This article was downloaded by: [Iowa State University] On: 20 April 2010 Access details: Access Details:

[subscription number 917396165] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 3741 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694730

Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge
Joel Ann Todd ; Drury Crawley ; Susanne Geissler ;Gail Lindsey

To cite this Article Todd, Joel Ann , Crawley, Drury , Geissler, Susanne andLindsey, Gail(2001) 'Comparative assessment

of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge', Building Research & Information, 29: 5, 324 335 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09613210110064268 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210110064268

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Building Research & Information (2001) 29(5), 324335

Comparative assessment of environmental performance tools and the role of the Green Building Challenge
Joel Ann Todd 1, Drury Crawley 2 , Susanne Geissler3 and Gail Lindsey 4
Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010
1

The Scientific Consulting Group, Inc., 14 Webb Road, Cabin John, Maryland 20818 USA E-mail: joeltodd@cpcug .org
2

United States Department of Energy, EE-41, Office Of Building Systems, 1000 Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 205850121, USA E-mail: Drury.Crawley@ee.doe.gov

Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology, Seidengasse 13, A-1070 Vienna, Austria E-mail: geissler@ecolo gy.at

Design Harmony, 4429 Trommel Court, Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587, USA E-mail: glindsey@ipass.net

Green Building Challenge (GBC) was intended to advance the state-of-the-art of building performance assessment, through the development, testing, and discussion of an assessment framework, criteria and tool. The contributions of GBC to building performance assessment are considered through comparing similarities and differences with a selection of available assessment tools. Unlike national or proprietary assessment systems, GBC was not designed for application to speci c commercial markets. Instead, it emphasized research and involved researchers and practitioners from many countries. Consequently, GBC has been in a unique position to test and adopt new ideas and implement step changes. GBCs roles over the past ve years have been to provide a reference framework, method and tools that can be used to develop new systems or improve existing systems; provide a forum for discussion among researchers and practitioners worldwide; and raise awareness and credibility of assessment systems. GBCs role has evolved as the context in which it operates has changed. Based on the analysis on GBCs speci c characteristics and strengths, its potential future roles are found to reside in a unique position. Its role as a reference system has become less important to many participants as they implement their own national assessment systems. However, GBCs role as a forum and catalyst for change has taken on greater importance as researchers and practitioners continue to wrestle with the most dif cult issues in building performance assessment. Keywords: building assessment systems, building performance, environmental assessment, environmental assessment methods, green buildings, Green Building Challenge, international collaboration, knowledge transfer, trends Le GBC (Green Building Challenge) tait destin prsenter le nec plus ultra de lvaluation des performances des btiments, par le biais du dveloppement, de lessai et de discussions concernant un cadre, des critres et des outils dvaluation. Les contributions du GBC dans lvaluation des performances dans le domaine du btiment prsentent des similitudes et des diffrences avec un certain nombre doutils dvaluation disponibles sur le march, ce qui a t pris en considration. Contrairement aux systmes dvaluation nationaux ou privs, le GBC na pas t conu pour tre appliqu des marchs commerciaux spci ques. Au contraire, il insiste sur la recherche et implique les chercheurs et les scienti ques de nombreux pays. Par consquent, le GBC se trouve dans une position unique pour tester et adopter de nouvelles ides et mettre en Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print/ISSN 1466-4321 online 2001 Taylor & Francis Ltd http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/09613210110063818

Environmental performance tools

uvre des changements. Le GBC a jou plusieurs rles au cours des cinq dernires annes, notamment ceux de fournir un cadre de rfrence, une mthode et des outils pouvant tre utiliss pour dvelopper de nouveaux systmes ou pour amliorer les systmes existants; fournir un forum de discussion parmi les chercheurs et les scienti ques du monde entier; en n, augmenter la notorit et la crdibilit des systmes dvaluation. Le rle du GBC a volu au fur et mesure que le contexte dans lequel il opre a chang. Si lon se base sur lanalyse des caractristiques et forces spci ques du GBC, ses rles potentiels lavenir devraient rsider sur une position unique. Son rle de systme de rfrence est devenu moins important pour de nombreux participants qui implmentent leurs propres systmes nationaux dvaluation. Cependant, son rle en tant que forum et catalyseur des changements a pris une plus grande importance car les chercheurs et les scienti ques continuent de se battre contre des problmes trs pointus sur lvaluation des performances dans le domaine du btiment. Mots cls : systmes dvaluation de btiment, performances des btiments, valuation cologique, mthodes dvaluation cologique, btiments verts, Green Building Challenge, coopration internationale, transfert de connaissances, tendances

Introduction
During the 1990s, the concepts of sustainable design and high performance buildings, as well as the increasing adoption of these concepts in the marketplace, have been furthered by the development of assessment tools. These tools have helped de ne this emerging eld and provide a way of communicating with building owners and managers, architects, builders, interior designers, landscape architects, community planners, and others interested in the built environment. The Green Building Challenge (GBC) was one of the early assessment frameworks to emerge, but it differed in signi cant ways from the few existing systems, such as BREEAM in the UK and BEPAC in Canada. Unlike these existing systems, GBC emphasized research and involved researchers and practitioners worldwide. It was not designed as a tool for any particular application or use in a commercial market; instead, it was intended to contribute to the state-of-theart of building performance assessment and provide a forum for identi cation and discussion of issues and testing of potential approaches. Since GBC was initiated in 1995, many countries have developed or are developing building assessment and rating systems. Some have used elements of the GBC framework and others have evolved in different directions. The purposes of this paper are to explore the contributions of GBC to these efforts and to consider its potential role in the future. First, the paper describes similarities and differences between GBC and a selection of available assessment tools, since some of these differences are crucial in enabling GBC to play potential future roles. The paper then discusses several important roles that GBC is in a unique position to ll based on its speci c characteristics and strengths.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

