Assessment of Tools For Rating The Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

Assessment of Tools for Rating the
Performance of Existing Buildings:

A Report on the Options
Prepared for the GVRD

by
Elisa Campbell Consulting
in conjunction with
Innes Hood Consulting
April 2006
CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 4
1.1 Document Structure
1.2 Background
1.3 Project Objectives
1.4 Project Process
1.5 Project Methodology
2.0 TOOLS FOR RATING THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 7

2.1 What are Rating Systems?
2.2 Why use Rating Systems?
2.3 The Development of Rating Systems
2.4 How Rating Systems Support Market Transformation
2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial Building Industry
2.6 Benefits of Supporting Multiple Tools
3.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS: EXISTING BUILDING STOCK 9

3.1 Sector Profile
3.2 Commercial Building Retrofit Activity
4.0 SELECTING A RATING TOOL 10

4.1 Scoping the Options
4.2 Defining the Criteria
4.3 Evaluating the Options
4.4 Assessing the Tools
5.0 ASSESSMENT OF RATING TOOLS 17

Audubon Green Leaf 20
BOMA Go Green 22
BOMA Go Green Plus 24
CASBEE 26
CHPS 28
GBTOOL 30
Green Guide for Health Care 32
Green Star 34
LABS 21 36
LEED-CI 38
LEED-EB 40
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 42
APPENDICES 44
Criteria for Determining Shortlist of Rating Tools
Evaluation of Comprehensive List of Rating Tools
Page 2
Page 3
BACKGROUND
1.0 Introduction 1.3 Project Objectives
This project is intended to support the ongoing market
1.1 Document Structure transformation towards high performance buildings. In
this context, its focus is on existing buildings in the
This Document is structured into two sections. The first commercial sector, and on tools that permit the rating of
provides some general background information to the these buildings. The key objective of this project is not
project and its objectives, as well as to the concept of recommendation of one assessment method to use to the
building rating systems more broadly. The second section exclusion of the others, but rather the communication of
provides a detailed assessment of each of the short-listed what each rating tool can contribute individually to the
rating tools, according to the evaluation criteria listed. collective effort to support the ongoing transformation of
the building industry in Canada. For this reason, this report
1.2 Background examines and communicates the characteristics and capa-
Experience since 1993 has shown that building assessment bilities of a range of rating systems in order to permit
methods offer an important tool for both promoting high different target audiences to assess their respective
performance buildings, and for increasing market demand suitability to any given application.
for sustainable construction.
The scope of this document is therefore to:
At the 2005 World Green Building Council Congress, the - review the attributes of a range of rating systems
mayors of fifty of the world’s largest cities signed an geared toward existing buildings;
agreement that all new municipal buildings will be subject - understand the capabilities of each system in terms
to green building rating systems by 2012. This event is only of greening the existing building stock;
the latest in an exponential stream of activities that have - provide information that allows actors in the
served to transform the building delivery process over the industry to select the most appropriate system to
past ten years to one that facilitates sustainable design, their project needs.
construction and operation.
British Columbia has been at the forefront of this activity.

