property), then the opportunity to gain a marketing advantage is lost, along with motivation for undertaking the assessment. One solution to this problem is to offer a second certification system for existing buildings. Several systems, such as CASBEE, LEED, and Green Globes, do this. Another solution is to offer certifications that are staged over time - along with the possibility of losing certification if monitoring efforts show deficiencies. Staging allows a developer to achieve a “pre-certification” before the project is complete, which he/she can use to market the property. Following occupation, the final certification can be withheld for a year, or renewed year by year, depending on the results of post occupancy monitoring. Post occupancy

June 16, 2009—Page 39

monitoring combined with staged certification has the important benefit of encouraging the proper installation, upkeep, and sustainable use of building systems. LEED for Neighborhoods is one system pioneering the use of a staged certification system.

June 16, 2009—Page 40

5. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS In the last few years, sustainable guidelines and rating systems have been continually evolving in response to market forces and specific needs. All guidelines and rating systems have advantages and disadvantages. Some of the recent trends in guideline development and application in North America include the following. • •

• • •

Guidelines are being adopted by states and cities as basis for codes, standards and incentives. There is a movement away from simple point-based checklists toward more requirements and a focus on performance outcomes such as carbon emissions and energy consumption. Guidelines have been developed for neighborhood as well as building scale projects. Life cycle assessment of materials is beginning to be included in guidelines and ratings. There is increased focus on actual performance during operation and the need for a feedback loop and continuous improvement.

The survey of selected guidelines throughout the world revealed several notable innovations in guideline development listed below. • • • • • • •

Targets ultimate low impact or restorative design (Living Building Challenge) Establishes increased energy targets over time (Architecture 2030, UK Code for Sustainable Homes) Uses energy and water requirements not connected to house size (NABERS for Homes) Applies one set of guidelines to different building types through use of not applicable credits (HK Beam, Green Globes) Determines rating based on ratio of services provided to environmental impact (CASBEE, GOBAS, EcoEffect) Includes life cycle assessment of materials (Green Globes, UK Housing Code) Uses planning software as educational tool, design guide and certification tool (PassivHaus)

Recommendations These recommendations are based on the goal of creating an impact on the magnitude of global environmental and climate change problems in an effective manner. These recommendations are intended to point in the direction of true sustainability. 1. Use the biocentric approach whenever possible. To address actual environmental problems, the biocentric approach is recommended. Biocentric tools, such as the Living Building Challenge and the

June 16, 2009—Page 41

PassivHaus connect performance targets to the actual carrying capacity of the earth and impact reductions necessary for true sustainability. 2. Set high standards. The biocentric approach will naturally lead to setting high standards since the environmental impact of buildings today is far greater than the carrying capacity of the earth. Programs such as the UK Code for Sustainable Homes and Architecture 2030 set relatively high bars for this reason. 3. Focus on measurable performance indicators and make outcomes explicit during design. A critical aspect of any guideline or rating system is ensuring that it results in the desired outcomes. Point-based systems alone are not always effective in achieving this. Measurable performance indicators must be the foundation for any system. As much as possible, the impact of design decisions on performance must be explicit to the designer while decisions are being made. (See next section for recommended sustainability performance metrics and indicators). 4. Combine mandatory requirements and voluntary approaches with incentives. The market context in every country is different so it is not always possible the set high mandatory requirements for buildings. Where this is possible, it is very effective and sends clear signals to the market. Where this is not possible, voluntary systems should be linked to incentives. Often, a combination of these approaches is necessary. 5. Track building performance during operation and compare to benchmarks. It is not sufficient to design a building to a certain standard without following up with actual performance monitoring. A well-designed building may be operated poorly and not achieve the desired outcomes. It is also important for building operators to compare actual performance to benchmarks and manage for continuous improvement. This performance information must then be fed back to the design community to improve future designs. 6. Use third-party certification but make compliance as transparent and easy as possible. Third-party certification is recommended to ensure compliance. It tends to focus the design team on making sure the desired strategies are actually implemented in the building. The negative side of third-party certification is that it may result in a cumbersome, time consuming, and costly documentation process. Certification (or tracking) processes must be designed to minimize this problem through the use of user-friendly online tools and calculators.

June 16, 2009—Page 42

7. Provide sustainable design knowledge and support to designers. Designers are overwhelmed by information in the form of guidelines, standards, new products and technologies, and case studies. It is imperative to design information systems that allow designers to quickly understand research and lessons learned from other projects and apply them. Descriptive case studies are not sufficient without performance information based on post occupancy evaluation. The knowledge base must be designed to easily facilitate answers to key questions through effective filtering and synthesis of information. Central to the knowledge base development is the establishment of a format and metrics that would allow ready, useful, and relevant comparisons between projects. The knowledge base should contain critical information such as sustainability performance indicators, an overview of guidelines and standards, tools and information, and most importantly, a case study database that serves as feedback loop for continuous improvement.

