5 Industry Consultation

5.1 Introduction

The project design has enabled industry consultation at all stages, both publicly and as part of the decision-making process. The aim of the first series of workshops was to obtain specific feedback and more general comments or gaps which are summarised in this report. The data gathered was collated and analysed to determine the areas of highest importance to the New Zealand building industry. This data also formed the basis of the needs analysis of the market. A smaller more focused group of industry representatives was formed from the workshops. This group met to define the decision-making process, assess all 14 tools against the criteria outlined in 6.1.2, and help propose a solution for New Zealand.

5.2 Performance Measurement Priorities

A review of major rating tools in place around the world found that many had categories and topics in common. Ten key topics were identified to represent all major areas measured by these rating tools. Under each of these topics a number of criteria exist as ways of measuring impact and performance in these areas. The relative importance of these 10 key topics, (refer Table 5-1) and the underlying measurement criteria, were discussed and evaluated during the workshops. The intent of this exercise was two fold:

To gather data that can be used for regional weightings and to facilitate discussion on what rating tools do and do not measure (see Appendix I).
For participants to gain greater understanding about what tools do and do not measure.

The individual group results from this table (Table 5-1) have been combined to give the overall results supplied below. These results show that energy is emerging as the top overall priority in all three centres when rating the 10 topics assessed. This is followed by indoor quality and transport. Under each topic, important issues were examined. These were also put into priority order by the workshop groups to identify what a green building rating tool would need to measure.

An important theme that arose throughout the workshops, was the clear need for an integrated approach to designing and assessing the relative sustainability of buildings. While some areas are of higher importance than others, none of the lesser ranked issues can be ignored. Attendees particularly highlighted the importance of appropriate systems, procedures and plans to ensure satisfactory implementation of measures, and the need for a flexible scheme that can be adapted to suit changing needs.

Table 5-1 Topic Ranking Overall and by City

Topics measured by the tools we are looking at	Overall	AKL	WTG	CHC
Energy efficiency	1	1	1	1
Environmental quality within the building	2	2	2	5
Transport	3	3	6	8
Materials	4	5	6	6
Management systems, procedures and plans	5	6	4	3
Land use and ecology	6	4	3	3
Water efficiency	7	8	9	9
Flexibility and adaptability	8	9	5	2
Emissions, effluent and pollution	9	7	8	6
Quality, service and risk	10	10	10	10

5.3 Findings from Industry Consultation

The following areas have been identified during the background research and workshop discussions.

5.3.1 Design vs. Implementation

A number of participants raised the concern that a number of new buildings assessed under some of the international systems have only been granted a high rating on the design of the building and have not yet received a rating on the complete built form. This raises the challenge of a green building rating tool not having any requirements to assess the performance through the stages of design, build and use. Similarly, it is important to recognise the difference between owner and tenant responsibilities, and some existing tools account for these differences. To address this, flexibility in applying a rating system for the building owner or tenant may be required to focus on varying aspects of the buildings performance.

Management procedures are highlighted to be very important to the overall ‘sustainable impact’ of the building, though they are more reliant on user behaviour and therefore more difficult to integrate into a rating tool for the design and construction phase. Most people recognised that even the best management systems, plans and procedures were of no use without measures in place to ensure that these are implemented satisfactorily.

If the design and operational phases are separated, as suggested in workshop feedback, some of the priorities will change. For example, a management system is higher priority for the operational phase, though management criteria will need to reflect design, construction and operation.

5.3.2 Holistic Approach

Many workshop attendees stressed the importance of holistic approach based on the concepts of ecological footprint or a triple bottom line approach, because complex interrelationships are involved. These concepts have been looked at by tool developers in the past, and have not been ruled out for future inclusion, if this meets market needs and can be practically implemented. It is also important that weightings reflect actual environmental benefits.

Input from one of the workshops suggested that a holistic approach can best be achieved by identification of overarching principles or a high level framework that defines what ‘green’ or ‘sustainable’ actually is. Such a framework may make it easier to prioritise while not ignoring important issues or losing sight of the overall goal.

5.3.3 Regional Differences

Over the course of the workshops it also became clear that there are regional differences and considerations (see table 5-1), and these considerations need to be taken into account, especially when assigning weightings within a tool. All centres favoured energy efficiency as the top priority, though unsurprisingly the Auckland group ranked transport higher than other centres (#3) while Christchurch groups placed water efficiency as a top priority (#2). Other areas of high importance were internal environmental quality (Auckland and Wellington), land use and ecology (Wellington and Christchurch), and management systems (Christchurch only). Using some of these ideas it may be possible to have a regionalised scheme with regional targets, dependant on the needs of the general public and the nature of the built (and natural) environment in that region.

5.3.4 Involvement and Awareness

A significant finding from the workshops is that people from all different sectors want to be involved in the process of tool selection and implementation and have the opportunity to voice their opinion on important matters. It is essential that the NZGBC encourage this by running public events and speaking at industry organisation meetings to update people on a regular basis, thus facilitating ongoing public participation. Membership to NZGBC will be opened up later this year and will include regular updates and newsletters to keep people informed.

There is a diverse degree of understanding as to the various tools available both onshore and internationally, and how they might be used in New Zealand. This needs to be kept in mind in terms of communication associated with tool selection, customisation and implementation. Information on tools and their use can be sourced through the input of local experts who have been involved with both the development of tools in the past and have used assessment tools on projects both locally and internationally. The NZGBC plans to put in place an education programme and a combination of networking functions soon to fill this gap.

5.3.5 Communication and Language

Communication of the principles and processes behind the rating tool needs to enable both technical experts and lay people to use and understand the tool. Workshop participants observed that the wording used in some green building tools is ambiguous and, in places, repetitious. The workshops were particularly effective in highlighting these points for consideration in future tool development.

5.3.6 Legislation

It was noted that some of the issues put forward at the workshops, such as asbestos minimisation, particularly for a building design tool, are already regulated in the Building Code and it would therefore seem unnecessary to include them in a green building assessment, and unsuitable to grant credits for taking account of them. For a building to gain green building credits it must go beyond the minimum requirements set down by legislation.

District and regional planning should also be taken into consideration, as many of the issues that arise as part of building development, such as transport and resource management, are part of bigger urban design problems and planning.

5.4 Feedback on Tool Content

One of the key benefits of the workshops was the opportunity to present the issues that are most commonly addressed by existing green building rating tools (Table 5-1) and to ensure that none of the issues that are important in New Zealand have been overlooked. Very few gaps in the data were found by those attending the workshops, but it became apparent that some of the more important issues have not been given adequate consideration by some of the tools researched. For example, groups expressed concern at the lack of consideration given to embodied energy, aspects of water quality and full life-cycle analysis.

In addition to the rating exercise requested at the workshop, comments were welcomed. Appendix E lists the issues identified before the workshops, under the relevant topic, and the comments received are summarised beneath the topic that they apply to.

Comments on the tool content are summarised in Appendix E.

[ Previous|Next