GBC framework and GBTool (the software that implements the framework) with other tools provides the background for a subsequent analysis of the current and potential roles of GBC. The national and other proprietary systems reviewed in this paper are: BREEAM: BREEAM UK, developed by the Building Research Establishment and consultants, was the rst assessment system implemented and it has served as a model for many other systems, such as HK-BEAM in Hong Kong. Aspects of BREEAM also served as a model for the GBC framework. LEED. The US Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system for commercial buildings was launched in March 2000. EcoPro le: Norways EcoPro le system for commercial buildings has been in the market since 1999. ESCALE: This French system was initially developed through a PhD thesis managed by CSTB (Centre Scienti que et Technique du Btiment) and the University of Savoie. EcoEffect: Swedens EcoEffect system is still under development and has been tested on a limited number of buildings. These systems were selected because they are similar to GBC in scope; all of these systems are intended to be used to assess entire buildings and to assign a score or rating. Other systems were not included because of their more narrow focus. EcoQuantum, for example, focuses on materials. The comparison examines scale and scope, end use, inclusion of sustainability concepts, structure, type of criteria, and speci c elements (the de nitions of these terms will be discussed below). Scale and scope IEA Annex 31 presents the following system of levels of inclusiveness, in increasing order of inclusiveness and breadth:
325

Comparison of current assessment tools

Several recent projects have undertaken in-depth comparisons of national and other proprietary assessment systems (see, for example, the publications of the International Energy Agency (IEA) Annex 31),1 and this paper does not duplicate that work. The brief comparison below of the

Todd et al.

Product level, the most narrow Building level Building and supporting infrastructure level Community level Building stock level, the most inclusive.2 Current systems address the product (material) and/or building level. There is little or no consideration of the supporting infrastructure, community, or building stock levels as de ned by IEA. The GBC framework has made an explicit effort to place the building into its community context, addressing the building and some supporting infrastructure. The GBC 2000 framework included criteria related to the relationship of the assessed building to the surrounding community its context module was an effort to build selected community conditions into the assessment software. A few others, such as BREEAM, also address the transport implications of buildings. In ESCALE, a recently developed module addresses interactions with the site.

design phase. ESCALE provides a preliminary assessment early in the design stage and then a performance assessment later in the process. Some assessment modules in ESCALE use checklists, such as maintenance, adaptability, and environmental management, which are intended to help designers and building owners. On the other hand, the GBC framework and software are not easily used as design tools, primarily because of the overall complexity of the system and the fact that data entered into the GBTool are not linked clearly to the scoring system. As a result, the design team can get ideas from the list of criteria and subcriteria in the GBTool assessment module, but the team often cannot determine whether a particular design decision would result in a high or low score.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

End use An assessment tool typology developed by the Athena Sustainable Materials Institute classi es tools by end use (Trusty, 2000): Level 1 product comparison tools Level 2 whole building design or decision support tools Level 3 whole building assessment frameworks or systems. There are many Level 1 tools, most based on some form of LCA database. Level 2 tools include building simulation tools, such as the US Department of Energys DOE2 or Energy 10 software. GBC was intended as a Level 3 assessment framework. All of the systems assessed in this paper are Level 3 tools. Among the systems assessed for this paper, some are intended as design tools as well as assessment tools. Design tools are used by the design team to assist in making design and speci cation decisions; assessment tools are used by the design team or external assessors to evaluate the building as designed or as built. For example, the LEED Rating System uses a simpli ed checklist format that facilitates its use in the design process (US Green Building Council, 2000) design teams often use the checklist as the basis for a charrette and discussions of which strategies and credits they will try to achieve in the building. To support this process, LEED also provides a reference guide that suggests strategies for achieving each criterion. BREEAM and EcoPro le are also intended for use during the
326

Sustainability criteria Initial building assessment tools have focused on incremental environmental improvements designed to produce green or greener buildings. Now, there is discussion of the need to bring sustainability concerns into the tools. In principle, this includes economic and social concerns as well as environmental aspects of sustainability (Cooper, 1999; Cole et al., 2000). However, none of the systems reviewed in this paper includes social and economic indicators of sustainability; all concentrate on physical and environmental aspects of sustainability. The GBC 2000 framework included four environmental sustainability indicators that address total consumption of energy, land and water, as well as greenhouse gas emissions. These indicators were not scored on a regionally adaptable scale, but instead were presented as absolute numbers to re ect global sustainability and to permit international comparisons. In the GBC 2000 framework, the indicators were used but the meaning of the results was not analysed. The next version of the GBC framework and tool will re ne these indicators. Efforts are underway by the GBC International Framework Committee to develop a more complete and accurate list of indicators, tentatively renamed environmental performance indicators to re ect the fact that they do not address all aspects of sustainability. The developers of GBC have also made an effort to include economic criteria. Developers and managers of several of the other systems, including BREEAM and EcoPro le, are considering sustainability issues and making efforts to include them in the systems.