1.4 Project Process
Since 1993, when Canada’s BEPAC (Building Environmental
Performance Assessment Criteria) program was developed A steering committee was assembled to assist in the
as a way to measure the environmental performance of evaluation of rating tools for existing buildings. The
existing and new commercial buildings, Canadians have steering committee was initially composed of the client
played a significant role in the greening of buildings. The group (Canada Green Building Council, Greater Vancouver
selection of the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Regional District, Natural Resources Canada, Green
Design (LEED) protocol as the appropriate building Buildings BC). Additional members were identified by the
environmental assessment method for British Columbia in client group and by the consultants.
2001, and the subsequent adaptation of LEED to suit first Table 1: Steering Committee Members
B.C., and then Canadian circumstances in 2004, played
a significant role in redirecting the local and national Name Organization
building and development industries. The evolution of Thomas Mueller Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC)
the BOMA suite of rating tools, endorsed in 2005 by Public
Works and Government Services Canada, has assisted in Orest Maslany
effecting market transformation. Brian Miltimore Green Buildings BC
While the focus to date has been predominantly on Craig Shishido Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD)
moderating the impact of new buildings in the commercial
and institutional sectors, sufficient headway has been
Ian Meredith Natural Resources Canada (NRCan)
made to now shift the focus to transforming the stock of
existing commercial buildings. International Facility Management Association
Bob Hunter (IFMA)
Consistent with this shift, building assessment methods
geared towards existing buildings have been developed. Viera Veidner
There currently exists a range of tools that permit the Craig Boyle Public Works and Government Services Canada
evaluation of the environmental performance of existing
buildings. Each of these methods has similarities and Rod Yeoh APEG-BC / ASHRAE
differences that reflect the experience of different
countries and organizations with the development Karen Hearn Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada
and application of suitable and contextual assessment Tom Knox (AUCC)
methods. National Association of Institutional and Office
Graeme Silvera Properties (NAIOP)
Page 4
1.5 Project Methodology
• BOMA Go Green •Boma Go Green Plus
The following methodology was followed to select and • CASBEE •CHPS
screen rating tools: • GBTool •GGHC
• Green hotels •Green Star
1. Identify potential rating systems
• LABS 21 •LEED-CI
2. Develop screening criteria for creating shortlist
• LEED-EB
3. Create shortlist of tools to assess
4. Conduct assessment of specified tools
Conduct assessment of specified tools
5. Ensure a comprehensive assessment
A comprehensive set of attributes was developed to use as
a method for analysing and communicating the respective
Each of these steps is described below. capabilities of each individual rating tool. The attributes
were defined and prioritized with input from steering
Identify potential Rating Tools committee members. A listing of the attributes follows,
A long list of rating tools was identified though the process while a detailed description of each attribute is presented
of consultant experience, literature review, and Steering on Page 14/15.
Committee / stakeholder input. Potential tools that were
comprehensive, focused on the commercial sector, and
existing buildings were highlighted. Rating tools identified Table 2: Attributes for Assessment
for consideration included:
Attribute Title
• LEED-EB •LEED-CI
• CASBEE •Green Star a1 Target Audience / Building Type
• NABERS •GBTool
a2 Development and Delivery
• BOMA Go Green •Boma Go Green Plus
• ECO QUANTUM •ECO-PRO
a3 Rating Approach
• HK-BREAM •BREEAM Greenleaf
• TGBRS •GGHC
a4 Outputs
• ECOmmodation •ISO 14000
a5 Costs
Develop screening criteria
An initial screening of these potential tools was completed. a6 Time on market
The objective of the screening was to identify those tools of
b1 Verification
most relevance. While emphasis was in large part placed on
rating systems of most relevance to the Canadian context, b2 Mandatory Requirements
there was also consideration allocated for international
b3 Score
tools that have characteristics that might be of educational
value. Screening criteria were reviewed and augmented by b4 External Benchmarks
the Steerning Committee. A brief description of each of b5 Baseline Model
these criteria is presented in Appendix A. Screening criteria b6 Customization
included:
• Existing b7 Building portfolios
• Industry Supported b8 Recertification
• Commercial /Research b9 Energy Model
• Used in North America c1 Comprehensiveness
• Range of Building Types
c2 User-friendliness
• Value Added
• Ability to harmonize with other systems c3 Support
Create shortlist of tools to evaluate c4 Value

A summary of the high level screening of the rating tools is
c5 Education
presented in Appendix B. The consulting team completed
an initial assessment, and the steering committee reviewed
c6 Versatility
and finalized the selection of rating tools to be evaluated.
On the basis of this screening, the following rating tools c7 Challenge
were chosen for detailed assessment: c8 Management Tool
Page 5
Ensure a Comprehensive Assessment
To ensure that the evaluation of the rating tools was
comprehensive, the attributes were benchmarked relative
to the quality management standards defined by ISO 9000.
These principles provide a systematic and comprehensive
framework to guide consistent evaluation and improved
performance. The principles are derived from the collective
experience and knowledge of the international experts who
participate in ISO Technical Committee ISO/TC 176, Quality
management and quality assurance, which is responsible
for developing and maintaining the ISO 9000 standards.
As can be seen based in Table 3, the attributes provide a
comprehensive basis for assessing the rating tools.
Table 3: Rating Tool Evaluation Criteria