June 16, 2009—Page 43

6. SUSTAINABILITY METRICS AND PERFORMANCE INDICATORS One of the most important concepts emerging from this study is the use of guidelines tied to measurable performance indicators. Focusing on specific metrics at the building, site, and neighborhoods scale can be done within or in addition to any rating system. Wherever possible, the goal is to define an absolute metric and provide a benchmark that actual performance can be measured against. The Center for Sustainable Building Research at the University of Minnesota is developing a set of sustainability performance metrics shown in Figure 2 and listed below. BUILDING METRICS • Energy use • Potable water use • Wastewater production • Solid waste production • Resource impacts of materials (LCA) • Occupant health and satisfaction SITE METRICS • Transportation • Walking or bicycling • Vegetation • Stormwater • Soil • Heat island effect • Night sky impact • Food production Whenever possible, a metric should be calculated during design and can be measured during operation. This is not intended to be a comprehensive set of sustainability metrics that address all environmental, economic and social issues. The primary focus is on environmental and human health impacts. The effects of these metrics combine to produce mid-point indicators listed below. MID-POINT INDICATORS • Primary energy use • Global warming potential • Ozone depletion • Acidification • Eutrophication • Photochemical smog • Particulate matter • Weighted raw resource use

June 16, 2009—Page 44

•

Target species

One of the key mid-point indicators, Global Warming Potential (GWP), results primarily from operating energy in buildings and transportation energy related to site location and design. To a lesser extent, GWP also results from water and waste water pumping and treatment, solid waste disposal, and the life cycle impacts of building materials. On the site, vegetation and soil also can influence Global Warming Potential (either positively or negatively). The transportation impacts of food production associated with a site or community design can also be a factor. Ultimately, the goal of sustainable design is to impact the end-point indicators shown below. END-POINT INDICATORS • Biodiversity loss • Ecotoxicity • Land use effects • Human health—cancer-related effects • Human health—noncancer-related effects Often, research is not adequate to make direct quantitative translations of mid-point indicators into these end-point indicators but they serve as clear goals to be pursued. Future work will define the goals, units of measure, and targets for each metric or indicator.

June 16, 2009—Page 45

Figure 2: Sustainability Performance Metrics and Indicators Source: Center for Sustainable Building Research, University of Minnesota

June 16, 2009—Page 46

REFERENCES “Architecture2030.” May 12 2007. “Climate Change 2007.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. November 30 2007. Cole, Raymond J. “Editorial: Building Environmental Assessment: Changing the Culture of Practice.” Building Research and Information, July-August 2006. Volume 34, Number 4, 303-307. Cole, Raymond J. “Shared Markets: Coexisting Building Environmental Assessment Methods.” Building Research and Information, July-August 2006. Volume 34, Number 4, 357-371. “Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis.” Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Washington DC: Island Press, 2005. “Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development.” United Nations General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 1987. Roodman, D.M., and N. Lenssen “A building revolution:how ecology and health concerns are transforming construction.” Worldwatch Paper 124. Washington, D.C.: Worldwatch Institute. 1995.

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 1

APPENDIX A- NOTES ON GUIDELINES AND RATING SYSTEMS CASBEE for Home - Asia Category

Summary

Notes http://www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/

Approach

webs ite: phone: contact person: address: anthropocentric

Market context

voluntary

Program Information an d Resources

anthropocentric/biocentric - describe? Ratio type that balances the services provided (design quality) to the environmental impact (loading) produced. Higher ratios give better scores - 1 star (BEE less than 0.5) to 5 star (BEE higher than Format/System type rating tool 3.0) BEE = Building environmental efficiency (or ratio) Typical Japanese code-based house performs at 3 star level. CASBEE - Home is focused only on new detached single family homes (500,000 built every year in Intended new single family homes application/ scope Japan). Began as a government initiative under the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in 2001. Sought to engage the academic and industrial sectors as well. Spawned the development of two organiz ations - Japan GreenBuild Council (JaGBC) and Japan Sustainable Building Consortium History and CASBEE on whole introduced (JSBC) - that now conduct research and continue to develop new guidelines. However, the evolution in 2002 organiz ations are not in charge of assesing and certifying individual buildings (CASBEE is a selfassessment) but this may change in the future as JSBC and JaGBC introduce the CASBEE Accredited Professional Registration System Voluntary rating tool. Generally market-based approach encourages use; however, more and more local governments are beginning to customize and require CASBEE in one form or another.