Structure Some tools are structured around design strategies (which can be viewed as system inputs) and others are structured around environmental loadings or impacts (which can be viewed as system outputs). Most systems exhibit some combination of these approaches. The GBC framework is structured partially around environmental loadings, including resource consumption and pollutant emissions, and partially around prescriptive strategies. Systems built around

Environmental performance tools

prescriptive strategies are more readily adapted as design tools, but they constrain the potential actions of users. They also are more likely to become out-of-date, as new strategies are developed to meet given levels of performance. These differences are most clear in the reporting formats used by various systems. GBC, and most other systems based on environmental topics, rate the building on its resource consumption, contribution to global warming, and other environmental parameters. LEED, on the other hand, gives credits for sustainable site development, energy ef ciency, water conservation, ef cient use of materials and resources, and indoor environmental quality (it should be noted that GBC also has a category for indoor environmental quality). Users of systems that are structured around environmental concerns can see more readily the effects of their decisions. Most systems included in this analysis emphasize environmental loadings, particularly in their reporting of results. LEED is the major exception; it is organized around issues familiar to the designer/architect site, energy, water, materials, and indoor environmental quality. Finally, systems that report performance in terms of environmental categories are more readily used or adapted for assessing actual operational performance. Although a system such as LEED can determine whether strategies were, in fact, implemented, it does not easily measure the effects of those strategies on environmental performance. As a result, the US Green Building Council is developing a LEED system to assess operational performance.

Weighting is inherent to these systems although it might not be addressed explicitly; those systems without an explicit weighting method give all criteria equal weighting or implicitly weight the criteria by points allocated. Most systems require outside assessors and offer training programmes for these assessors; fees might be established centrally or might be left to the discretion of the assessors. The LEED system depends on the design team to gather required information and to submit documentation to the rating organization. Since GBC was not intended as a commercial system, it has enormous exibility. It can test approaches in a research environment and make dramatic changes from one version to the next. Commercial systems that are used by the building community must retain consistency over time; they cannot experiment as GBC has done.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

Roles of the Green Building Challenge

The designers of GBC 98 envisioned that the project would ful ll several roles; this vision evolved over time and goals were restated to re ect this evolution. The goals and anticipated roles of GBC 2000 were (Cole, 1999): To advance the state-of-the-art in building environmental performance assessment methodologies. To maintain a watching brief on sustainability issues to ascertain their relevance to green building in general, and to the content and structuring of building environmental assessment methods in particular. To sponsor conferences that promote exchange between the building environmental research community and building practitioners and showcase the performance assessments of environmentally progressive buildings. GBCs anticipated role is further outlined in four speci c objectives: To develop an internationally accepted generic framework that can be used to compare existing building environmental assessment methods and used by others to produce regionally based industry systems. To expand the scope of the GBC framework from green building to include environmental sustainability and to facilitate international comparisons of building environmental performance. To demonstrate the value of undertaking such assessments by sponsoring conferences that promote exchange between disciplines and that showcase green projects.
327

Speci c elements of the systems Assessment systems use different approaches to criteria categories, scoring, weighting, benchmarking, and other elements. An overview of the assessed systems is presented in Table 1. A more detailed comparison of GBC 2000 and LEED follows in Table 2.3 Several conclusions can be drawn from these comparisons: A system that rates a building on all criteria presents a more complete assessment. When users can choose the criteria to be included in the scoring, negative aspects of the building are not re ected in the overall score. The potential disadvantage of the more complete approach is the cost and effort required for gathering data; if users can choose among criteria, they can decide whether gathering speci c information required is worth the effort. A simple checklist system like LEED is attractive to users and can serve several purposes, including design assistance; it cannot be modi ed as easily, however, to re ect regional differences or other concerns. Most systems, though primarily intended as assessment systems, are also used as design tools.

Todd et al.

Table 1 Overview of speci c elements of selected assessment systems

System GBC 2000

Building types Commercial Multi-unit residential Schools

Criteria Resource consumption (energy, land, water, materials) Loadings (greenhouse gases, ozone depleting substances, acidi cation, solid waste, liquid ef uent, impacts on site and adjacent properties Indoor environmental quality Quality of service ( exibility, controllability, maintenance of performance, amenities Economics* (life cycle, capital, operating/ maintenance) Pre-operations* (construction management, transportation) * Optional in GBC 2000

Scoring/weighting/reporting results Each criterion scored Scores range from -2 to +5 Benchmarks for scores based on typical practice, local codes, or national standards Scores summed to category level Default weights provided for criteria and subcriteria; can be modi ed Results presented as separate bars for each of four major categories

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

BREEAM UK

Commercial of ce (new and existing) Residential (EcoHomes) Retail superstores, supermarkets Industrial units

Management (policy, procedures) Energy (operational use, CO2) Health and well being (indoor and external issues) Pollution (air, water) Transport (CO2, location factors) Land use (green elds, brown elds) Ecological value of site Materials Water consumption and ef ciency Residential criteria: Global issues and use of resources (energy ef ciency, deforestation and loss of biodiversity, ozone depletion, environmental management, depletion of natural resources) Local issues (ecological impacts and landscaping, wind and microclimate, noise/air/ water impacts of operation, construction management, waste management, water conservation) Indoor issues (thermal comfort, air quality, lighting, noise, hazardous materials) Site Energy Water Materials Indoor environmental quality