Goal Rationale for Goal Attribute
Customer focus Organizations depend on their • Target Audience / Building Type
customers and therefore should • Outputs
understand current and future • Costs
customer needs, should meet customer
requirements and strive to exceed
customer expectations.
Leadership Leaders establish unity of purpose and • Basis of Comparison

direction of the organization. They • Utility as Design Tool
should create and maintain the internal • Comprehensiveness
environment in which people can
become fully involved in achieving the
organization’s objectives.
Involvement of people People at all levels are the essence • User-friendliness

of an organization and their full • Versatility / Flexibility
involvement enables their abilities to • Practicality
be used for the organization’s benefit.
Process approach A desired result is achieved more • Ability to educate

efficiently when activities and related • Level of Challenge /
resources are managed as a process. Encouragement of Innovation
System approach to Identifying, understanding and • Value of Certification

management managing interrelated processes • Flexibility to choose levels of
as a system contributes to the performance
organization’s effectiveness and • Feedback Provided
efficiency in achieving its objectives
.
Continual improvement Continual improvement of the • Time on Market

organization’s overall performance • Ability to Evolve
should be a permanent objective of the
organization.
Factual approach to Effective decisions are based on the • Tool Developer / Delivery Agent
decision making analysis of data and information / Partners
• Rating Approach
• Verification of Results
• Balance between performance

Mutually beneficial An organization and its suppliers and prescription
supplier relationships are interdependent and a mutually • Level of Support
beneficial relationship enhances the
ability of both to create value
Page 6
2.0 Tools for Rating the Performance BREEAM Green Leaf that characterized this change. A
key focus has now become that of existing buildings,
of Buildings as represented by the popularity of the BOMA Go Green
tools. As will be dicussed further on, it is the existing
2.1 What are Rating Systems? building segment that stands to have a significant role
to play in reducing the overall impact of buildings on the
Building rating systems represent key tools to evaluate
environment.
and compare green buildings. They provide systematic
frameworks for specifying performance criteria, thereby
enabling actors in the building industry to be more
measured and accurate about the movement towards more
Table 4: Development of Building Rating Tools
sustainable forms of designing, constructing and operating
buildings.
• 1990 – BREEAM UK released
• 1993 – BEPAC developed
The key advantage of rating systems is that they are a
• 1996 – BREEAM Canada introduced
tool that provides credible frameworks for specifying and
• 1993 – BEPAC developed
achieving high performance buildings.
• 1998 – BREEAM/Green Leaf developed
• 1998 – GBTool-1 applied
2.2 Why use Rating Systems? • 1998 – LEED-NC launched
Building rating systems fulfill a number of important roles. • 2001 – LEED-BC recommendation
While they essentially provide a standard for what systems, • 2002 – CHPS operational
materials and strategies can help make a building green, • 2002 – LABS 21 available
they are also key tools for using the market to increase • 1993 – BEPAC developed
demand for high performance buildings. They provide a • 2003 – Green Star introduced
means for a building owner or tenant to ask for a green • 2004 – BOMA Go Green launched
building, and to compare the green-ness of their building • 2004 – LEED Canada operational
choices. • 2004 – BOMA Go Green Plus released
• 2004 - CASBEE disseminated
At another level, organizations working to effect market • 2004 – GreenGuide for Health Care piloted
transformation can use building rating systems as a tool for • 2004 - LEED-CI , LEED-EB launched
specifying minimum performance levels, and to create an
industry standard that is above and beyond what is required 2.4 How Rating Systems Support
by code. They help to increase a broader understanding of
the impact buildings have on our society, and they provide Market Transformation
a means for dissseminating information on how to reduce One definition of market transformation is “the reduction
these impacts. of barriers to cause lasting changes in the structure of a
market, or the behaviour of market participants, resulting
For those who are charged with operationalizing the in accelerated market adoption”1 of the desired product.
movement towards high performance buildings, building In other words, market transformation is the process of
rating systems help to structure the thought process, intervening to change customer behaviour. In the case of
and help to keep issues at the top of the priority list that the building industry, the desired end state is to ensure that
might not have been given serious consideration otherwise. the market demands buildings that are high performance,
They can serve to offer structured advice, including goals, or green.
strategies, and actions that are suitable for improving
performance. The intent of a market transformation initiative is to
accelerate the natural growth of the technology or
Finally, building rating systems have created a market in approach, and to increase the overall market demand for
part by virtue of the standardized recognition they permit, it. Over time, the typical market transformation objectives
thereby enabling owners, developers and professionals to and intervention tools evolve. Markets can be considered
gain credit, awards, and other marketing outputs. as moving towards technologies that provide a net increase
in social welfare. But occasionally market dynamics are not
sufficient to reach a desired objective that is considered to
2.3 The Development of Rating Systems be in the greater social interest. In these cases, barriers
Building rating systems have existed as a tool to effect
and/or failures prevent the markets from achieving that
change for the past fifteen years. Initially they were
societal objective.
focused on new buildings, and were represented by
various protocols around the world. While rating systems
have been popular in Europe since the early 90’s, it 1
Market Transformation: Accelerating market adoption of energy efficient
was in the later 1990’s in Canada that the exponential products in Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Navigant Consulting Inc.
transformation of the building industry commenced. It was
the widespread acceptance of LEED, BREEAM Canada /
Page 7
Rating tools for assessing the performance of buildings 2.6 Benefits of Supporting Multiple Tools
can therefore be considered as a “technology” thatcan While LEED has in many ways become an industry standard
help transform the building industry towards higher in the United States, other countries, including Canada,
performance buildings that minimize impacts on the have acknowledged the value of having more than one
environment, optimize economic, and ensure achievement rating system available as a tool to be used. This report
of social goals and quality of life. They are an important supports this perspective, and is focused on an assessment
market-based tool for transforming the building industry, of a wide range of rating systems in order to facilitate the
raising consumer awareness and stimulating competition application of a number of tools in the marketplace.
and dialogue.
A range of benefits have been identified that support the
2.5 Actors within Existing Commercial endorsement of multiple rating tools3. In particular:
Building Industry
Understanding the potential role of rating tools within • A range of tools are already in use in the market
this sector is closely linked to understanding the nature of place. These tools are complementary, and,
the people who would be using the tools, and what their suitably positioned, may transform the market
needs are. The following table outlines the range of target more successfully than reliance on a single tool.
audiences for rating tools, and emphasizes what needs are • The market is not likely to be confused by the
associated with each of these actors. presence of multiple tools.
Table 5: Needs of End Users of Rating Tools
Actor Design Best Audit Monitor Market

