Towards a Better Alignment of Green Building Rating Tools with

Environmental Sustainability:

The Case of the BERDE Green Rating System

Marianne Therese Amores

ISD 5103: Green Building in the Tropics

Dr. Nirmal Krishnani

28 November 2014
ABSTRACT

This paper examines the BERDE Green Rating System in order to determine how

well it measures true environmental sustainability and explore how green rating tools in

general can potentially be structured to better pursue this goal. Although the author

recognizes and agrees that the definition of sustainability in the design and construction

industry should take into consideration not just environmental concerns but also economic,

social, and cultural dimensions, the scope of this paper places emphasis in the environmental

aspect. All information and content with regards to green rating systems is limited to BERDE

Green Rating System and Leadership in Energy and Environment Design (LEED), as there is

insufficient data on the adaptation of other local green rating tools.

This paper first studies the framework of BERDE, first in how credits are structured

and weighted, and secondly in whether or not it cultivates a holistic design process. The

findings from this scrutiny is then contrasted against how environmental sustainability as a

goal should be defined, with the emphasis on the notion of permanence and global goals

through local strategies. In order to achieve this state, the author recognizes the need for

stages to incrementally bring our current state to the desired ends. Recommendations were

made to restructure a rating system to support this model. Despite all criticisms, green rating

tools will remain to be a prominent and widely used means of verification of green

performance. However, as the uptake of these tools increase, it will become necessary to

reassess their framework and method of verification in order to align the practice of green

building design with goal of sustainability in its ideal state.

Contents

Abstract
Table of Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2
The BERDE Green Rating System ............................................................................................ 6
Deployment and Developments ............................................................................................. 6
Framework and Credit Structure ............................................................................................ 7
Green Building Criteria. ..................................................................................................... 7
Credit Point Distribution. ................................................................................................... 9
Credit Weighting .............................................................................................................. 10
Application Assessment ....................................................................................................... 12
Scoring .............................................................................................................................. 12
Evidence collection and Certification............................................................................... 13
Adaptation ............................................................................................................................ 14
General Findings and Analysis ............................................................................................ 17
The Weakness of Green Rating Tools ..................................................................................... 18
Planning Sustainability: Building Stages to Arrive at the Desired State ................................. 19
Defining Sustainability......................................................................................................... 19
First stage: Self-Sufficiency [CLOSING THE LOOP] ........................................................ 20
Reduce Demand ................................................................................................................ 22
Produce resources and build locally ................................................................................. 22
Connect to and mimic natural energy systems ................................................................. 24
Second stage: Restoration [REPAIRING THE SYSTEM] .................................................. 26
Third Stage: BIOPHILIA [SUSTAINING SUSTAINABILITY] ....................................... 27
Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 29
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 34
Bibliography

Word count: 5216

List of Figures

Figure 1:An illustration of how the impact categories are used to evaluate each credit in the
rating system (LEED) ............................................................................................................... 6

Figure 2: A comparion between BERDE for New Construction (v.1.1.0) and LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (v4) point breakdown structure per category ................. 8

Figure 3: BERDE project registry status by rating scheme ..................................................... 10

Figure 4: LEED certified projects to date by rating scheme .................................................... 11

Figure 5: Percentage distribution of green certified buildings in 2014 by total floor area (sqm)
.................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 6: Percentage distribution of green certified buildings in 2014 by total project number
.................................................................................................................................................. 12

Figure 7: Building stages towards environmental sustainability ............................................. 16

Figure 8: A diagram of the present model of resource consumption and management .......... 17

Figure 9: From the present model to self-sufficiency .............................................................. 17

Figure 10: From self sufficiency to restoration........................................................................ 22

Figure 11: From restoration to biophilia .................................................................................. 22

List of Tables

Table 1: A comparison between BERDE Green Rating System and LEED credit categories .. 4

Table 2: BERDE credits under Management category .............................................................. 5

Table 3: A comparision between BERDE for New Construction (v.1.1.0) and LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (v4) point breakdown structure per category ................ 5

Table 4: Simplified illustration of the multi-criteria approach for weighing credits based on
outcomes in defined impact categories (LEED) ........................................................................ 6

Table 5: Point breakdown for BERDE TR-PT-6 (Contribution to Public Transport Amenities)
and TR-PT-7 (Public Transportation Access)............................................................................ 7

Table 6: Comparison on the number of BERDE certified versus LEED certified new building
stock in 2014 by total number and total floor area .................................................................... 7

Table 7: BERDE credits under energy category ...................................................................... 13

Table 8: Proposed credit structure for rating tools and sample credits and strategies ............. 26

Table 9: Proposed energy efficiency credit structure .............................................................. 27

Table 10: Sample of propsed credit scoring ............................................................................ 27

 1

Introduction

The issue of the environment may be viewed as one of the most pressing concerns

humanity is currently facing. The breadth of the problem covers a multitude of sectors,

nations, ecologies, and industries, and the extent of destruction, which is global in scale,

results in many broken systems, from climate change, to resource depletion, supply

contamination and so on. Some of the more palpable effects include skyrocketing energy

prices as well as increased frequency of calamities. The Philippines, in particular, receives the

brunt of the effect of global warming as it has been ranked the highest in terms of

vulnerability to tropical cyclones and third in terms of exposure to seasonal events (National

Climate Change Action Plan).