Credits awarded for each criterion Weightings applied to produce overall score Score translated into rating of fair/ pass, good, very good, excellent, or a sun ower rating Certi cate awarded Updated regularly 25% of new of ces have been assesse d for certi cation since inception Criteria linked to local regulations as benchmarks Scores translated into ratings of satisfactory, good, very good, excellent

HK-BEAM Hong Kong

Commercial of ce Residential

LEED United States

Commercial of ce Residential (under development)

Credits speci ed for each criterion User selects criteria for scoring Prerequisites must be met Rating based on total number of points scored Updated every three years Each criterion scored Subcriteria weighted from 1 3 (energy weighted 10) Results presented as bar charts for three major categories or target plot for detail within three major categories Certi cation issued 60 issued in rst two years

EcoPro le Norway

Commercial of ce Residential

External environment (releases to air, water, ground; toxic substances; outside areas; transportation) Resources (energy, water, land, materials) Indoor climate (thermal, air quality, acoustics, lighting, radon, EMF, mechanical/ ergonomics

328

Environmental performance tools

Table 1 Contd.

System ESCALE France

Building types

Criteria Energy resources Water and materials resources Waste (construction, operation, demolition)** Large scale pollution (greenhouse effect, acid rain, ozone depletion, radioactive waste)** Local pollution (air, water, soil)** Contextual t (landscape and architectural integration, respect for neighbours, outdoor comfort, site ecology, adaptation to networks)** Comfort (thermal, visual, acoustic, olfactive)** Health (indoor air quality, water quality)** Environmental management Indirect criteria (maintenance, adaptability) ** ESCALE modules not fully developed and operational

Scoring/weighting/reporting results Two levels of assessment for each criterion simpli ed model for preliminary design stage and detailed model for detailed design stage Positioning on performance scale for scoring Scale ranges from -1 to +5 Scores de ned by benchmarks of typical practice, better practice, and worse practice Only partial aggregation ESCALE does not lead to a single score; instead the output is an environmental pro le Result presented as 24-component pro le in bar charts, can also present more detailed breakdown

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

EcoEffect Sweden

Primarily of ces

Emissions Waste Resource depletion Human health Comfort Biodiversity Ecocycling Life cycle costs

Loadings calculated for each criterion Relative impacts based on average impact per capita in the country

Sources: Chatagnon et al., 1998; Edmunds, 1999; Glaumann, 2000; Grace, 2000; Nibel et al., 2000; Pettersen, 2000; Pettersen et al., 2000

To assist in the establishment of national and regional building environmental assessment systems, establish a knowledge base on green building and support the adoption of green building practices. These goals and objectives outline the intended roles of GBC development and testing of an international framework and assessment method that could serve as a reference point, stimulate discussion and action, and move the eld forward. This is distinctly different from any of the national or other proprietary assessment systems that are intended to capture their designated markets and, often, to generate revenue. The authors of this paper have identi ed the following valuable roles that GBC has played or could play in the future: Provide a tested reference framework, method, knowledge base, and tools for use in developing new national or other proprietary systems and improving existing systems. Provide a forum for discussion among researchers

and practitioners worldwide, to stimulate identi cation of issues, experimentation and demonstration of various approaches, comparison of green design practices among participating countries, and facilitation of international transfer of ideas and information. Raise awareness and credibility of assessment systems with various audiences. Each of these is discussed further in this section.

Provide reference framework, method and tools The GBC framework presents an extensive list of criteria that have been tested and demonstrated during the GBC 98 and GBC 2000 efforts. These criteria and associated metrics can serve as references and can be used or adapted by countries or organizations that are developing their own assessment systems. Other elements of the framework can also serve as references. The GBC framework pioneered several new concepts in building performance assessment
329

Todd et al.

Table 2 Comparison of GBC 2000 and LEED

Element of the tool Intent

GBC 2000

LEED

Implications

Research project, intended to develop tool and criteria that could be adapted by any country or region and a forum for discussing issues related to assessment Building level, with consideration of community Assessment tool

Commercial system, intended to serve as the primary rating and certi cation system in the US

Once implemented, changes to LEED will be incremental to maintain its identity in the market and consistency for users; GBC can be revised at the direction of the International Framework Committee

Scale/scope

Building level

Some users of LEED are adding modules to increase scope LEED is a simple, transparent system, GBC is more complex and powerful

End use

Assessment tool Design tool Market driver No explicit inclusion sustainability concepts of

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

Sustainability criteria

Includes four sustainability criteria; further development of criteria underway Categories de ned primarily by environmental effects (outputs) Scale from -2 to +5 on all criteria; all criteria are scored

GBC will push research and discussion on the meaning of sustainability for buildings

Structure

Organized around inputs (site, materials, energy, water, indoor environment) Points for each criterion; user selects criteria for scoring

LEED can easily serve as a design tool; GBC shows environmental implications more clearly GBC provides more complete assessment, of negative as well as positive; GBC has ner gradations of scores Both are moving toward performance based criteria GBC assessments are not comparable from place to place; many LEED criteria are not applicable to certain types of locations LEED does not include explicit weighting because of a lack of consensus on appropriate weights

Scoring

Metrics

Mix of performance based and prescriptive criteria Based on local or regional practice