resource practice tool Transfor
guide mation
Property manager
Property owner
Design professional
Operations staff
Supplier
Progam
Administrator
Tenant
As is evident, the use of rating systems as a mechanism for • Building certification is only one of the potential
providing best practices is a need shared by many of the values and benefits of rating tools.
actors in the existing building industry. Design professionals • No one tool or system should be expected to meet
and tenants require tools to use as a design resource, and the full range of needs of the building community.
often as a mechanism for monitoring performance. It is • The range of groups, budget, knowledge and
the owners and property managers that rely on building interest is addressed by the presence of multiple
rating tools to facilitate auditing and monitoring, as these tools.
functions feed into roles related to ongoing operations. At
the level of consciously effecting market transformation, it The ultimate system is likely to be a harmonized set of
is the program administrators who rely on the rating tools tools with horizontal integration to meet the requirements
to play a direct role in changing behaviour. of a range of different building types, as well as vertical
What becomes clear is that within the existing building integration to meet the requirements of different client
industry there are a range of phases of building / groups, budgets, knowledge and interest levels.
operations, and there are a range of actors. Because of 3
ECD Energy and Environment Canada LEED Canada Adaptation and
this diversity, it is inappropriate to consider that one tool BREEAM/Green Leaf Harmonization Studies, Part III, BREEAM Green Leaf
alone would satisfy the needs sufficiently. For this reason, Harmonization Study, Feb 2002
multiple tools are necessary.
Page 8
3.0 Situation Analysis: Existing 3.2 Commercial Building Retrofit
Building Stock Activity
An extensive retrofit industry already exists for commercial
3.1 Sector Profile and institutional buildings. While information on types of
It is estimated that at least 65% of the building stock in 2030 retrofit activity is limited, a recent survey was completed
will be comprised of buildings built before 2005. Therefore, and identified the following trends:
market transformation of the existing commercial sector
represents a significant opportunity . • Overall, 11% of a random sample of 3,151 buildings
underwent retrofits in 2000, and 22.4% underwent
Ultimately, one of the primary goals of building rating retrofits in the preceding five years. Within this
systems is to reduce resource consumption and operating sample, just over 50% of the buildings are between
expenditures from buildings. Through an improved 1,000 and 10,000 square feet (100-1,000 square
understanding of the building stock and associated resource metres), while a further 35% range in size between
consumption, it is possible to focus program activity on the 10,000 and 50,000 square feet (1,000 -5,000 sqaure
most significant drivers. metres).
Figure 1 profiles the commercial building stock over • In general, the proportion of buildings undertaking
the period 1990-2030. In 2003, it is estimated there retrofits, both in 2000 and in earlier years,
was a total of 550 million square meters of commercial increases as the size of the building increases, with
and institutional floor area in Canada. As can be seen, almost 50% of buildings exceeding 500,000 square
educational services, offices and retail trade make up feet (50,000 square metres) being retrofitted in
almost 70% of commercial floor area. Therefore, in terms 2000 and over 75% being retrofitted in 1995-1999.
of achieving significant environmental impacts, a focus on
those commercial segments is key. • Over 75% of the buildings are privately owned, but
nonprofit and government buildings are the most
likely to undergo energy-related renovations.
Figure 1: Commercial Floor-space in Canada, by