And yet despite of this, the adoption of green building practices to help mitigate these

effects remains relatively low in the country. This may be attributed to lack of public thrust

since the government ranks the issue of sustainability and environment lower in the list of

national concerns as compared to poverty, corruption, etcetera. Currently, the sector that is at

the forefront of the green building initiatives in the Philippines is the office or corporate

sector, and this is mainly due to the fact that these tenants, who are usually multinational

companies, prefer to lease out green projects or buildings that have attained green

certification, thus driving the demand for green commercial buildings.(Rufino)

Rating tools such as LEED and locally, BERDE Green Rating System, have the

potential to increase uptake of green practices because of the prestige ascribed to the

distinction and also due to the competitive platform that it sets. But since green adaptation in

the Philippines is still in an upstart, the local green rating tools that have been developed

during this period are also still in its early developments. One criticism that has been

expressed with regards to the efficacy of green rating tools in general is that they do not truly
 2
examine the depths of sustainability but rather, as in the case of tools that are still in its

infancy, strive for the path of least resistance (Keeler and Burke). While this is a justifiable

means to jumpstart the green industry and make green practices mainstream, the long term

goal should be to align the tool to the deeper and more encompassing goals of true

sustainability - even if it entails that the industry has to redefine what this really means.

The focus of this paper is to explore and propose this means of potential alignment by

first scrutinizing the BERDE Green Rating System in terms of how currently measures

sustainable performance, define what it entails to be truly environmentally sustainable in a

local and global context and finally, provide recommendations as to how a green rating tool

may be structured to achieve these ends.

The BERDE Green Rating System

Deployment and Developments

The Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence or BERDE is a program

developed by the Philippine Green Building Council (PHILGBC) under its mission of

promoting and sharing green building practices to the Philippine design and construction

industry. Through collaboration and consultation with multiple stakeholders, the green rating

tool called BERDE Green Rating System was developed under this program as a tool to

measure and validate the performance of buildings over and above the existing mandatory

environmental laws. It shares the same attributes as the U.S. Green Building council mission

with respect in development and adaptation in that it is also consensus-driven, market-based,

and voluntary. Certification of buildings in the Philippines under the BERDE Green Rating

System is not a mandatory requirement in both public and private sectors, although it was

recently recognized as the National Voluntary Green Rating system by the Department of

Energy through one of their programs called the Philippine Energy Efficient Project: Efficient
 3
Building Initiatives (PEEB-EBI)(http://www.tempo.com.ph) Other local rating systems

include Geared for Resiliency and Energy Efficiency for the Environment (Greeen) of the

Philippine Green Building Initiative, and the Green Choice Philippines of the Clean and

Green Foundation Inc.(http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/business/2014/07/18/going-green-

should-not-be-costly-or-complicated-354603)

PHILGBC was incorporated in 2007 and although the BERDE program was

introduced in the same year, the launch of the first BERDE Green Building Rating Scheme

was not until 2010 for BERDE for New Construction and 2011 for BERDE for Existing

Buildings. (http://fidic.org/sites/default/files/R%26C%20BERDE%20-%20final.pdf)

Framework and Credit Structure

Green Building Criteria.

The BERDE Green Building Rating System has eleven categories as part of their

framework as seen in Table 1. Some of these categories, if consolidated, are roughly

encompassed or covered by one category in LEED. For example, the general scope of two of

BERDE’s categories, Emissions and Energy, fall under Energy and Atmosphere in LEED.

The same goes for Materials and Waste, which is covered by LEED’s Materials and

Resources.

There are some BERDE categories, however, that have no equivalent in LEED.

Relatedly, these happen to be categories that are not necessarily or not direct environmental

concerns, unlike water, energy, waste, and etcetera. It is interesting to note that Heritage and

Conservation is defined by BERDE to be part of their green building framework and

therefore a category on its own, which is telling of the special emphasis placed on the

importance of the preservation of Philippine culture and heritage.

 4

Table 1: A Comparison Between BERDE Green Rating System and LEED Credit Categories

Management is another category that is unique to BERDE and not LEED. While

LEED awards one point for the observance of the Integrative Process, it is not a category on

its own. The Management category under BERDE, however, focuses on other dimensions of

sustainability such as social, economic, security, etc. These credits are achieved if the project

teams signs a commitment form and provides documented evidence as to how the project

contributed towards this aspect.

 5

Table 2: BERDE Credits Under Management Category

Credit Point Distribution.

In both BERDE and LEED, 100 points are available with 10 bonus points. The

breakdown is as follows:

Table 3: A comparison between BERDE for New Construction (v.1.1.0) and LEED for New
Construction and Major Renovations (v4) point breakdown structure per category
 6
Credit Weighting

In the latest version of LEED (LEED v4), a new set of credit-weighting criteria was

created and applied to the existing framework of the previous version, LEED 2009. The new

approach to credit-weighting focuses attention on performance and represented a more

comprehensive take on sustainability from the whole buildings perspective, as opposed to

individual materials, which was how the structure for LEED was conceptualized. Every credit

is then individually weighted with respect to the expected outcome that they will have for

every impact category in a matrix-style format (Brendan, Macken and Rohloff).