Program fun ding

ratio of +Q (environmental quality) to -L (environmental loading) unknown

Market penetratio n

27? Not conclusive

27 documented house case studies at the back of the Technical Manual; 23 CASBEE buildings certified between 2005 to 2007 (non residential) listed on website

Energy - HVAC

performance: tiers tied to building code "grades" which are tied to specific heating and cooling loads (units unknown); prescriptive: sunlight penetration ratio (determined by shading coefficients); passive solar heat/ventilation design chec klists matched with estimated heating/cooling load reductions

Topics addressed

Energy - other, renewables Water use - house

(Q1) Indoor environmental quality, (Q2) service life, (Q3) townscape and ec osystem enrichment, (L1) water and energy conservation, (L2) resource conservation and waste reduction, (L3) global/local environment

prescriptive: required energy effic iency levels for water heaters; J apanese equivalent to Energy Star appliances and lighting (kWh/yr); renewables - % of total building energy use supplied by solar photovoltaics (no specific benchmark requirements are given) prescriptive: water use specified by fixture (dishwasher, toilet, faucet, etc); points awarded for installing rainwater system that reduces potable water by 10% (estimated)

Water use - lands cape

prescriptive: install rainwater catchment s ys tem for irrigation, no metrics or benc hmarks are given

Wastewater

none prescriptive: points awarded for installation of permeable pavers, raingardens, leaching trench, no metrics or benchmarks are given prescriptive: list the activities and steps tak en to reduce waste generation during production of materials and construction of the house, no metrics or benchmarks are given prescriptive: required formaldehyde emission rates tied to industrial standards (units unknown), required ventilation rates by room (m3/h), required window-to-floor area ratios, required sound transmiss ion grades tied to industrial standards (units unknown)

Stormwater Solid waste Type of Indicator Human health

Carbon footprint Vehicle miles traveled Light pollution

Heat island effect Land use Biodiversity Certification method self-assessment

Documentation provid ed by

design team (and possibly developer?)

Post-occupancy monitoring

yes/no

performance: rough estimate of life-cycle CO2 emitted (kg C02/yr m2) displayed as % reduction compared to standard reference case - see note on carbon calculator in the "Innovations" section none performance: sound pollution indicator given instead: points awarded for reduc ing sound at property perimeter to 40 - 45 dB (through setbacks, foliage, specification of extra quiet equipment or rubber mountings, etc) prescriptive: achieve target ratios of desired surfaces (vegetated surfaces including green walls and roofs, reflective surfaces, water surfaces, shaded surfaces) while minimizing ratios of undesirable surfaces (unshaded, non-permeable paved surfaces) none prescriptive: calculate the ratio of green, vegetated area to total external area, checklist of items related to wildlife-friendly landscaping Currently, certification is through self-assessment, although JaGBC and JSBC will be introducing a program - CASBEE Accredited Professional Regis tration System - to train and register design profess ionals to perform the assessments Since CASBEE is a self-ass essment, documentation and information must be gathered by the design team to address the credits, but nothing is required for submission. High priority is placed on the ease of the assessment process, although it may still take from 3-7 days according to JaGBC/JSBC. no post-occupancy monitoring. However, another form of CASBEE - Existing Buildings - can be used for post occupancy monitoring.

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 2 Many performance levels tied to industrial standards and performance "grades" contained in existing building codes or standards - reduces work to update and define new standards. CASBEE for Buildings is designed as four separate guidelines (or tools) that each support a different phase of a building's life cycle: CASBEE for Pre-Design, CASBEE for New Construction, CASBEE for Existing Building, CASBEE for Renovation (no tool for end of life-cycle). At present, CASBEE Home does not fit into this life-cycle format. Many credits are awarded for meeting average code levels of performance, and most credits are prescriptive. This results in a rating tool that does not encourage innovative or integrated design, and fails to provide motivation for advancing the field of sustainable design. In addition, their is no oversight since the rating tool is 1st party c ertified, so a lack of compliance with credits may occur frequently.

Successful features/outcomes

Connections to outs ide standards

Unsuccessful features/outcomes

1st party certification, few challenging performance benchmarks

Innovations

Q/L Ratio - building quality divided by environmental load (Q/L) is an innovative measure of the efficiency of a design. Design Quality rating - Several credits related to maintenance and durability quality/load ratio (Q/L), (inspections, log books, maintenance records, planning and design for ease of maintenance, etc). multiple design quality credits, Several more credits related to functionality of spaces including acc omodations for elderly and socio-cultural sus tainability, handicap people. Socio-cultural sustainability: Credit awarded for using local design elements, integrated carbon calculator local gardening techniques, historically significant local materials, etc (checklist format). Carbon Calculator: the CASBEE software automatically calculates life cycle CO2 based on answers given to a subset of the earlier credits (rough estimate only).

Education Compo nent

Notes

Points awarded for homeowner operating manuals (required for all equipment) and instruction booklets guiding energy-efficient use of the house and green lifestyle (written by builder/developer/architect) Performance Indicator - durability measured through service life of cladding materials, s tructural frame, roofing materials - mostly verified by manufacturer or by manuals (1) Home siz e: Houses with more floor area are rewarded, (1345sf or more for family of 4 is top level performance, 540sf for four Performance Indicator is under-performing). Building monitoring: points awarded for installation of electronic meters that durablity (service life), home measure household electricity, gas, and water consumption, with additional points awarded for size, building monitoring, LCA installation of load management equipment. LCA: no LCA, but a combined materials score is given for specified %'s of sustainable wood, recycled steel, flyash cement, and certain other specified materials; LCA tool is planned yes

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 3

HK-BEAM New Buildings - Asia Category Program Information and Resources

Summary

Notes

website: phone: contact person:

http://www.hk-beam.org.hk/general/home.php

HK-BEAM Society, c/o Business Environment Council, 77 Tat Chee Avenue, Yau Yat Tsuen, Kowloon, Hong Kong

address: Approach

anthropocentric/biocentric - stated goals are to emphasize indoor environmental quality and amenities first, with "proper" consideration of environmental impacts

anthropocentric

Points type with four achievement levels, platinum, gold, silver, and bronze based on the percentage of credits achieved. Credits have varying numbers of associated points - overall, the points are organized to weight the energy credits more heavily. Total of 175 points possible.