• Older buildings (pre-1994) are more likely to be
Segment1
retrofitted, while those with electricity as the
main heating source (25% of the sample) are the
1
1990-2003: Natural Resources Canada (NRCan). June 2005. Energy
Use Data Handbook: 1990 and 1997 to 2003. http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/
least likely to undergo this process.
corporate/statistics/neud/dpa/data_e/handbook05/index.cfm?attr=0
2005-2030: Forecast assuming same proportion of building types in • Of the buildings that undertook any type of retrofit
2030 as in 2003 and using sector growth rate past 2003 from: Marbek in 2000, over 60% reported that their retrofit
Resource Consultants study for the Canadian Gas Association. 2005.
Energy Demand-side Management Potential in Canada.
involved only one component.
Page 9
• The four main retrofit packages each involved 4.0 Selecting a Rating Tool
only one component – heating equipment, other,
lighting systems, and ventilation or air conditioning
equipment – although the fifth main retrofit 4.1 Scoping the Options
package (accounting for almost 7% of buildings As described previously, there are a range of tools pertinent
retrofitted in 2000) involved both heating and to the existing commercial building stock. The intent of
ventilation systems. 1 this document is to facilitate the decision-making process
1
www.ualberta.ca/~cbeedac/newsletter/documents/spring-04b1.pdf related to which specific rating tool to use in any given
circumstance. All of these tools are pertinent to a range of
actors within the industry, and all of the tools have a role
3.3 Building Operating Costs to play in terms of supporting market transformation. That
A breakdown of building operation costs is summarised being said, one or another of the tools will most likely be
in Figure 21 for private sector office buildings in Canada. more appropriate to a specific actor for a specific project.
On average, building operation costs are approximately Key to selecting the best tool for a specific building and /or
$79.19/sq m. Of this, the largest portion representing 28% project is to start by clearly defining what you are trying
is attributable to energy costs. Ongoing repair costs and to achieve, what your needs are, and what is important to
administration costs are also significant. From a program you.
perspective, understanding how rating tools can contribute
to a reduction of these operating costs is critical and As FIgure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools demonstrates,
requires further analysis. reviewing the detailed assessment of each rating tool
1
Ref BOMA 2004 Experience Exchange Report, Pg 484. will ultimately not be useful until this initial step is
conducted.
Figure 2: Building Operating Costs
Page 10
Figure 3: Decision Tree for Selecting Tools
Page 11
4.2 Defining the Criteria 4.3 Evaluating the Alternatives
Once a high-level review of the options has been conduct- The final step is to review the range of appropriate tools,
ed, it is possible to examine the alternative rating systems and keeping these key questions (criteria) in mind, to
which are appropriate to the needs. In this context, there evaluate the possible alternatives. Indeed, because these
are a range of key questions which can be asked when con- are the key questions, they have been transformed in this
sidering a rating tool and its pertinence. report into the attributes through which each of the rating
tools are assessed and described in the next section.
Table 6: Key Questions (Criteria) to Consider
1 □ What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool?
□ What specific types of buildings does the tool focus on?
□ What part of the retrofit / renovation process does the tool target?
2 □ What organizations developed and administer the program, or have been involved in its creation / delivery?
□ What organizations support and or endorse the tool?
3 □ What is the main type of scoring system used by tool (aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)?
□ Who is charged with conducting the scoring?
4 □ What materials are created in the process of rating performance?