Figure 1: An illustration of how the impact categories are used to evaluate each
credit in the rating system (source: www.usgbc.org)

Every impact category is weighted relative to other categories and then regularized in

order to arrive at the final 100-point scorecard (Brendan, Macken and Rohloff).

Table 4: Simplified illustration of the multi-criteria approach for weighing credits based on
outcomes in defined impact categories. (source: www.usgbc.org)
 7
In the case of BERDE, however, there is not much documentation as to how each

credit is weighted. It even appears that for some credits that are worth more than one point,

this is due to the number of subcategories or sub-requirements to that specific credit. For

example, in the case of TR-PT-5, Public Transportation Access, the total number of points

provided directly corresponds to the number of possible types of modes of public

transportation. The same holds true for TR-PT-6 (Contribution to Public Transport

Amenities).

Table 5: Point breakdown for BERDE TR-PT-6 (Contribution to Public Transport Amenities) and TR-PT-7 (Public
Transportation Access)

If this, therefore, is the methodology of weighing credits, then comparing the point

distribution between BERDE and LEED might lead to false interpretation as to how each

rating system defines or quantifies environmental impact by category. In Figure 2 for

example, it appears that BERDE provides more emphasis in Transportation as compared to

LEED’s Energy and Atmosphere, but this may be attributed to multiple subcategories or

requirements, each of which may correspond to one point, as previously mentioned.

 8
BERDE for New Construction (v1.1.0) LEED for New Construction and Major Renovations
(v4)
Innovation Management
Others 5% 1%
Others
4% Innovation 4%
9% Management Site
13% 9%

Water
Materials &
10%
Materials & Waste
Site
Waste 13%
18%
15%
Indoor
Environment
al Quality Energy and
12% Atmosphere
31%
Transportatio Energy and Water
Indoor n Atmosphere 4% Transportatio
Environemen 16% 15% n
tal Quality 15%
6%

Figure 2: A Comparison Between BERDE for New Construction (v1.1.0) and LEED for New Construction and
Major Renovations (v4) Point Breakdown Structure Per Category

Application Assessment

Scoring

Just like LEED, BERDE has both mandatory criteria and point-scoring criteria. All

mandatory criteria have to be met by pursuing project teams or else the application will be

disqualified.

For point-scoring criteria, a credit is awarded if evidence for full compliance is

provided. For credits that are worth more than one point, scoring is done either in the

following ways:

a. Automatic full points for full compliance

9
 b. Points awarded for compliance of every partial requirement

c. Points awarded for corresponding percentage of target achieved

1. d
.

d. Combination of any of the above

Evidence collection and Certification

The evaluation process requires two types of evidence depending on which phase the

project currently in. Design Requirements typically consist of drawings, specifications,

calculations, reports, etcetera, while Construction requirements are usually as-built

documents of the same. Once a project team has completed and have furnished all evidence,

the project may be awarded a Design Recognition mark, provided that all information has

been reviewed and certified by the PHILGBC.

 10
After this Design Assessment Process comes the As-Built Assessment Process

wherein all corresponding proof will have to be furnished, reviewed, and certified again. The

project is only awarded a Certification mark after the building has completed construction

and is ready for occupancy.

Adaptation

As of present, out of 13 projects that have been registered for BERDE for New

Construction, none have yet been awarded the Certification Mark, although one project has

attained Design Recognition. Eight Projects have submitted Letters of Commitment for

BERDE for Existing Buildings while five projects have been registered for BERDE for

Operations. There are no projects certified or awarded Design Recognition in 2014.

(http://berdeonline.org/)

Figure 3: BERDE Project Registry Status to Date by Rating Scheme

14

12

10

8 LETTER OF COMMITMENT
REGISTERED
6
DESIGN RECOGNITION

4 CERTIFIED

0
BERDE FOR NEW BERDE FOR BERDE FOR EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS BUILDINGS

On the other hand, there has been 13 projects in the Philippines to date that has

already been certified for LEED BD+C, four for LEED ID+C, and two for LEED OM as of
 11
the time this paper is written. The breakdown of the levels of award may be seen in Figure

4.Only 4 buildings have been LEED-certified 2014.

Figure 4: LEED Certified Projects to Date by Rating Scheme

5 CERTIFIED
SILVER
4
GOLD
3
PLATINUM
2

0
BUILDING DESIGN & INTERIOR DESIGN & OPERATIONS &
CONSTRUCTION [BD+C] CONSTRUCTION [ID+C] MAINTENANCE [O+M]

Taking a look at the percentage of new building stock that have attained green

certification in 2014, only 0.01% have been LEED Certified if by total number, and 0.64% if

by total floor area. As previously stated, there is no documented certification activity in 2014

for BERDE, and the number of certified buildings so far is still at zero.