Mix of performance based and prescriptive criteria Uniform nationwide for the United States

Benchmarks

Weighting

Default weightings included; can be modi ed by national teams

No weighting system; all criteria are weighted equally, except number of points assigned Checklist produces nal total score that equates to rating levels

Results

Visual representation in histograms for major categories

GBC illuminates strengths and weaknesses; LEEDs single score makes it easier to determine which building is `greener, some users question relative weights among points in LEED LEED can be used as desired by design teams: both systems have some form of validation but not as strong as a thirdparty assessor

Administration

National teams, working with design teams

Design teams, with mentation required

docu-

and it has contributed to the elaboration of other concepts, including the performance criteria themselves, the use of benchmarks, and suggested weighting of criteria:
330

Performance criteria In addition to the environmental criteria generally used in assessment systems, such as pollutant loadings, energy use,

Environmental performance tools

and indoor air quality among others, the GBC framework added quality of service criteria covering adaptability, exibility, controllability, and maintainability. These criteria re ect the longevity of the building and its materials, an important factor in sustainable design. The framework developers also considered, and ultimately rejected, criteria related to economics, architectural quality, pre-operations management, and transportation. Some of these categories are being revisited by the International Framework Committee for GBC 2002. Finally, the framework developers designed a module for the assessment tool that incorporated elements of context that was intended to further re ne speci c criteria. These context elements included ambient atmospheric conditions; access to public and alternative transportation; scarcity and value of land; availability of buildings for renovation; adequacy of water supply; adequacy of municipal services infrastructure to meet marginal demand; solar availability; availability of cultural, recreational, and commercial services; and cultural and historical of the local built environment. Depending on context, speci c criteria could be eliminated from the system (e.g. if there were no buildings available for renovation) or weightings could change (e.g. if scarcity of water were particularly acute). This context module was eliminated from the GBTool in 2000, but remains a useful idea. Benchmarks The GBC framework pioneered in the concept of using regionally appropriate and explicit benchmarks as the basis for its criteria and scoring. Benchmarks are established through typical practice which is de ned for each criterion, based on a similar building using conventional practice or existing standards in the region or locality. Then, better practice is de ned for each positive score and worse than typical practice is also de ned and assigned a negative score. In most other systems, benchmarks are xed and often implicit. This added to the effort required to use the GBC framework, since the user (the national teams or design teams in the GBC programme) must de ne typical practice as well as gather information on the study building. However, it ensures that the criteria are relevant and appropriate for the context in which they are used. In areas that have had little green design activity, the rst small steps are recognized and rewarded. This is very important if sustainable design is to spread beyond a few pockets of activity in well- nanced markets. It reduces, though it did not eliminate, the Western bias that is so frequently seen in international efforts. The concept of regional benchmarks is also useful for larger, geographically and climatically complex countries that are trying to implement national rating systems, since it can enable these systems to respond to regional differences and avoid the perception that the system is biased toward one region or another. At the same time, the GBC framework recognizes the useful-

ness of international comparability, to guard against complacency with small improvements and to begin to measure sustainability. Therefore, the GBC 2000 framework included four absolute measures of environmental performance and the GBC 2002 framework will include a re ned and expanded list of environmental performance measures. These absolute measures enable users in each country to compare their achievements with best practices worldwide it will be interesting to note the aspects of sustainability in which developing countries may be performing better than their highly industrialized counterparts. Weighting systems All assessment systems use some form of weighting, even if it is no weighting. A system that asserts that it does not weight criteria actually assigns all criteria equal weight or assigns implicit weights by the number of points possible. Weighting is fraught with dif culty since it cannot be accomplished with complete, or in some cases, any, scienti c objectivity. Given the inherent complexity and lack of an objective basis, judgement or values enter into weighting decisions. Many organizations have grappled with this problem without success. For example, environmental lifecycle assessment practitioners have been hampered in conducting impact assessments by the lack of an accepted approach to weighting various types of environmental impact categories. In the absence of scienti cally-based weights, some organizations use consensus-based weighting. In this approach, groups of experts or users rank various elements, such as environmental issues, in terms of their relative importance or assign points to these elements. This ranking or scoring is then used to establish weights (Dickie and Howard, 2000). The GBC framework addresses weighting explicitly and raised this issue as an important topic of discussion and research. The GBC framework provides a default weighting system and allows users to change the weights based on regional or other priorities. The national teams are encouraged to review the default weights and to tailor them as needed to re ect speci c conditions in their countries. This is both a strength and a weakness. The strength is the ability to re ect conditions in which the building is found; since many environmental problems depend on local conditions, this is very important. On the other hand, users can vary weights to improve their scores. The GBC framework established a process in which the national teams were allowed to vary the default weights, rather than the building owners or design team, but this process was loosely de ned and there was no oversight. Another innovation in the GBC framework is the application of weights to the nested categories of criteria. Subcriteria are weighted and then the weighted scores are summed to give total scores. This approach allows the system to be more easily re ned by users. However, it also can result in criteria that have very little impact on nal scores.
331

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

Todd et al.