Format/System type rating tool Intended application/ scope

new non-residential and multifamily buildings

History and evolution

1996

Market context

voluntary

Topics addressed

6

Program funding

donations to HK-BEAM Society and certification fees/unit

Market penetration

150 developments including 37,000 residential units Energy - total building

Energy - hot water, lighting

HK-BEAM is focused on new large non-residential and multi-family buildings. HK-BEAM is capable of being used to assess multi-building developments. Based on U.K.'s BREAM. Implemented in 1996. Developed with wide industry involvement by the BEAM Society and the Business Environment Council (BEC), which now oversees the standard and gives authority to certified BEAM assessors. The BEAM Society remains a mix of private industry and public institutional partners. Voluntary rating tool. Market-based approach encourages use. Since HK-BEAM is 2nd party certified, it provides a strong, marketable label. Site, Materials, Energy, Water Use, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovations and Performance Enhanc ements Following initial funding from The Real Estate Developers Association of Hong Kong, HK-BEAM is now self-supporting through fees for certification and donations from the members of the HK-BEAM Society. The certification fees per unit or building project are unknown. As of May 2008, 150 building developments, including 37,000 residential units and 70 million sf of space. HK-BEAM is one of the most widely adopted voluntary standards in the world on a per capita basis (1) performance: % reduction in modelled annual energy use compared to base case (not defined), reduction percentages change according to building type (commercial, hotel, educational, residential) performance: hot water - 20% reduction of energy use for hot water compared to client-selected baseline system; lighting - 15% to 25% reduction in power consumption of lamps (based on 40W fluorescent tube); prescriptive: lighting - install dimming and automatic controls

performance: renewables - % of total building energy supplied annually from renewables, specific % Energy - appliance, renewables depends on location in urban center or periphery (general range 2% to 12%); prescriptive: appliances - credits for specifying units labelled under programs such as Energy Star Water use - building

performance: % reduction in estimated annual building water use compared to base case (not defined, possibly code-compliant fixtures), general range of 15% to 35% savings; prescriptive: installation of water leakage monitoring and automatic shutoff valves

Water use - lands cape

performance: after 1 year establishment period, no potable water for landscape use; reduce fresh water use by 10% with installation of grey water recycling or rainwater harvesting system

Wastewater Stormwater Solid waste

Type of Indicator

performance: 25% reduction in estimated annual sewage volumes compared to base c ase (not defined, possibly code-compliant fixtures) prescriptive: use permeable paving for 50% of hard landscaped areas, provide planted areas equivalent to 30% of site area (includes green roofs) performance: 50% of demolition and construction waste recycled (weight or volume); prescriptive: provide 50% of specified building elements from pre-fab or standardized components, provide 2 m^2 waste processing space per 1000 m^2 floor area

Human health

prescriptive: electromagnetic fields below intensity given by Btvl = 60/f, for frequency (f) range 1300Hz; sampling interior air for CO, NO2, O3, VOCs, formaldehyde, radon at or below levels specified in ASHRAE 62; various ventilation requirements stipulating ASHRAE 62,

Human health (continued)

daylight factor 0.5% to 2% for normally occupied spaces (calculation or site measurement verification); sound: reverb time of 0.6 s or below (see 6.7.1), impact + airborne noise isolation (parameters specified by client), backround noise levels specified in dB for given times of day (see 6.7.3)

Carbon footprint

performance: building embodied carbon footprint - "well-established" LCA approach demonstrates reduction in embodied energy of 10-20% compared to "base case" (undefined); prescriptive: building operations carbon footprint - use refrigerants with GWP of 1600 or less;

Vehicle miles traveled Light pollution

prescriptive: points awarded for NOT providing any parking for private vehicles and locating the site within 5 minutes walking distance from mass transit and lis ted amenities performance: must meet targets for several technical parameters (sky glow, light into windows, source intensity, and building illuminance) defined by lighting authorities (International Commission on Illumination (CIE) and Institution of Lighting Engineers)