□ How is performance communicated and marketed?
5 □ What are the costs of preparing an assessment?

□ What are the costs of having an assessment reviewed?
□ What are the cost implications of an assessment on building design?
6 □ When was the tool was created?

□ How long was the pilot phase?
□ How long has the tool been used in the industry?
7 □ What is range of building performance aspects that are covered?

□ What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover?
□ How extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired performance levels?
8 □ How easy is the tool to adopt and implement?

□ How easy is it (real and perceived) to conduct an assessment?
□ How easy is it to access and understand the results?
□ How quickly does the learning curve taper off?
□ What is the time required to gather data and conduct an assessment?
9 □ What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the tool’s administrators?

□ How much supporting information is provided?
□ Does support result in additional costs?
□ How much feedback is provided during the analysis and submission phases?
□ How is feedback provided?
10 □ What is the perceived value to different actors?

□ What kind of market recognition is offered for certification?
□ Does the tool result in awards?
□ How does use of the tool impact on the triple bottom line?
11 □ Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational tool about environmental issues?
□ Does the tool communicate emerging concerns and issues?
□ How transparent is the process and the results?
□ Can outputs represent stand-along materials for education of a broader audience?
Page 12
4.4 Assessing the Rating Tools
Table 7 lays out the attributes that are assessed for

each of the tools. Consistent with the different kinds of
information, the layout is intended to clearly articulate the
characteristics of each respective tool, and to provide a
level of specificity of information that permits a decision to
be made about which tool best suits the given situation.
The attributes through which the rating systems are

assessed have been classified into three arenas: the first
(A) are those which are factual, and can be considered in
a descriptive way; the second (B) are those which can be
answered fairly easily in a “yes / no” manner; and the third
(C) are those which can be described in terms of magnitude
of achievement along with a description of the graphic
rating. These ratings are broad-brushed, and are simply
intended to give a quick sense of whether achievement is
low, medium or high in the given attribute areas. Table 8
demonstrates the methodology used to determine the “C”
attribute ratings.
Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools
A= Title Key Question Sub-Questions
a1 Target Audience / Building What building type(s) and audience does the What is the range of actors that will use and apply the tool?
Type tool target? What specific types of buildings does the tool focus on? What
part of the retrofit / renovation process does the tool target?
a2 Development and Delivery Who directed the develoment and What organizations developed and administer the program, or
administers the delivery of the tool? have been involved in its creation / delivery? What organizations
support and or endorse the tool?
a3 Rating Approach What system does the tool use to rate What is the main type of scoring system used by tool
performance? (aggregated points, comparative performance, best practices)?
Who is charged with conducting the scoring?
a4 Outputs What are the outputs produced by the tool? What materials are created in the process of rating
performance? How is performance communicated and
marketed?
a5 Costs What are the direct costs of the tool? What are the costs of preparing an assessment? What are the
costs of having an assessment reviewed? What are the cost
implications of an assessment on building design?
a6 Time on market How long has the tool been operational? When was the tool was created? How long was the pilot phase?
How long has the tool been used in the industry?
B= Title Key Question Response
b1 Verification Are the results of an assessment verified by Y/N

an objective, certified third party?
b2 Mandatory Requirements Does the tool include mandatory Y/N

requirements?
b3 Score Does the tool result a single overall score Y/N
or label?
b4 External Benchmarks Does the tool reference external Y/N
benchmarks?
b5 Baseline Model Does the tool require a baseline model? Y/N
b6 Customization Does the tool permit customization to Y/N
different situations and circumstances?
b7 Building portfolios Can the tool be applied to portfolios of Y/N
buildings?
b8 Recertification Does the tool require regular recertification? Y/N
b9 Energy Model Does the tool require an energy model? Y/N
Page 13
Table 7: Attributes Assessed for Rating Tools (cont.)
C= Title Key Question Sub-Questions

