GREEN BUILDING RATING FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS-LESSONS LEARNED

Office buildings constitute a significant proportion of the non-residential building stock.In recent years,various rating tools have been developed to foster green office building development.The Green Building Council of Australia(GBCA)has devel-oped the Green Star-Office rating tools for this purpose.There are an increasing number of stakeholders adopting these tools to showcase their efforts in sustain-able development.This research focuses on the challenges and barriers in obtain-ing GBCA ratings in Australian Office buildings.To accomplish this,the scoring sheets from the rating of 264 certified office buildings were collected and critically analysed.The findings indicated that credits related to the attributes of innovation,ecology and energy are comparatively difficult to achieve.It was also found in this study that a large number of projects did not apply for the specific credits of refrig-erant global warming potential,re-use of façade,topsoil and fill removal from site,and individual comfort control.This study provides a useful reference to both the property developer and the Green Building Council of Australia for green building developments in the future.In particular,the findings provide useful inputs to the development of the next generation of green building rating tools.

A Cross-Sectional Study of Utilization of Green Building Rating Tools by Selected Professionals in the Zambian Building Industry

Green building rating tools used for planning and assessing the impact of buildings on the environment are continually revised in line with user needs. The appropriateness of tools for the Zambian building industry depends on whether the tools adequately meet minimum green buildings standards and the country’s environmental aspirations. The utilization of green building rating tools is important if Zambia is to achieve the real benefits of green buildings, however very little is known about the levels of utilization in Zambia. A cross-sectional study of 115 professionals from the building industry in Zambia was undertaken using a sequential mixed method approach, to investigate the level of utilization, preferred criteria and, the barriers and drivers to the utilization of tools. The significance of the study was that it demonstrated the association between utilization of green building rating tools and environmental, technological, economic, and social green buildings practices by selected professionals in the Zambian building industry. There is a need to use materials and practices that are locally based and promote the local economy. The technical needs were met in tools, that were considered easy to use, interesting and comprehensive. Some of the green building rating tools were considered unsuitable due to the absence of appropriate criteria and the main economic challenge was the high cost of certification. The association was significant between utilization and those involved in a variety of projects than those who were involved in only residential buildings. Barriers to utilization were a lack of government regulations on green buildings designs and the high cost of certification. The drivers were environmental benefits, the interest of developers in green buildings, and having technical skills. The study recommends a review of the current building regulations to include green buildings practices and materials and adaptation of appropriate rating tools.

GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM SCORES FOR BUILDING REUSE

Green Building rating systems are the main vehicles for commercial application of ecologically sustainable design for buildings.Using less materials,modular design for deconstruction,long life structure,using recoverable materials are emerging concepts to reduce environmental impacts and increase the resource and economic efficiency of buildings.It has been argued that because of recent emergence of these concepts,Green Building rating systems do not fairly recognise the environmental benefits gained.This paper quantifies the impacts of the building reuse concept on the environment and the Green Building rating system scores and compares this with the energy category.It was found that lifecycle embodied greenhouse gas emission of approximately 20 kg CO_(2)-e/m^(2)/annum could be saved,if 80%of the office building components(structure,façade,wall,floor and roof)were reused in Australia.A second finding was that the current BREEAM 2008 and LEED 2009 tools do not provide fair recognition of the potential lifecycle embodied greenhouse gas emission reduction of building reuse compared to operational greenhouse gas emission reduction.

SUSTAINABILITY RATING SYSTEMS

There are five different publications that establish guidelines for sustainable building development that are examined in this report:(1)Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(“LEED”);(2)CalGreen;(3)the International Green Construction Code(“IGCC”);(4)ASHRAE Standard 189.1(“Standard 189.1”);and(5)The San Francisco’s Green Building Ordinance(“SFGBO”).Having multiple publications can cause confusion among building developers,architects,engineers,building consultants,or various jurisdictions on what publication to follow,use,or reference in building development projects.This article will provide various parties involved in building development a thorough understanding of each publication and the similarities or differences between them,which will ultimately assist in identifying areas for all publications to improve.Specifically,this article demonstrates that the Material and Energy sections for all the publications must advance beyond the current requirements.Also,the comparison validates that CalGreen’s Tier 2 is similar to LEED’s local ordinances,like the SFGBO.This may mean two things:(1)LEED will need to advance its gold or platinum certification requirements,or potentially become less relevant;or(2)local ordinances should reference or adopt CalGreen Tier 2 so that there is common language between local and state regulations.This article identifies that LEED has the most stringent guidelines under the Building Site section out of all the publications.Likewise,the IGCC and Standard 189.1 have provisions under the Water Use section,that goes beyond other publications.Additionally,similar language between LEED and Standard 189.1 was found,which was unsurprising as both publications are authored by the USGBC.

EVALUATING GLARE IN LEED CERTIFIED BUILDINGS TO INFORM CRITERIA FOR DAYLIGHTING CREDITS

Extensive documentation has been developed to support the benefits of daylight for building occupants.Recently,the high performance building industry has shown a trend towards prioritizing better daylighting conditions.In response to this trend,the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)rating system now addresses daylighting and views as one of the criteria for compliance.However,effective daylighting has its challenges-most importantly addressing the issue of glare.This paper discusses the issue of glare and its relationship with requirements for effective daylighting within the criteria of the LEED rating system.In this study,a LEED certified building on Montana State University’s campus was considered as a case study.This paper conducts an analysis by comparing the results obtained from compliance procedures for LEED with independent evaluations of glare using simulation and post occupancy evaluation surveys.This paper concludes that the‘illuminance simulation’option provided in the current version of LEED(LEED v4)for compliance does not adequately address the issue of glare.This paper provides recommendations to improve the LEED rating system for indoor environmental quality which include:the incorporation of glare assessment in the evaluation procedures of daylighting and views;the use of dynamic simulations that incorporate climatic conditions in the evaluation of daylighting;and evaluating glare in early stages of design by using simulation tools.

RESILIENCE COVERAGE OF GLOBAL SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORKS:A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

Sustainable development has been a popular concept since 1987 and the issuance of the Brundtland report.A diverse number of sustainability assessment frameworks are available to examine the environmental performance of buildings and communities.With the current pace of climate change and the increasing threat of stronger,more frequent natural hazards,however,there are doubts that sustainability alone is an effective response.Sustainability assessment frameworks in recent years have been criticized for not incorporating hazard resilience.To better understand the current level of emphasis put on resilience to natural hazards in green building rating systems,this study aims to assess the level of resilience integration in existing sustainability assessment frameworks.The results demonstrate an overall lack of resilience coverage in the frameworks with only four frameworks,CASBEE,LEED,Green Globes,and DGNB having resilience coverage of 27.5%,15%,2.6%,and 1.1%respectively.This confirms a need for more systematic integration of resilience indicators into sustain-ability rating systems to create combined frameworks for sustainability and resilience.