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 4

Sound pollution

Heat island effect Land us e Biodiversity Certification method 2nd party

on Illumination (CIE) and Institution of Lighting Engineers) performance: construction phase must comply with Hong Kong Sound Control Ordinance; operations phase must comply with Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines (Acceptable Noise Levels, ANL) prescriptive: provide planted areas for 30% of site area; provide shade for 50% of non-pervious, nonroof hardscaping; OR provide 0.9 emissivity or higher material for min. of 50% roof surface; OR green roof covering min. of 50% roof surface prescriptive: points awarded for use of brownfields and reclaimed land, no metrics or benchmarks are given prescriptive: points awarded for landscaping and site design that minimizes change in ecology of greenfield sites and restores some ecological function to brownfield sites - documented by "suitably qualified" professional, no metrics or benchmarks are given 2nd party certification services provided by an Assessor from the Business Environment Council (BEC), under the guidance of HK-BEAM Society. Documentation is prepared by the design team and any 3rd party "suitably qualified" professionals that may be needed to document and conduct certain technical credits. Some information is verified by 2nd party inspections, done by BEC assessor. On a very limited basis, for some energy use related to central chiller plant, HVAC systems, as well as water leakage in main water distribution lines. But this information is not transmitted back to HKBEAM or any central data collection agency.

Documentation provided by

design team and 2nd/3rd party assessors

Post-occupancy monitoring

no

Successful features/outcomes

Often, first credit in a section is performance-based (ex - % reduction in building energy use) followed by prescriptive credits (ex- use Energy Star appliances). This allows users to earn credits Combines Performance-based by following prescriptions, but rewards them twice if they also make the effort to meet whole-building and prescriptive ratings; capable performance requirements. Allows for asses sing multiple building types by using credit exclusion to of assessing multiple building remove those credits which do not apply to a particular building type. The final score is tabulated as types a percentage of points earned from those that were available (ie, not counting the credits that were excluded). Allows the guideline/rating system to be used by large variety of building types (residential, hotel, commercial, and educational/institution)

Unsuccessful features/outcomes

benchmarking unclear since "base cases" are not welldefined

"Base case" scenarios used to compute % reductions in energy, water, LCA-based carbon footprint, etc are not well defined or clearly connected to code level construction. Building monitoring/energy metering credit is nearly insignificant (only 1 point out of more than 175 possible)

Innovations

performance indicators - VDF, ANL; Design Quality;

Performance indicators - VDF; "Vertical Daylight Factor" technical measurement of the loss in daylight received by neighboring buildings as a result of over-shadowing; ANL - "Acceptable Noise Levels" a technical sound pollution assessment measuring the sound impact on neighboring buildings. Design quality - adaptability:credit awarded for demonstrating use of checklist encouraging design strategies that maximize future space adaptability (materials and waste issue)

yes

Credit awarded for installation of metering equipment that allows building owners to track energy use by central chiller plant, HVAC system, and electrical loads in public areas (Private areas assumed to have separate metering already?) Credits awarded for designing and implementing a commissioning plan that produces detailed reports on the status and energy impacts of all major building systems and equipment. Credits awarded for provision of O+M manual and energy management manual for the building operators.

Modular design; Rapidly renewable materials; Building reuse; Design Quality

Modular Design - credit awarded for construction of building with over 50% of major elements provided by modular design and standardized components (meant to reduce cons truction waste). Rapidly renewable materials - credit awarded for using 50% rapidly renewable materials (calculation by weight, volume, or area) in specified material categories . Building reuse - credit awarded for reuse of 15% or more of existing building sub-structure/shell. Design Quality - design matrix of safety considerations, checklists for building amenities and handicap acces sibility features

Education Component

Notes

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 5

Green Olympic Building Assessment System (GOBAS) - Asia Category Program Information and Resources Approach

Summary website: phone: contact person: address: anthropocentric

Format/System type assessment and rating tool

Intended application/ scope

new and existing nonresidential and multi-family buildings

Notes

anthropocentric/biocentric - ? Confirm based on answers Ratio type that balances the services provided (design Quality) to the environmental impact (Loading) produced. Higher Q/L ratios give better scores - any building with a ratio of 1 or less is not considered a green building. Scores are organized into five groups - A through E, with D and E incorporating all buildings with ratios of 1 or less. Focused on 3 Olympic building types - gymnasiums, athlete quarters and hotels, and administrative offices. (The athlete quarters will become condos following the olympics.) GOBAS can evaluate building clusters or single buildings.

History and evolution

2003

GOBAS (Green Olympic Building Assessment System) is the second Chinese sustainable building assessment tool, released in 2003 - closely following CERS (China Eco-housing Rating System) issued in 2001. GOBAS was undertaken as part of efforts to green the 2008 olympics and is sponsored by the national Ministry of Science and Technology. The research work was undertaken by Tsinghua University and directed by Beijing Municipal Science and Technology Commission. International partners included CASBEE in Japan, and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). In summer of 2005, Beijing Municipal Construction Committee (BMCC) issued official documentation to adopt GOBAS as Beijing's sustainable building standard.

Market context

mandatory for Olympic buildings

GOBAS was developed to assess the success of China's promise for a "green Olympics". It was applied to a wide variety of Olympic structures, but is now being used for other non-Olympic buildings.