c1 Comprehensiveness How comprehensive is the tool? What is range of building performance aspects that are covered?
What scope of environmental issues does the tool cover? How
extensively does the tool cover strategies for achieving desired
performance levels?
c2 User-friendliness How user friendly is the tool? How easy is the tool to adopt and implement? How easy is it
(real and perceived) to conduct an assessment? How easy is
it to access and understand the results? How quickly does the
learning curve taper off? What is the time required to gather data
and conduct an assessment?
c3 Support How much feedback and support is offered What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the
for the tool? tool’s administrators? How much supporting information is
provided? Does support result in additional costs? How much
feedback is provided during the analysis and submission
phases? How is feedback provided?
c4 Value What is the value of certification? What is the perceived value to different actors? What kind of
market recognition is offered for certification? Does the tool
result in awards? How does use of the tool impact on the triple
bottom line?
c5 Education How does the tool provide / support Do the inputs and outputs of the tool serve as an educational
education? tool about environmental issues? Does the tool communicate
emerging concerns and issues? How transparent is the process
and the results? Can outputs represent stand-along materials for
education of a broader audience?
c6 Versatility How versatile is the tool? How adaptable is the tool to local conditions? Is the tool
applicable to a range of building types? Is the tool useful to a
range of actors / needs withint the retrofit / renovation process?
Does the tool have a balance between performance and
prescription?
c7 Challenge How rigorous is the tool? Does the tool push the envelope well beyond code and / or
standard performance? Is there a broad performance spectrum
permitted within the tool? Does the tool require verification of
results by a third party?
c8 Management Tool Does the tool align with management Does the tool align with job responsibilities? Does the tool
responsibilities? support a management plan? Can the tool guide management
towards achievement of high performance buildings? Does the
tool permit an analysis of portfolios of buildings?
Page 14
Table 8:Criteria for Determining Ratings for “C” Attributes
ATTRIBUTE
LOW HIGH
Comprehensiveness Cursory treatment of strategies Detailed treatment of strategies
Light coverage of issues Inclusion of broad range of issues
Low depth of coverage Different parameters included for each issue
User-Friendliness Results confusing Results easy to understand

Assessment difficult to conduct Assessment easy to conduct
Lack of templates or standard approach Templates easy to use
Level of effort high Time and costs not onerous
Support Input / information provided periodically Fast access to input / information

Feedback provided at end Feedback provided during analysis
Assistance dependent on hiring professionals Assistance in identifying and selecting strategies
Value Low market recognition Wide recognition by market

Costs exceed return on investment Process affordable to undergo
Impact on market transformation low Resultant bottom line savings substantial
Measurable change encouraged by techniques
Education Information not embedded in material Emerging issues / concerns included

Too academic to support broad understanding Transparent enough to aid behavioural change
Explanations of rationale not robust Raises awareness about going beyond standard
Provides details necessary to incur innovation
Versatility Applicable to narrow audience / sector Can be adapted to regional / other circumstances
Does not allow for regional differentiation Allows different levels of achievement
Difficult to link to other tools Is applicable to range of audiences
Can link to other tools
Challenge Performance standards not included Level of rigour is high

Results in limited change over the norm Goes substantially beyond conventional
Certification possible without broad coverage of Provides incentives to do more

issues
Keeps key issues as priority
Breadth of activities required
Management Tool Adds extra layers to job responsibilities Aligns with job responsibilities
Does not support management plan Fits within management plan
Applicable to individual buildings only Supports portfolios of buildings
Does not inform design / operation process Helps prioritize strategies
Page 15
Page 16
Page 17
ASSESSMENT OF RATING T OOLS
5.0 Assessment of Rating Tools
The following section contains the detailed assessment
of each rating tool shortlisted through the project
methodology. As mentioned previously, the layout is
intended to clearly articulate the characteristics of each
respective tool, and to provide a level of specificity of
information that permits a decision to be made about
which tool best suits the given situation. The intent is to
permit different target audiences to assess their respective
suitability to any given application.
The table below provides a summary of the “B” and “C”

attributes as assessed on the following pages.
Table 9: Summary Table of “B” and “C” Attributes
Audubon BOMA Go
BOMA Go
Attribute Green Green CASBEE CH
Green
Leaf Plus
b1 Verification Yes Yes Yes Yes N
Mandatory
b2 Yes Yes Yes Yes Y
Requirements
b3 Score Yes No Yes Yes Y
External
b4 No No Yes No Y
Benchmarks
b5 Baseline Model No No No No Y
b6 Customization Yes No Yes Yes Y
b7 Building portfolios No Yes Yes Yes Y
b8 Recertification Yes Yes Yes No N