Table 6: Comparison on the number of BERDE certified versus LEED certified new building stock in 2014 by
total number and total floor area

New Construction LEED Certified in 2014 BERDE Certified in 2014

1
in 2014
Total Number 32,729 4 0.01% 0 0%
Total Floor Area 6,212,733 39582 0.64% 0 0%

Since there are no certified buildings yet for BERDE, there is also no documentation

as to actual building performance as compared to non-certified buildings. In the case of

1
Data from Construction Statistics from Approved Building Permits: Second Quarter 2014 (http://web0.psa.gov.ph/content/construction-
statistics-approved-building-permits-second-quarter-2014-preliminary-results)
 12
LEED, however, the Platinum-Certified Zuellig Building reported energy savings of at least

15%2 and water savings of 70% or 29 million litters annually

(http://www.asiagreenbuildings.com/philippines-zuellig-building-earns-platinum-leed-

certification/).

Figure 5: Percentage Distribution of Green Certified Buildings in 2014 by Total

Floor Area (sqm)

New Building Stock LEED Certified Buildings BERDE Certificed Buildings

0.64% 0.00%

99.36%

Figure 6: Percentage Distribution of Green Certified Buildings in 2014 by Total Project

Number

New Building Stock LEED Certified Buildings BERDE Certified Buildings

0.01% 0.00%

99.99%

2
As benchmarked from a base building built to conventional US standards
 13
General Findings and Analysis

From a study on the overall framework of the BERDE Green Rating System, the

following observations have been made:

a. Basis of Environmental Impact

As previously stated, it is not clearly indicated as to how every credit is given weight

and whether or not it relates to the weight of its corresponding environmental or socio-

economic impact. By so doing, it provides little insight as to how BERDE as a rating tool

actually quantifies actual environmental bearing of a project. For example, the credit with the

largest number of possible points in LEED v4 is Optimize Energy Performance (up to 18

points)(http://www.usgbc.org/credits). The equivalent for BERDE, EN-PT-5: Energy

Efficiency Performance is worth only 1 point, despite the fact that energy and fossil fuels is

one of the most pressing concerns in the green industry.

Table 7:Credits for BERDE Energy Category

 14
b. Focus on Strategies and Features

The BERDE Green Rating System has a tendency of listing strategies as individual

credits even though they share the same performance goal. For example, in the case of most

of credits for energy performance, the performance target of criteria such as Energy Efficient

Lighting, Energy Efficient Equipment, etc., is basically the same - all of which contribute

towards energy efficiency improvement (also a separate credit). This is the typical attribute of

green rating tools that promotes a fragmented and feature-based design instead of a holistic

and integrated design process.

c. Lack of Equitability and Flexibility

In connection to the previous point, this tendency of establishing pre-defined

strategies as credits discourages the project team from determining the most optimal design

solutions dependent on their unique project context and requirements. For instance, credits

like MN-EN-PT-3: Natural ventilation states in its requirements that 50% of spaces to be

ventilated must use passive or natural means of ventilating. In the first place, the mere

typology and program of the project might deem this unfeasible or impractical - especially in

the case of office buildings - and would thereby lose this point, instead of having the

flexibility of exploring other methods of reducing energy cost - which, in the first place, was

the intent of the credit.

The Weakness of Green Rating Tools

No green rating system is perfect. While all of them may be conceived with good

intention, there are at least two opportunities in which it may fail - first in the way the

framework is structured and how it defines sustainability, and secondly in the way it is

utilized. From the onset, it is important to bear in mind that green rating tools are only just

that - tools, and not an end in themselves. The biggest danger in using what is supposed to be
 15
just a verification tool and take it as the full breadth of the range of possibility of what

constitutes a "sustainable" building is that it offers a false sense of security and complacency

in the way we build - such that we may take it to mean that the more credits are ticked off, the

more sustainable the building becomes. (Reed and 7group)

The first pitfall that we see therefore is the natural tendency to follow through the

checklist blindly and without question as to the real intent and broader goals behind every

credit. When we fail to make this connection, whatever "green" solution is implemented

becomes almost desultory and meaningless, especially if a project team does not understand

sustainability in a deeper level, thereby leaving it to the tool to define it for them. It becomes

worse when a tool itself does not define and interpret it well and is even structured in a way

that actually encourages this un-integrated, point-shopping tendency - as in BERDE, which

sometimes lists strategies as credits. The very system in which we certify our buildings is

illustrative of the uninformed, fragmented nature of our process. To correct this system might

be a long and arduous process, but first we must start with the very basic question: How

should we define sustainability?

Planning Sustainability: Building Stages to Arrive at the Desired State

Defining Sustainability

Different stakeholders would have slightly different definitions of sustainability.

Perhaps one of the more known or widely accepted definitions is the following:

"Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the

ability of future generations to meet their own needs"

- Bruntland Report for the World Commission on Environmental and

Development (1992)
 16
We can take this definition to support the notion that sustainability meanspermanence

- and therefore any activity that limits the system's capacity to continue its processes

indefinitely is to be considered unsustainable.

But this is only the definition of the ideal state. If we were to look at sustainability as

a goal that is to be achieved, then we should take a look into the existing model - and address

the fact that there has already been decades' worth of destruction as a result of the present

system. We must also consider that one of the most major faults of the current system is not

only the system itself, but the universal mindset and values that fuelled and brought it to its

current state. Given this, sustainability must be addressed through three stages: Self-

Sufficiency, Restoration, and Biophilia.