When GBC 98 was developed, few countries had adopted building performance assessment systems. There were more systems in place for GBC 2000, but few countries had systems in active and widespread use. Both GBC 98 and GBC 2000 have served as references for groups and organizations developing assessment systems and improving those few already in place. In some cases, groups have taken the GBC framework and adapted it. In other cases, groups have taken speci c criteria or ideas from GBC. A few examples are presented below: In Austria, the new Total Quality Design and Assessment System was based in large part on the GBC framework, with considerable tailoring and simplifying. Austria had no national assessment system when it began participating in GBC in 1997. There were several approaches that focused on a single element, such as materials or energy, but no comprehensive assessment system. Furthermore, each of Austrias provinces followed a different approach with regard to building code, energy performance data, and other criteria. The Austrian Institute for Applied Ecology recognized that the GBC framework and criteria could provide a solid basis for development of a national building assessment system, embracing the provinces approaches and at the same time meeting the requirements of an integrated building assessment system. Meetings with industry and administrative of cials led to several conclusions on requirements for the Austrian system. First, a viable and widely accepted assessment system could not be limited to environmental issues; it had to include criteria such as safety and security, cost, and data needed by facility managers. Second, the effort required for data collection must be minimal; otherwise architects and project managers will not complete the form. Further, the assessment results must be useful for developers; otherwise, they will not pay for completion of the forms. Third, the assessment system should serve not only for assessment, but should also work as a planning tool to support the optimization of the building from the very start. Based on application of the GBC tool in 1998, it became evident that the existing GBC system could not meet these speci c requirements, but it could provide a framework to be further developed according to national needs. The most important differences between GBC and the Austrian system are the following: The Austrian TQ-Tool derives its name from Total Quality because it also considers aspects such as safety and security. The TQ-Tool is simpli ed and based on an assessment procedure programmed in the background of the spreadsheet used for data entry.
332

As a consequence, the user only uses the data input sheet and the assessment results appear on the same sheet automatically. Data survey and calculations for data input are done according to de ned guidelines in order to guarantee comparability and correctness of results. In March 2001 the Total Quality Design and Assessment System was released and it will be piloted until Spring 2002. In France, the ESCALE method has adapted several concepts from GBC as well as introducing its own innovations. It uses a hierarchical structure of criteria, with some weighting and aggregation of subcriteria, similar to the approach used in GBC. The categories in ESCALE are not identical to those in GBC, however. A difference with GBC is that ESCALE provides two levels of model for each subcriterion, simpli ed and detailed, adapted to the level of detail in the design stages. Further, ESCALE uses a performance scale similar to the GBC scoring scale, but in ESCALE the scale ranges from -1 to +5 (compared to GBCs -2 to +5), with both systems de ning zero (0) as the reference value of typical practice or statutory requirement. ESCALE also uses a weighting system to aggregate the subcriteria, but the aggregation is limited to the lower levels of the criteria structure, so as to produce an environmental pro le as the output. In ESCALE, some assessments are contextual, such that the scores allocated to certain subcriteria depend on the constraints and opportunities of the site. As has been the case with several other national efforts, the interactions between GBC and ESCALE development worked both ways. This research work took advantage of the Green Building Challenge project and also provided substance to this project (Nibel et al., 2000) through participation in the GBC International Framework Committee. GBC has been or will be used in other countries as well. In Norway, the future revision of EcoPro le will consider items that are in GBC but not in the current version of EcoPro le (Fossdal, personal communication, 2001). In Chile, GBTool will be evaluated along with other assessment methods when a national tool is developed (Goijberg, personal communication, 2001). And in Finland, they have taken bits and pieces of the GBC framework and experience in developing a national assessment system (Aho, personal communication, 2001). In the United States, the US Green Building Council has initiated a review and revision of its LEED Rating System. The ideas embodied in the GBC framework will be considered by the Committee responsible for this revision.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

Environmental performance tools

Provide a forum for discussion and facilitate international knowledge transfer Many participants in the GBC national teams and GBC conference attendees believe that the most important contribution of GBC 98 and 2000 has been the opportunity to discuss issues in assessment systems and to share ideas and information. To these participants, the frameworks major importance is its ability to stimulate discussion rather than to serve as a model. Meetings of the International Framework Committee and two large conferences in 1998 and 2000 provided forums for in-depth discussion of speci c elements of the framework as well as issues concerning assessment tools among many of the most advanced researchers and practitioners worldwide. At the meetings of the International Framework Committee, representatives of the national teams discussed the technical aspects of the framework elements as well as the feasibility of the elements. Differences among countries in terms of practice, priorities, data availability, and other elements that affect assessment systems surfaced. These meetings are among the few opportunities for this type of discussion to occur. The GBC 98 Conference in Vancouver, Canada was the rst major international conference to focus on assessment systems. It drew researchers and practitioners from around the world to present various systems and to discuss their relative strengths and weaknesses, new ideas and tools, and data needs. Presentations by the national teams on the buildings assessed using the GBC 98 tool highlighted differences and similarities among countries in the state-ofpractice and de nitions of green. The Sustainable Building Conference in 2000 also drew a large group of attendees, but the agenda was broader. GBC has sparked discussion of several important issues related to assessment systems: sustainable vs green planning, design and construction. In GBC 2000, there was discussion of the difference between assessing green-ness and assessing sustainability. The plenary speech by William Rees and several papers at the GBC 98 conference focused on this topic and GBC 2000 attempted to address it by adding sustainability indicators to the framework (Cole et al., 2000). In GBC 2002, the International Framework Committee is re ning the list of indicators: Regional adaptation: The GBC framework was designed for adaptation to regional differences. By using benchmarks that are de ned by the regional context in which the assessed building is located, regional variation and practice are built into the GBC system automatically. This sparked discussion of the extent to which the system should be uniform, to permit comparisons among countries or regions, and the potential for setting the benchmarks too low, thus enhancing the

