• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
CHAPTER 3 LEED AND GREEN BUILDING ASSESSMENTINTRODUCTION
During what could be called the ‘early’ green buildings movement in the U.S., that isgreen buildings designed prior to 1999, buildings were conceptualized by architects andengineers, each design team using their individual interpretations of what could beconstrued as ‘green’ with respect to the built environment. Although it was understoodthat these buildings would be resource efficient and environmentally friendly, there wereno specific criteria that meant a design passed or failed the test of being green. With theadvent of the LEED
TM
Green Building Rating System in 1999, this situation changeddramatically with the introduction of a set of criteria that determined not only whether or not the building was green, but what specific shade of green it was. LEED
TM
is aregistered trademark of the USGBC and provides a rating system with four gradations of  points that provide (from highest to lowest) Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Certified ratings.The generic label for LEED
TM
and other similar systems and standards in other countriesis
building assessment system
. There are a number of other building assessment systemsused in other countries. BREEAM (Building Research Establishment EnvironmentalAssessment Method) is a building assessment system used in the United Kingdom andCASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency) isa building assessment approach created for Japanese construction that is under development by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium.A building assessment system provides a methodology for scoring or rating a building’senvironmental effects, resource consumption, and health impacts. Clearly this can be avery complicated process because each of these effects has different units of measurements and affects different physical areas. Environmental effects have a widevariety of scales: local, regional, national, and global. Resource impacts are measured ina variety of units: mass, energy, volume, parts per million (ppm), density, and area.Building health can be determined only indirectly by how little chemical and biologicalmaterials are likely to be in the air circulating in the building and by the relative healthand well-being of the occupants. Portraying this wide variety of information in aninformative way is difficult enough but comparing the arrays of data for various buildingchoices is even more complicated. Attaching a rating to the array of information is alsonot an easy task.Why consider a building assessment standard or rating at all? In general, buildingassessment systems are created for the purpose of promoting high performance buildingsand some, like LEED, are specifically designed to use the market to increase demand.Building assessment systems generally offer a label or plaque indicating the rating the building achieved and it can be affixed to the building as a public statement of the building’s performance. A good rating by a building assessment system should make the building more valuable in the marketplace because it indicates the building will have lowoperational costs and a healthy interior environment. Competition by owners anddevelopers to achieve high building assessment ratings would have the effect of creatinga high quality, high performance building stock. A parallel effect is the success of  building assessment systems could also help achieve otherwise difficult to reach political
 
goals, for example, national requirement related to the Kyoto Protocols on climatechange.In designing a building assessment system, the authors are faced with two major choices:using either a single number to describe the building’s overall performance or providingan array of numbers for the same purpose. If a single number is used to assess or rate a building, the assessment system must somehow convert the many different unitsdescribing the building’s resource and environmental impacts (energy usage, water consumption, land area footprint, materials and waste quantities) and conditions (buildinghealth, built-in recycling systems, deconstructability, percentage of products coming fromwithin the local area) resulting from the building design into a series of numbers that can be added together to produce a single overall score. This is clearly not an easy task andan arbitrary one at best. Clearly the advantage of a single number assessment is itssimplicity. And unfortunately its disadvantage is also its simplicity because it arbitrarilycombines a wide range of physical units and conditions into a single number. The LEEDstandard provides a single number for determining how a building as the building’sassessment or rating by assigning points in various categories of impacts and then addingthe points to obtain a score.Alternatively a building assessment system can provide an array of numbers or graphsthat depict the building’s performance in a number of major areas (for example,environmental loadings, energy and water consumption compared to conventionalconstruction). The advantage of this approach is that the information is more fine-grained and provides more detailed information on areas of performance such as energyconsumption, global warming, and building health, to name a few. The disadvantage isits complexity, making it moderately difficult to very difficult to compare buildings,depending on the range of factors displayed in the output of the assessment system.Green Building Tool (GB Tool), a system used in the Sustainable Building Challengeseries of conferences to compare buildings for their performance, is an example of anassessment methodology that is based on using a relatively large quantity of informationto assess the relative merits of a building’s design.This chapter describes the LEED standard in outline detail and provides informationabout other major building assessment standards or systems used around the world. Theseinclude BREEAM, the leading system used in the United Kingdom, CASBEE, theemerging raring system in Japan, and the previously mentioned GB Tool.
LEEDStructure of LEED
LEED is actually a suite of standards developed by member of the USGBC. The bestknown and only fully implemented LEED standard is LEED version 2.1 for commercial buildings, which has evolved into a highly accepted measure of a green building in theU.S. In addition to LEED 2.1 there are several other LEED standards in various stages of development:LEED-EB: Existing Building Operations (Pilot Version)
 
LEED-CI: Commercial Interiors (Pilot Version)LEED-Residential (Under development)LEED-Retail (Under development)In addition to the LEED suite of standards, there are also several variants of LEED, for example SPiRiT, a version of LEED adopted by the U.S. Army for its facilities. This andother derivatives are described later in this chapter.
Brief History of LEED for Commercial Buildings
LEED for commercial buildings was developed by the USGBC in a four year processfrom 1994 to 1998 (see Table 3.1). The first version, known as LEED 1.0, was issued in1998 as a beta version. Over thirty buildings in the U.S. were officially scored usingLEED 1.0 to obtain a rating which originally was Platinum, Gold, Silver, or Bronze.LEED 2.0 was issued in 2000 and was a very dramatically changed version of theoriginal LEED standard. LEED 2.1 was issued in 2002 and is virtually identical toLEED 2.0 except that it provides for greatly simplified documentation requirements.Future versions of LEED will of course be issued, with LEED 3.0 tentatively scheduledfor issuance in 2005.
Overview of the LEED Version 2.1
LEED 2.1 is the USGBC standard for commercial buildings and is structured with seven prerequisites and a maximum of 69 points divided into six major categories (see Table3.2). Prerequisites are conditions that must all be successfully addressed for a building to be eligible to be considered for a LEED rating.The number of points available in each category was established by the developers of LEED and indicates the weight they place on the various major issues addressed by thisstandard. The allocation of points to each category is arbitrary and based on the judgment of the developers. It is arguable, for example, that Indoor EnvironmentalQuality (15 points maximum) is more important than Materials and Resources (13 pointsmaximum) and three times as important as Water Efficiency (5 points). This indicatessome of the pitfalls of a building assessment system that reduces complex factors to asingle number. Nonetheless it does provide a logical, rational if somewhat arbitraryapproach to producing numerical scores in each category. LEED was developed in anLEED VersionYear IssuedMaximum PointsBuildings Assessed1.0 1998332.0 2000652.1 2002653.0 2005*To be determined* Tentative date for issue
Table 3.1 LEED Versions and Applications
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...