Figure7: Building Stages Towards Environmental Sustainability

First stage: Self-Sufficiency [CLOSING THE LOOP]

Most forms of environmental degradation is in one way or another a result of the

overconsumption, destruction, or irresponsible management of a certain type of natural

resource. For example, industrial agriculture not only led to the rapid displacement of natural

habitat to make way for monoculture farms, but also destroys soil fertility and soil structure.

The spiked demand for energy and fuel after the industrial revolution led to extraction of non-

renewable sources such as coal and oil, and the consumption of which has been known to

result to our current global warming predicament.

 17

Figure 8: A Diagram of the Present Model of Resource Consumption & Management

If we are to define sustainability as permanence, the logical first step forward would

be to manage our resources responsibly and control consumption in a way that assures a

continuous and healthy supply indefinitely.

An ideal system, therefore, creates its own resource while leaving any natural

resource untouched and whole until, out of strict necessity, we are forced to use it. This is

called the “Rule of necessitous use.”(Mollison)

“The needs of the system must be met by the system”

One of the principles of Permaculture as a

functional design is to obtain a surplus of

resource, which is called yield. If Yield is a

resource that is simply created, then

theoretically yield has no known limits. The

strategy is to design the system in a way that

governs the appetite, creates yields, and bans

Figure 9: From the Present Model to Self-Sufficiency
 18
the irresponsible management of resources that permanently reduce yield such as: pollutants,

poisons, toxins, and so on.(Mollison)

How does this therefore translate to design and the built environment?

Reduce Demand

Some of these “energies” that is required for an agricultural farm to thrive is the same

as that in the built environment. To “curb the appetite” then, should be translated to an

overall reduction in the demand or consumption in resources that are continuously used

throughout the lifecycle of the building – for example, energy and water. This reduction in

demand has already been covered by rating systems such as BERDE and LEED, as

exemplified by credits allocated for reduced energy consumption, reduced potable water, and

so on. Both rating systems specify strategies to reduce demand, either through design

strategies or technologies that address specific components or systems in a building project.

The Integrative Design Process however, specifically looks into the relationships between

building systems to seek opportunities for optimization and overall reduction of energy

consumption, materials, and therefore cost(Reed and 7group). This approach to design and

collaboration is highly iterative and encourages project teams to question all assumptions and

rules of thumb in order to arrive at a system that is optimized and not overdesigned and

fragmented.

Produce resources and build locally

All sustainability is local (Braungart, McDonough and Hoye). When we think and do

all things locally, for example: produce our own energy, grow our own food, recycle our own

water, plant local species, tap into local craft, the benefits are abundant, the most immediate

perhaps is that it eases the burden off global resources. The idea of local sustainability is not

limited to materials, but it begins with them. We already know that the preferred use local
 19
materials both promote local enterprise and reduce transportation emissions. We should also

look at it in a way that the responsible choice of building materials is that which is abundant

and easily renewable, the production and extraction of which has limited or negligible

adverse impacts to environment and emissions, and at the end of its lifecycle, either its

options for disposal would be that it either has no adverse effects or contamination, or it must

is durable enough to be reused or recycled again. Although it is difficult to find a product

commercially available in the market that perfectly satisfies all of the above parameters,

traditional or vernacular architecture have been using local and natural material which are all

of the above.

CASE STUDY: Bamboo Clad House by Atelier Sacha Cotture

One good example of designing local is a residence by Swiss-Filipino studio Atelier Sacha

Cotture in Paranaque City, Metro Manila, Philippines. As it happens, local materials is not

part of the credits in the BERDE Rating System, but in this project, the architect made

conscious effort to incorporate the use of locally sourced and abundant materials in of many

of its design features. The facade, for example, is almost entirely clad in treated, stained,

and varnished bamboo poles. Bamboo is a very abundant material in the Philippines, it is

rapidly renewable, and is also used extensively throughout Philippine history in handicrafts,
 20

furniture, and vernacular architecture. The style of planning also borrows the concept of

"BahaynaBato" or "Stone House" which was a Spanish colonial era vernacular style of

houses wherein a wooden frame living story sits on top of a stone-built ground floor. The

designer exploited many other opportunities to utilize local material, such as the stone

cladding of the ground floor, which is Araal, local granite. The stones in the bathrooms and

living rooms come from a nearby island. Local Mahogany wood frames the windows,

furniture, and beds. (http://www.dezeen.com/2014/03/21/bamboo-cladding-surrounds-

house-in-the-philippines-by-atelier-sacha-cotture/)

As previously stated, we can also expand our conception of “local” so as not just to

mean the use of local materials, but look into physical processes and the effect on the

surrounding environment. For instance, a building or a community that produces its own

energy significantly helps reduces its carbon emissions on a global scale. A building site that

treats its wastewater or has good storm water management system cleans the water before it

recharges into the aquifer back into the larger loop for everyone’s use. These strategies are

related to the next concept:

Connect to and mimic natural energy systems

One of the other reasons why human development and processes are destructive to

natural processes is that it never studies the existing network that has been sustaining itself

for thousands of years. Even above and beyond the concern not to destroy or disturb the

natural systems, we have everything to gain to try to understand it in order to fit in and

integrate seamlessly with all natural patterns, cycles, and flows. The planet has an incredible

wealth of not just material resource, but also energy flows that have potential for harness

within the bounds of responsible and creative use. The closer we mimic natural processes and
 21
design principles and align our “cultivated ecosystem” with that of the “natural ecosystem”,

the more sustainable the development becomes. One of these principles is how nature works

without waste, and sees waste as resource. (Mollison)