Topics addressed

ratio of +Q (environmental quality) to -L (environmental loading)

Topics for Design Stage Assessment: (these change for construction phase or operations phase) (Q1) Outdoor environmental quality, (Q2) Indoor environmental quality, (Q3) IAQ, (Q4) Service and Function, (LR1) Environmental impact, (LR2) Atmosphere pollution, (LR3) Energy consumption, (LR4) Material and resources, (LR5) Water consumption

Program funding

unknown

Market penetration

32 buildings

Type of Indicator

Energy - total building Water use - building Water use - landscape Wastewater Stormwater Solid waste Human health Carbon footprint Vehicle miles traveled Light pollution Heat island effect Land use Biodiversity

Certification method Documentation provided by

12 Olympic buildings were assessed, and 20 additional buildings have been assessed using GOBAS since then, including academic, apartment, and office buildings. unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown

unknown unknown GOBAS is designed for use throughout the entire building lifecycle - planning, detailed design, construction and operation. In each stage, specific items are assessed and specific types of documentation are required.

Post-occupancy monitoring

yes

Successful features/outcomes

Scale control, project necessity Scale Control and Project Necessity Analysis is required in the planning phase to reduce analysis unnecessary construction and waste.

Unsuccessful features/outcomes

unknown

Innovations

new performance indicators

Performance indicators (indexes) - ECC (Energy Conversion Coefficient) is developed as an index for rating the efficiency of energy conversion systems; Energy Quality Coefficient (EQC). Using EQC, not only primary energy but also secondary energy, demand energy (such as heating/cooling demand) and renewable energy can be evaluated on the concept of physical "exergy". From the point of view of exergy analysis, some other energy utilization assessment indexes are derived, such as TDC (Transportation & Distribution Coefficiency), CEP (Callback Energy Proportion) and RERP (Renewable Energy Replacing Proportion).

Education Component

yes

The Compendium section of GOBAS is essentially a set of guidelines for green building design, construction, and operation. These are an educational tool only, not meant to be scored.

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 6

Notes

The major characteristics of GOBAS are “process control and phase-by-phase evaluation, a Qualityvs-Load classification evaluation and a quantitative rating index system”. GOBAS consists of 4 main parts: a compendium, a rating system, an assessment items description, and a rating toolkit. Incorporates some level of LCA materials analysis.

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 7

Green Building Certification System (GBCS) MURB - Asia Category Program Information and Resources Approach

Summary

Notes

website: phone: contact person: address: anthropocentric

http://www.greenbuilding.or.kr/

Changhen Chung, for questions on the guideline itself - [email protected] anthropocentric/biocentric Points type with 2 achievement levels; 65 points earns "excellent" rating, 85 points earns "best" rating. Total of 120 points.

Format/System type rating tool Intended application/ scope

multi-family buildings

History and evolution

Korean Green Building Council (KGBC) established in 2000. Korean Institute of Energy Research (KIER) spearheaded efforts to consolidate several earlier green building certification systems into the GBCC for MURBs (Green Building Certification Criteria for Multi-Unit Residential Buildings) in 2000 KGBC established, 2002 2002. The GBCC is now enforced by both the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of GBCC program implemented Construction and Transportation. Following development of GBCC for MURBs, several more certification systems have been developed including GBCC for MUDs, GBCC for Offices, and GBCC for Schools, with GBCC for Stores and GBCC for Hotels under development as of 2006.

Market context

voluntary 5

Topics addressed Program funding

membership and certification fees/project

Market penetration

49 buildings Energy - total building Energy - HVAC Energy - renewables Water use - building Water use - landscape Wastewater Stormwater Solid waste

Type of Indicator Human health Human health (continued) Carbon footprint Vehicle miles traveled Light pollution Heat island effect Land use Biodiversity Certification method Documentation provided by Post-occupancy monitoring

1st party, self assessment

no unknown

Unsuccessful features/outcomes

unknown

Education Component Notes

Voluntary assessment and rating tool. Generally market-based approach; however, more and more local governments are beginning to customize and require GBCS in one form or another. Government will begin an incentive program for green buildings in 2010. Ecological environment, Use of land and commuting transport, Energy · resources consumption and environmental loads, Indoor environmental quality, Supplementary

49 buildings have achieved GBCC certification, including 25 MURBS from 2003 to 2005 performance: building energy use graded according to Energy Performance Index , defined by Energy Saving Building Design Criteria (from Ministry of Construction and Transportation) prescriptive: provide district heat that meets 20% or more of heating load prescriptive: points awarded for presence of alternative energy facilities (no metrics given) prescriptive: install low-flow fixtures (no metrics given) prescriptive: points awarded for presence of rainwater capture and storage systems (no metrics given) prescriptive: points awarded for presence of grey water system for landscape use (no metrics given) prescriptive: "evaluation" of the use of permeable pavement performance: "evaluation" of user-set target recycling rates and achievement; prescriptive: "evaluation" of the storage equipment provided for recyclable materials and food waste prescriptive: "evaluation" of the use of low VOC materials; "evaluation" of the design and equipment for natural ventilation and air purification; sound performance of floor assembly, partition wall, plumbing system, and exterior wall including windows; precriptive: overall noise level measured in dBA graded according to "indoor noise level curve" given by Architectural Institute of Japan none prescriptive: walking distance to public transportation; points awarded for presence of covered bicycle racks; none none prescriptive: "evaluation" of the planned building area-to-land area ratio prescriptive: calculation of terrestrial and aquatic biotope "grades" using given formulas and weighting values Appears to be a self-assessment; however, there may be some cross-checking or second party certification services performed by KGBC since a fee is charged for certification and the certification is phased - an initial certification is awarded at the completion of the design phase, a final certification is awarded after construction.