score of the assessed building. This led to consideration of criteria that should not be subject to adaptation, due to their global signi cance, which contributed to the concept of the sustainability indicators. In the United States, a single, nationwide assessment system encounters problems related to the wide disparity among the various regions of the country. The rst versions of the LEED Rating System have not included regionalization, but this concept is under consideration for the upcoming revision of LEED. The GBC approach will be instructive. Weighting: As noted previously, all assessment systems incorporate weighting, even if it is implicit and equal among criteria. Those that do not provide explicit differential weightings among criteria or categories of criteria generally base the rationale for their unweighted approach on the lack of a consensusbased scienti c method for deriving the weights. The GBC framework incorporates a system of weighting, with criteria nested into larger and larger categories, as well as default weights that can be accepted by users. The system also enables users to modify the weights to re ect regional conditions or other factors. GBC has contributed to this issue by providing a default allocation of weights that has been useful in provoking discussion. Context: The GBC framework has made signi cant strides in developing the notion of context for assessment systems. In the GBC 2000 framework, a context module was proposed. This module would have automatically re ned the speci c criteria to re ect local conditions. Transportation, proximity to amenities, climate, urban density, and other factors can be included in the context in which the assessed building is located. The module was omitted from the GBC 2000 framework, primarily because the International Framework Committee did not think that it had time to consider the speci c elements thoroughly. Transportation: The International Framework Committee engaged in lively discussion of transportation criteria. These discussions included the technical aspects of incorporating transportation issues into the framework as well as the feasibility of measuring criteria proposed. It became clear that most participating countries would not be able to provide data needed, but the discussion began to re ne the criteria that could be used in this area and emphasized the need for additional data generation. Renovation vs new buildings: The issue of bias toward new or renovated buildings arises in all assessment systems, unless they speci cally state that they are only intended for one or the other, generally new buildings. Since renovation is such an important percentage of
333

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

Todd et al.

construction in many countries, there was considerable discussion within the GBC framework of which criteria favour new buildings and how renovation could be built into the assessment. Embodied energy: Although some countries have databases that can support life-cycle assessments of materials used in buildings and supporting infrastructure, most do not. The International Framework Committee is working on methods for assigning default embodied energy estimates that are based on available data for the building. It is clear that the Green Building Challenge provides an opportunity for experts to participate in in-depth discussion of these and other issues related to assessment. By bringing together researchers and practitioners from around the world, GBC creates a unique forum. The GBC forum is unique in its attempts to engage more participants from developing countries, thus extending the discussion in signi cant ways.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

During GBC 98 and GBC 2000, many began to view GBC primarily as a forum for discussion of new ideas and issues. GBC has offered one of the few opportunities for researchers and practitioners to explore technical issues related to building environmental performance assessment and to test potential solutions in a broad international research setting. In fact, GBC is unique in its role as a research forum; no national or proprietary system can ful ll this function easily. It is dif cult, if not impossible, for a national or proprietary system to conduct this type of testing since these systems cannot dramatically revise the structure and content of their systems from one year to the next and retain market credibility. In general, their changes are incremental and are based on new science, new technology, or advancing practice. For example, a system might raise the bar, increasing its requirements to re ect overall improvements in practice. GBC, on the other hand, is free to completely rethink the structure and content of the framework and tools and has, in fact, done just that. GBC underwent major transformation from 98 to 2000 in response to feedback from participating country teams. Discussions of the International Framework Committee under GBC 2002 indicate that, once again, there will be important changes. Now that many countries have assessment systems in place or under development, GBCs role is likely to shift again. The International Framework Committee continues to be a unique and excellent forum for discussion of emerging issues. For example, GBC 2002 is considering how to include issues, such as the implications of building location and design on transportation, that are more dif cult to measure. It is also trying to: Develop a context-sensitive approach that would automatically adjust the assessment criteria benchmarks or weightings to re ect the climate, community, or other context elements. Develop environmental performance indicators that can be transformed into indicators of sustainability when a better de nition of that concept is available. Simplify the GBTool and provide defensible estimating methods for users to apply in the absence of data. For example, many countries do not have access to databases that can provide embodied energy data for building materials, so estimating methods are needed to ll this gap. As more countries develop their own assessment systems, there is likely to be less interest on the part of some national teams to conduct assessments using the GBTool. This issue has been raised in GBC 2002, with some national teams encountering dif culty in raising sponsorship for another round of assessments using the revised 2002 framework and tool. This presents a quandary for GBC, since the level of discussion during the International Framework Committee meetings and the GBC conferences has depended to a large extent on the application and testing of the GBC system on

Raise awareness and credibility of assessment systems with various audiences Finally, GBC has contributed to raising awareness and credibility of assessment systems with building owners and policy makers in many countries. The growing number of countries that have adopted assessment systems provides credibility for those just embarking on assessment system development. Through its International Framework Committee and international conferences, GBC can enhance the perception of critical mass of assessment systems. GBC also provides a starting point for discussions of assessment systems in those countries that do not yet have them.