CASE STUDY:The Bottle School by Illac Diaz and the MyShelter Foundation

One of the approaches the MyShelter Foundation has towards building their

structures is that which is low-cost, eco-friendly, and disaster resilient. The materials they

chose to use that addressed all three are recycled bottles – hence the project they

constructed was appropriately called The Bottle School. This project was conceived at the

aftermath of a calamity, in which many schools were destroyed. The scale of the damage

hampered them from easily receiving funds for a building constructed the conventional

way – and so the project team had to look for an alternative material and make it work.

After some experimentation and structural testing, they found a methodology for working

with recycled bottles that resulted to a stronger assembly than the conventional hollow

block. As a result, the project team arrived at a solution that was not only sturdy and cost-

effective, but utilized what would have otherwise been landfill waste as a useful

commodity. (Bottle School)

 22

Second stage: Restoration [REPAIRING THE SYSTEM]

If the first stage focuses on a

necessary shift in mind-set in the

way we design, consume, and build,

the second stage should be to repair

the damage that has already been

generated after years of

mismanagement of natural
Figure 10: From Sef-Sufficiency to Restoration
resources by the conventional

process- and restore it to its natural state. This may be addressed both in a local and global

scale. As previously mentioned in the “rules of necessitous use”, the purpose of maintaining

as little a footprint as possible when it comes to supplying the needs of human civilization is

in order to leave as much natural resource as whole and as untouched as possible (Mollison).

In some cases, however, especially where there is already previous damage, it is beneficial to

encourage development in those areas in order to provide an opportunity to reverse the

existing damage made to that specific site. Some forms of efforts like these have been

awarded in green rating systems. LEED, for example, awards points for building on and

rehabilitating previously contaminated sites. This is also the importance of site selection.

It is also important to note that although we might usually consider global resources

as something completely separate and outside our locality with respect to the context of the

project, there are many times wherein they intersect or enter into the boundary of local

resource or energy flows. This means that if there any forms of degeneration, contamination,

or destruction in the global resource that falls into the site, the project team should take it

upon themselves to restore it to its former state. A good first step as part of this regenerative
 23
process therefore, is to determine what the site was once was, or learn the “Story of the

Place” (Reed and 7group). The “Story of place” can encompass all things, including cultural

history, or how that land was used by previous generations, or what natural features were

previously there, how healthy the local ecology used to be, and so on.

The scope and extent of restoration and regeneration can mean anything as cleaning

used water and run-off to drinking-level quality, or bringing back a creek that was once

running through the site, which in turn restores ecology and increases local biodiversity. Even

within a constraint site in an urban development, there are opportunities to improve surface-

run-off and recharging aquifers, or include pockets of green with native vegetation thereby

bring back some diversity. The idea is that every development inasmuch as possible should

serve as a catalyst for the healing of damaged systems, in whatever scale and in whatever

way possible.

Third Stage: BIOPHILIA [SUSTAINING SUSTAINABILITY]

Figure 11: From Restoration to Biophilia

It is one thing to address sustainability on an infrastructure or a physical level, but

what continues to determine the health of our environment is still the behaviour of human

society, and not just the shell or stage in which it performs. More often than not, the
 24
prevailing approach to design continues to result in unsustainable energy and resource

consumption, biodiversity loss, resource contamination and pollution, and perhaps lesser

considered: alienation from nature. So long as people are not sufficiently motivated enough to

act as responsible stewards to the built environment, we will still continue to face this

problem; So long as people do not have a strong attachment to the culture and ecology of

place, they will not be sufficiently motivated to act as such (Wilson).

Biophilia is said to be viewed as the missing link in our current approach to

sustainable development (Kellert, Heerwagen and Mador). Education and raising awareness

may not be enough. To continuously build green buildings may not be enough. We need to

tap into and inculcate a personal connection between people and nature, so that it is not only

the building or development that contributes to a greener future, but through the way it is

designed, very subtly cascades this sense of responsibility to its residents.

CASE STUDY: GOLF COURSE HOUSE, by LorCalma Design

The Golf Course House situated in Manila, Philippines, happens to be the only house in

the gated community that did not close itself off, but rather opened up and oriented itself

to the surrounding undulating greens of the adjacent golf course. The openness was the

client’s only requirement, and the designer addressed this by splitting the property into

two major zones, thereby enabling him to create a court entry with a pool garden. Nature
 25

continually served as the focal point throughout the house in the way the architect

framed views and used natural elements such as Koi ponds as centrepieces in a space. As

an example of how design can influence behaviour, the clients even noted that their two

children, who normally spend most of their time indoors, started appreciating nature and

utilizing the outdoor spaces more upon moving into the house. Furthermore, the

openness forged social connections as clients from the golf course drop by from time to

time, leading to an extension of the community. (McGillick)

Biophilic strategies are not new; for much of human history, buildings were designed

in this way, perhaps resulting from a deeper context. The important thing is we must re-

establish this human connection and strive for developments that not only sustainable by

itself, but plants a seed of a conservation mentality to those who inhabit it - thereby achieving

a development that changes perceptions and human behaviour.