design team and building owners/managers

Successful features/outcomes

Innovations

GBCS is focused on new multi-family buildings and apartment complexes.

no post-occupancy monitoring

Staged certification: two certifications are awarded, a preliminary certification following completion of the design phase and a final certification following construction. Points awarded for Certification stages, ISO 14000 the use of contractors and construction companies that are ISO 14000 compliant. Design quality compliance, design quality - Certification system contains a credit for evaluating the design based on considerations for elderly, handicapped, and disabled. KGBC conducts educational seminars and meetings for the building design team, construction yes team, and owners, if desired. Points awarded for supplying manuals on efficient building operations to residents and maintenance staff The "evaluation" of certain credits may contain metrics and benchmarks that are not "evaluation", building reuse accessible/unknown. Building re-use: evaluation of the reuse of the structure and/or non-bearing portions of an existing building

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 8

LEED for Neighborhood Development - North America Category Program Information and Resources

Summary

Notes

website: phone: contact person: address: anthropocentric

http://www.us gbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148 Ken Potts McGoff construction, on the steering committee for LEED ND, Peter Musty

anthropocentric/biocentric - describe? Points type with 4 achievement levels, 106 total points. Certified 40 points, Silver 50 points, Gold 60 Format/System type rating tool points, Platinum 80 points Encompasses multiple neighborhoods, single neighborhoods, and portions of a neighborhood such Intended new neighborhoods (in part as infill projects. Some credits also specify benchmarks and guidelines for the individual building application/ scope or whole) scale.

Approach

History and evolution

2007 - 1st pilot

Market context

voluntary

Topics addressed

4

Program funding

under development

Market penetration

238

Energy - total building

Energy - neighborhood

Water use - building Water use - landscape Wastewater Stormwater Solid waste Type of Indicator Human health Carbon footprint Vehicle miles traveled

Light pollution

Heat island effect

Land use

Biodiversity Certification method under development Documentation provided by Post-occupancy monitoring

Pilot jointly developed by the USGBC, Congress for the New Urbanism (CNU), and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and released in 2007. 2008, pilot revis ed with input from public comments and feedbac k from pilot projects. 2009, intended launch of the rating system. Voluntary rating tool for neighborhoods. Market-based approach encourages use by increasing the value of homes through market differentiation (use of rating label) and improved occupant health, lower utility bills, better neighborhood safety and walkability. 4 categories: Smart Location and Linkages, Neighborhood Pattern and Design, Green Construction and Technology, Innovation and Design Process developer fees and pos sibly city funding, estimates in the range of $10,000 - $30,000 for certification, though exact costs are still under development 120 pilot projects originally intended, but grew to 238 after positive initial response. Pilot projects now located in 39 states and 6 different countries (although intended for U.S. only). performance path: use building energy simulations to show 1) residential buildings 3 stories or less 15 % energy reduction or more compared to 2006 IECC base case (qualifies for Energy Star on HERS Index); 2) all other buildings - 10% energy reduction or more compared to ASHRAE 90.12004 performance: on-site energy generation meets 5% or more of development's annual electrical and thermal energy use (simulated); infrastructure (street/traffic lighting, water pumps) ac hieve 15% energy reduction compared to standard practice; prescriptive: solar orientation requirements for street and building layout prescriptive: residential buildings 3 stories or less - specific gpm/gpf flow rates on faucets, showerheads, toilets; performance: all other buildings - 20% or more reduction in building water use compared to 1992 EPAct compliant fixtures prescriptive: install landscaping that does not need irrigation OR irrigate only with captured rainwater, greywater, or other non-potable water supplied by public agency none performance: retain/infiltrate specified rain event (0.15" to 3.0") depending on watershed and climate characteristics performance: recycle/salvage 50% of non-hazardous construction and demolition debris (by weight or volume); prescriptive: treat, reduce, or eliminate the volume or toxicity of contaminated material found on the site (does not include capping or simple translocation) none performance: locate development so that peer-reviewed analys is shows average rate of VMT per capita is lower (30 to 80% less) than annual average for metropolitan area. prescriptive: 50% of dwelling units within 1/4 to 1/2 mile walk of public transit performance: specific vertical and horizontal footcandle requirements at property boundaries determined by IESNA "setting" (LZ1 - park, rural; LZ2 - residential; LZ3 -commercial, high-density residential; etc) and calculated in lighting design documents prescriptive: preserve 75% of all non-invasive trees over 18" DBH, 25% of all non-invasive trees over 12" DBH; 50% of paving materials with SRI of 29 or greater; 75% of roof surface with SRI of 78 or greater OR vegetated green roof for 50% of roof surface performance: no new land use - locate the project on an infill site; density of 7 up to 70 DU/acre for residential, 0.5 up to 3.5 FAR (floor area to site area ratio) for non-residential; no more than 20% of total development footprint for surface park ing (street parking exempted) prescriptive: for land identified as habitat for federal or state-listed endangered species, or ecological communities classified by NatureServe as G1 or G2, comply with approved Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP); use 90% native plants for re-vegetation and no invasive plants; LEED ND program is still in the pilot phase, certification method is under development

