Green Building Assessment Tool Research Project: Final Report

Executive Summary

1 Introduction

2 Methodology

3 Background Research: Australasia

4 Background Research: International

5 Industry Consultation

6 The Selection Process

7 Final Recommendations

8 Conclusion

Appendix A: Invitation and Outline for First NZGBC Workshops

Appendix B: Expression of Interest Letter to Tool Designers

Appendix C: Instructions for Completion of Matrices

Appendix D: First NZGBC Workshop Attendees List

Appendix E: Comments Received from First NZGBC Rating Tools Workshop, April 2006

Appendix F: Invitation and Outline for Second NZGBC Workshop

Appendix G: Second NZGBC Workshop Attendees List

Appendix H: Summary of Outcomes from Second NZGBC Workshop, June 2006

Appendix I: Results from Rating Tools Workshop 1

2 Methodology

2.1 Background Research

This project was custom designed to promote interaction and learning from our international and local peers. This ensured that we did not re-invent the wheel; but built on existing knowledge. Through the World Green Building Council, a culture of sharing and learning on a global scale has been established.

The following process was designed to compare and contrast a number of tools that measure the sustainability of a building, both from New Zealand and overseas.

Section 3 and 4 summarise the features and benefits of each of the various schemes and assesses each in terms of what it measures, its purpose, the people who use it, and other deciding factors. The tools examined were:

• Green Globe 21 (Australia)

• Green Office Scheme (New Zealand)

• Green Star (Australia)

• LCA design: Life-cycle Analysis (Australia)

• NABERS: National Australian Built Environment Rating System (Australia)

• TUSC: Tools for Urban Sustainability Code of Practice (New Zealand))

• BREEAM: Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (United Kingdom)

• LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (United States)

• LEED Canada

• GBTool (Canada)

• CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency (Japan).

2.2 Request from Tool Designers

A matrix was designed so all 14 tools of interest could be compared and contrasted against each other. There were some challenges in doing this, as different tools measure criteria in varying ways. Therefore, some general grouping transpired and some topic headings generalised. This matrix was in spreadsheet form and listed the issues covered by each tool, with a separate worksheet for each topic section, such as Management, Indoor Environment Quality etc. To ensure our process was transparent and up-to-date, the matrix was then sent to all of the relevant tool designers and they were asked to enter the appropriate data.

In cases where no response was received, these were entered by URS based on the information within the respective tools technical manuals.

2.3 Industry Consultation

Series 1: Workshops

There were two series of industry consultations as part of the Project. The first series was held in Auckland 4 April; Wellington 5 April; and Christchurch 6 April. Approximately 200 people attended the NZGBC workshops (see Figure 2-1 for attendee breakdown). The first set of workshops were four hours and began with a brief presentation about the NZGBC and the background to the project and rating tools in general. Lengthy group discussions based around each of the key themes addressed by existing tools followed. Groups were asked to record their comments and to rate a number of issues relating to each of these themes in order of importance. The feedback provided and discussions generated were particularly valuable in assessing what interested parties believe a New Zealand green building rating tool should measure, and helped to identify gaps in existing tools that could be addressed.

Number of Registrations:

Auckland: 125

Christchurch: 50

Wellington: 65

Total: 240

Series 2: Presentation and Discussion Panel

The second series was held in Auckland 20 June; Wellington 21 June; Dunedin 22 June; and Christchurch 23 June. These were after work 1.5 hour sessions. Approximately 300 people attended the second series of presentations (see Figure 2-2 for attendee breakdown).

The presentations began with a big picture overview about the NZGBC and the project process (presented by Jane Henley, Establishment CEO). Rachel Hargreaves, BRANZ Ltd, then presented the technical side of the project recommendations. There was then a discussion with the panel in each city which was made up of the local representatives of the Project Working Group.

Number of Registrations:

Auckland: 149

Wellington: 114

Dunedin: 17

Christchurch: 48

Total: 328

2.4 Tool Selection Process

Further consultation with tool designers and owners was entered into following the release of the completion of the research in April. The feedback from series 1 workshops was valuable for identifying the most suitable tool for New Zealand and provided us with a clear understanding of market needs and likely adaptations of existing tools before the final decision.

Now that a final decision has been reached, the next step will be to adapt the details to render the tool suitable for New Zealand conditions, and begin to apply it to new building designs. This process is currently under negotiation by the New Zealand Green Building Council. Ongoing monitoring and review procedures will be necessary to ensure the continued success of the selected tool.

[ Previous|Next