Recommendations

How can a system tie in to this model? If we follow the stages, the first thing that

needs to be done is to think in terms of resources. For the purpose if exemplification, let us

consider possible credit structures for the following: ENERGY, WATER, MATERIAL, and

LAND.

In order to encourage the industry to close the loop insofar as possible, then for every

resource, performance targets need to be set for all of the following: reduction of

consumption, creation of resource, and the responsible return of this resource (if applicable).

This is further exemplified in the table below:

 26

Table 8: Proposed Credit Structure for Rating Tools and Sample Credits and Strategies

RESOURCE "CLOSING THE LOOP"

REDUCE CREATE RETURN

CREDIT: Reduction of CREDIT: Generate non- CREDIT: Waste water

potable water use potable water supply treatment
- water-sense fixtures, high - rainwater harvesting - constructed wetlands
efficiency fixtures - gray water recycling
- sub-metering - storm water recycling CREDIT: Storm Water
Management
WATER CREDIT: Reduction of non- -preservation of natural
potable water use drainage patterns
- reduction of area of turf - minimize the use of
- drip irrigation impervious surfaces
- use of drought-tolerant - biofiltration,
species infiltration, detention

CREDIT: Reduction of CREDIT: Alternative

overall energy Energy
consumption (Energy - on-site or off-site
Efficiency) generation of alternative
ENERGY - passive ventilation energy
- climate-responsive design - connection to green
- energy-efficient fixtures power
- energy-efficient equipment
- building orientation
- integrated systems design

CREDIT: Reduce use of CREDIT: Material reuse CREDIT: Planned

finite material resources (waste as resource) end-of-use
and long-cycle material - salvaged materials - disassembly
Resources - refurbished materials - reuse
- rapidly renewable materials - reused materials - recycle
- certified wood
- materials efficiency

CREDIT: Reduced
transportation emissions
MATERIALS - use of regional or local
materials

CREDIT: Eliminate toxins

and emissions
- use of bio-based materials
or materials without toxic
content

CREDIT: Reduced
construction waste
 27

CREDIT: Site Selection CREDIT: Pro-Biodiversity

(reduce development on
LAND green fields)
- previously developed site
- brownfield sites
Green Open Space or
Green Offsetting
(Offset building footprint
with equivalent area of
greenery)

Through this structure, the overall the framework of the rating tool may then acquire

the following attributes towards a better system:

Emphasis on Intent, and not Strategy

Green rating tools should reward a good outcome of a sustainability goal, and not the

degree of compliance from a list of predefined strategies. If the true goal is sustainability, and

not a “five star rating", then rating systems should be structured in a way that encourages

project teams to pursue performance targets, after a thorough understanding of every credit’s

intent and the environmental or socio-economic issue that it represents. In this way, point-

shopping would be minimized and the charge of creative interpretation of this intent to

strategies and unique design solutions will be transferred to the project team.

Table 9: Proposed Structure for Energy Efficiency Credit

SAMPLES OF BERDE CREDITS PROPOSED CREDIT STRUCTURE

CREDITS: CREDIT: Energy Efficiency

EN-PT-6: Energy efficient building envelope
EN-PT-7: Energy efficient equipment
EN-PT-8: Building Automation Systems
POSSIBILE STRATEGIES:
- passive ventilation
- climate-responsive design
- energy-efficient fixtures
- energy-efficient equipment
- building orientation
- integrated systems design

Flexibility

Given this, then, project teams must be afforded enough flexibility to explore

whatever strategies and solutions they deem appropriate to the project context as long as the
 28
performance target is met. All projects are different, and therefore a design strategy that

works in one building may not necessarily work or is even applicable for others. Providing

project teams flexibility then should encourage innovation, resourcefulness, and thoughtful

design process. A possible good outcome of this structure is if it promotes design solutions

that easily addresses more than one performance target while still being cost effective. For

example, after studying the credit structure, a project team may opt for a predominant use of

bamboo, which is not only cheap, but also reduces use of finite materials, reduces

transportation emissions (since it is locally grown) all the while having no toxic by-products

or emissions (three possible credits with just one material).

Proper Benchmarking and Credit Weighting

If we define sustainability as the ideal state, then a building's green performance

should be measured by how well the project achieves the goal as benchmarked from the ideal

state and not by a bare minimum - so long as it is achievable. If we were to be strict with this

definition, this means that projects should not be rewarded for the mere fact that it does less

harm. It also does not necessarily mean to say that they would forfeit that credit if the desired

state is not achieved 100%, only that the number of points and the level of certification must

be a direct proportion to the extent of how well the desired state was achieved. Bonus points

may be awarded if it performs more than what is expected (e.g. net positive energy).