under development

LEED ND program is still in the pilot phase, method of documentation is under development

yes/no

no post-occupancy monitoring

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 9 Ecological enhancement - credits available for removing invasive species, planting natives-only vegetation, establishing 10yr management plans for designated habitat areas within the project (including guaranteed funding sources), and donating or selling native habitat areas within project to land trusts or permanent conservation easements.

Successful features/outcomes

Ecological enhancement

Unsuccessful features/outcomes

no post-construction or postProgram is still under development occ upancy monitoring

Innovations

Certification stages; performanc e indicators Diversity of housing

Education Component

yes

Notes

performanc e indicator street grid density; Affordable housing; sociocultural sus tainability

Certification Stages- Stage 1 (pre-review) certification available at planning stage to assist developer in obtaining land-use permits, financing, and occupant commitments. Stage 2 (approved plan) certification available upon completion of all pre-construction activities. Stage 3 (completed neighborhood) certification available upon completion or near completion of construction. From one stage to the next, any changes must be discussed and evaluated for impact on LEED certification. Performance Indicator - diversity of housing: Simpson Diversity Index used to rate the diversity of housing types included in the project. Score = 1 - Sum(n/N)^2 where n = total of dwellings in single category, N = total of dwellings in all categories. (see NPD Credit 3 for list of housing categories, 16 in all). Design Quality - chec klist of design items for ensuring walkable street frontages; parks of at least 1/6 acre placed within 1/6 mile walking distance from 90% of dwelling units and business entrances ; 20% of each category of dwelling unit designed to comply with Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) and/or Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act References the LEED for Neighborhood Development Reference Guide, which is published as a companion knowledge-base guide. The guide is a resource for achieving the various requirements and understanding the intents of the rating system's various credits. Street grid density - measured by centerline miles (length of all roads within a given square mile) with values ranging from 10 -40 centerline miles per square mile. Land use prescriptive measures (alternative if not an infill site) locate the project within the boundary of region served by a metropolitan planning zone, in an area that meets VMT prerequisite, and meets LEED restrictions on wetland, prime farmland, and floodplain development. Affordable Housing - credits available for including 15% - 30% of total rental units and/or 10% to 20% of total for-sale units as affordable housing (50% to 80% of area median income). Socio-Cultural Sustainability - Rehabilitate one or more buildings that have been designated as a historic building or a contributing stucture in a historic district by a local, state, or national historic preservation body.

June 16, 2009 Appendix A—Page 10

LEED for Homes - North America Category Program Information and Resources Approach

Summary

Notes

website: phone:

www.usgbc.org/LEED/homes/

contact person: address: anthropocentric

Format/System type rating tool Intended application/ scope

Earth Advantage or Alliance for Environmental Sustainability - these are local LEED for Homes Providers anthropocentric/biocentric - describe? Points type with 4 achievement levels, 136 total points. Certified 45 points, Silver 60 points, Gold 75 points, Platinum 90 points

new single-family homes

Focused on new single-family homes, although small multi-family buildings are allowed as well.

History and evolution

2005 - 1st pilot, 2008 - full launch

First pilot program followed 7 years after USGBC introduced initial LEED-NC. A second phase of the LEED for Homes Pilot program was introduced in February 2007, followed by introduction of the full program in January 2008.

Market context

voluntary

Voluntary rating tool. Market-based approach encourages use by increasing the value of homes through market differentiation (use of rating label) and improved occupant health, lower utility bills.

Innovation and Design Proces s, Location and Linkages, Sustainable Sites, Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor Environmental Quality, Awareness and Education If USGBC member: $150 one-time LEED for Homes registration plus $225 for certification per membership and certification Program funding house. If non-member: $225 one-time LEED for Homes registration plus $300 for certification per fees/unit house. Separate prices for volume certification and multi-family housing available. as of 9/08 - 1020 total living units, comprising 462 separate projects since pilot projects began in Market penetration 1020 units (462 projects) 2005c(includes pilot projects, I believe) performance path: prerequisite is Energy Star 80 HERS Index (20% reduction from IECC 2006 code) Energy total building, HVAC down to 0 HERS Index (zero energy home); prescriptive path: ACH @50Pa (blower door test),