Discussion and conclusion

Perceptions of the importance and role of the Green Building Challenge have evolved over the past ve years, as has the context in which it operates. Initially, GBC was viewed primarily as an international assessment system that could serve as a master reference list of criteria and framework for assessment that could be adapted for use in various countries and also provide for international comparisons of buildings. As a research project, GBC developed and tested assessment criteria as well as approaches for measuring and scoring these criteria. For example, GBC pioneered in the use of regionally-relevant benchmarks as the basis for scoring. During GBC 98 and the early stages of GBC 2000, this role was particularly important since many countries were just beginning to develop assessment systems of their own. GBC served as one of several references, along with BREEAM, for these national systems to selectively draw on. GBC also helped some of these national efforts gain support and momentum the ongoing international effort provided additional credibility for these efforts.
334

Environmental performance tools

case-study projects from the participating countries. As is the case with many complex systems, the strengths and weaknesses do not emerge fully until the systems are used. Testing of the tool also provided a common language and structure for the discussion that could not be achieved if national teams were basing their comments and ideas only on their individual experiences and different national systems. It is not clear that this forum for discussion of issues and furthering of the concept and practice of building performance assessment can be as effective without its reality check. It should be noted that some of the new participants in GBC, including countries from South America and Africa that are just beginning to think about assessment systems, might nd GBC most useful as a reference and basis for developing a domestic assessment method. It could be expected of these countries to go through processes similar to those experienced by the countries that have been successful in establishing assessment systems, although the barriers and opportunities they will face might be quite different based on their economic, social, cultural, and historical contexts. In summary, GBC has played an important role in the continuing discussion of building performance assessment and could continue to play an important role in the future. As it has over the past ve years, this role should continue to evolve in response to the needs of the eld and in collaboration with other resources around the world.

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Sylviane Nibel and Peter Russell for providing background information for this paper. Dr Nibel and Nigel Howard also reviewed the descriptions of systems in France and the UK, and provided updates and additions to improve these descriptions. The development of the TQ-design and assessment tool is funded by the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Labour, the Austrian Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology, and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Agriculture and Forestry, the Environment and Water Management.

Cole, R., Lindsey, G. and Todd, J.A. (2000) Assessing life cycles: shifting from green to sustainable, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 225 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Cole, R. (1999) Changes to GBC framework and tool, 31 March, GBC working paper. Dickie, I. and Howard, N. (2000) Assessing environmental impacts of construction industry consensus, BREEAM and UK Ecopoints, BRE Digest #446. Edmunds, K. (1999) HK-BEAM: improving the life cycle performance of new residential buildings, Proceedings, Better Homes in the Next Millennium, Nov. 2425, 1999, Hong Kong. Fossdal, S. (2001) Personal Communication. Glaumann, M. (2000) EcoEffect a holistic tool to measure environmental impact of building properties, Proceedings, Sustainable Building 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Goijberg, N. (2001) Personal Communication. Grace, M. (2000) BREEAM a practical method for assessing the sustainability of buildings for the new millennium, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 225, October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Nibel, S., Chatagnon, N. and Archard, G. (2000) ESCALE, assessment method of buildings environmental performance, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 225 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Pettersen, T.D. (2000) EcoPro le for commercial buildings, reference document, February 2000. Pettersen, T.D., Strand, S., Haagenrud, S. and Krigsvoll, G. (2000) Ecopro le a simplistic environmental assessment method experiences and new challenges, Proceedings, Sustainable Building 2000, 225 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Todd, J.A. and Lindsey, G. (2000) Comparative assessment of GBC 2000 and LEED: lessons learned for international and national systems, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 225 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Trusty, W. (2000) Introducing an assessment tool classi cation system, Advanced Building Newsletter, July 2000, Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, p. 18. US Green Building Council (2000) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Rating System, Version 2.0, March, San Francisco, CA.

Downloaded By: [Iowa State University] At: 05:30 20 April 2010

References
Aho, I. (2001) Personal Communication. Austrian Programme on Technologies for Sustainable Development/Austrian Programme for Building Research: http://www.hausderzukunft.at/projekt01.html#abstract Baldwin, R., Russell, P., Nibel, S., Boonstra, C. and Ltzkendorf, T. (2000) The Results of IEA-ECBCS Annex 31 work on environmental assessment of buildings and related tools, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 225 October, Maastricht, The Netherlands. Chatagnon, N., Nibel, S. and Achard, G. (1998) ESCALE: a method of assessing a buildings environmental performance at the design stage, Proceedings: Green Building Challenge98, Vancouver, BC, 2628 October. Cooper, I. (1999) Which focus for building assessment methods environmental performance or sustainability? Building Research and Information, 27(4/5), 32131.

Endnotes
1

IEA buildings and Community Systems Implementing Agreement Annex 31 and related documents, to be published in 2001.
2

See the work of the IEAAnnex 31 to be published in 2001, summarized in Roger Baldwin et al., The Results of IEA-ECBCS Annex 31 Work on Environmental Assessment of Buildings and Related Tools, Proceedings, Sustainable Buildings 2000, 2225 October, 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
3

Table 2 is adapted from Todd and Lindsey, Comparative assessment of GBC 2000 and LEED: lessons learned for international and national systems, Proceedings, Sustainable Building 2000, 2225 October, 2000, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
335