Furthermore, the weight of each credit must be carefully evaluated from a thorough study of

the corresponding weight of its environmental and socio-economic impact in the Philippines

context.
 29

Table 10: Sample of Proposed Credit Scoring

SAMPLE OF BERDE CREDIT PROPOSED CREDIT STRUCTURE

CREDIT: EN-PT-4: ON-SITE RENEWABLE
RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE
ENERGY GENERATION
- On-site or off-site renewable energy
- Solar panels
source
STRATEGIES: - Wind energy
- Connection to a certified Green Power
- Hydro energy
source
MAXIMUM POINTS
1 PT e.g.: 18 PTS
ACHIEVABLE:

- Full points awarded if 100% of total

energy demand comes from a
1 Point awarded if 5% of the
renewable source
building's total energy demand is
- If the project generates only a certain
REQUIREMENT: off-set by renewable on-site
percentage of total energy demand
technologies
from a renewable source, then the
number of points attainable will be in
direct proportion to this percentage.

Bonus point is awarded if the project

Bonus point is awarded if annual
INNOVATION / generates more energy than it
energy reduction cost is greater
BONUS POINT consumes and returns it back to the
than 15%
grid

Quality and Quantity

More often than not, rating tools focus too much on numbers, percentages, and that

which is scientifically quantifiable. However, we realize now that what is quantifiable does

not automatically mean it is effective, in the same way that what is non-quantifiable is

automatically ineffective. There are many attributes of good design that are intangible and

run deeper than just a credit compliance because of a story behind it, or the rippled positive

effect it created outside the boundary of the project site. In the case of Biophilia, for example,

or determining and restoring the "Story of Place", both of which may bring a far more

powerful, meaningful, and long-term impact than a mere energy-efficient equipment, and yet

it is the latter that is listed as a credit. Rating tools should consider to seek out ways to reward

projects that go beyond that which is "tangibly green", either through detailed narratives and

documentations or occupant surveys.

 30

Conclusion

In order to align the Green Industry with the broader goals of sustainability, we must

first evaluate how we currently define it - and strive to define it correctly. In the process of

doing so, we must come to terms with the fact that true environmental sustainability should

be defined in its most perfect state, and in no way should we bend this definition to suit what

is conveniently achievable for the industry - thereby giving ourselves a false sense of security

that "doing less harm" is enough.

"GLOBAL sustainability goals through LOCAL resources and strategies".

When we distil the definition of sustainability to mean permanence, we may realize that this

principle and goal is actually universal and remains true in any scale, and in any country or

ecosystem. But as soon as we translate this goal to a conscious action, all strategies and

design decisions must be as "local" as and as self-sufficient as possible.

Green Rating Tools, regardless of how well their framework is conceived, continue to

play a very important role in the Green Industry since they are the most prominent means to

quantify the greenness of a building. In the absence or in the fragmented interpretation of

what is truly sustainable, then the easier way is to pursue green certification so that the

project team need only follow through a check-list of requirements in order for this "Green"

distinction to handed over to them. As the take-up rate of these tools pick up, it becomes

increasingly important that the Green Industry scrutinize their rating tools and improve them

so they serve as an effective leverage towards sustainability. An immediate concern for the

industry, therefore, should be to develop these tools to support a new methodology that

changes the way we design and think so that it is no longer fragmented and superficial, but

thoughtful and integrated.

Bibliography
n.d.

“Bottle School.” Futurarc (2011).

Braungart, Michael, William McDonough and Stephen Hoye. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking
the Way We Make Things. North Point Press, 2002.

Brendan, Owens, et al. “http://www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-impact-category-and-point-

allocation-process-overview.” 5 August, 2013. www.usgbc.org. 27 November, 2014.

http://berdeonline.org/. 2013. 27 November , 2014.

http://web0.psa.gov.ph/content/construction-statistics-approved-building-permits-second-
quarter-2014-preliminary-results. 2 September, 2014. 27 November, 2014.

http://www.asiagreenbuildings.com/philippines-zuellig-building-earns-platinum-leed-
certification/. 25 July, 2013. 27 November, 2014.

http://www.dezeen.com/2014/03/21/bamboo-cladding-surrounds-house-in-the-philippines-by-
atelier-sacha-cotture/. 21 March, 2014. 27 November, 2014.

http://www.sunstar.com.ph/cebu/business/2014/07/18/going-green-should-not-be-costly-or-
complicated-354603. 18 July, 2014. 27 November, 2014.

http://www.tempo.com.ph. July, 2013. 27 November, 2014.

http://www.usgbc.org/credits. 2012-2014. 27 November, 2014.

Keeler, Marian and Bill Burke. Fundamentals of Integrated Design for Sustainable Building.
Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2009.

Kellert, Stephen, Judith Heerwagen and Martin Mador. Biophilic Design: The Theory,
Science and Practice of Bringing Buildings to Life. Wiley, 2008.

McGillick, Paul. The Sustainable Asian House: Thailand, Malasyia, Singapore, Indonesia,
Philippines. Tuttle Publishing, 2013.

Mollison, Bill. Permaculture: A Designer's Manual. Tasmania, Australia: Tagari

Publications, 1988.

“National Climate Change Action Plan.” 2012.

Reed, Bill and 7group. The Integrative Design Guide to Green Building. Wiley, 2009.

Rufino, Raymond. Shaping up the Adoptation of Green Buildings in Philippines 4 November,

2013.

Wilson, Edward. Biophilia. Harvard University Press, 1986.