b9 Energy Model No No No Y
c1 Comprehensiveness Medium High High High H
c2 User-friendliness High High High Medium Me
c3 Support Medium Medium High High L

c4 Value High Medium High High Me
c5 Education High Low High High Me
c6 Versatility Medium Medium High High L
c7 Challenge Low Low Medium High Me
c8 Management Tool High High High Medium Me
Page 18
Green Guide
HPS GB Tool for Health GreenStar LABS21 LEED-CI LEED-EB
Care
No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
N/A No No No N/A No Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes
High High High High High Medium High
edium Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Low Low Low Medium Medium High High

edium Medium Medium High Medium High Medium
edium High Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium
Low High Low Medium Low Medium Medium
edium High High High Medium Medium Medium
edium Low High Medium Low Medium Medium
Page 19
RATING SYSTEM: AUDUBON GREEN LEAF
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Audubon Green Leaf is an eco-rating program developed for the hospitality sector. The
program is focused on encouraging the hotel industry to improve their environmental
commitment while simultaneously demonstrating the eco-effiiciency advantages of
doing so. It aims to provide assurance that audited facilities meet environmental best
practice standards, allowing people to understand the extent of the measures under-
taken to improve a hotel’s environmental performance.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / Audubon Green Leaf is targeted specifically at the accommodations aspect of the hos-
BUILDING TYPE pitality industry. It includes functions that target the owners and operators of hotels,
as well as providing travellers with access to a verified environmental ‘seal of approval’
for hotels they stay at.
DEVELOPMENT & The program was developed by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing in 1997 with
D E L I V E RY the Hotel Association of Canada. In 2004 it partnered with Audubon to continue to
deliver the program. Available throughout North America and internationally, the
program is managed by TerraChoice, a Canadian company that is a leader in deliver-
ing eco-rating programs of various types.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H There are two levels to Green Leaf. The firstprovides materials that result in increased
awareness and understanding of the issues.. The second level entails a full audit of a
hotel’s operations in relation to best practices, as well as a rating of one to five green
leafs (one for a minimum of devising and committing to a set of environmental policies
and principles; and two through five for results achieved by applying those principles),
and a report that details how to get to the next level of performance.
OUTPUTS Outputs include individualized reports that provide specific guidance on opportunities
in a range of resource areas, as well as checklist-based self-assessment reports. The
facility can then display the number of Green Leafs it has received as a rating. Facili-
ties earning at least four Green Leafs are eligible to apply for Environment Canada’s
EcoLogo.
COSTS Annual fees vary based on size of facility.
TIME ON MARKET Initially developed in 1997 by TerraChoice, the program was enhanced by partnership
with Audubon International in 2004.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.terrachoice.ca
Verification? Y N Score? Y N
Terra Choice conducts independent verification of as- A rating of 1-5 Green Leafs is provided.
sessment results, as well as periodic spot checks.
Mandatory requirements? Y N External benchmarks? Y N

Certain minimum best practices must be in place in
order to achieve Green Leafs. The adoption of any one,
individual practice is not required though; the achieved
score is cumulative.
Page 20
COMPREHENSIVENESS The rating is based on a survey questionnaire that is filled out by the hotel and
independently verified. It includes energy efficiency, resource conservation, pol-
lution prevention and environmental management.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The program is tailored to easy fulfillment of the certification process. A survey
questionnaire is filled out with questions requiring simple responses. Following
this, TerraChoice scores the survey, and returns it with a technical report outlin-
ing methods for improving results. Finally, an independent audit is performed.
SUPPORT Through the provision of the technical report, and the final audit, much of the
work is done by TerraChoice. However, there is very little online information
that supports the process, and the process is iterative as opposed to dynamic.
VA L U E Significant marketing is conducted to communicate Green Leaf hotels, ensuring

that an important by-product of running the program is the attraction of trav-
ellers. The program is also very good at showing how the rating can translate
into savings in operating costs.
E D U C AT I O N Using the best practice model, the program attempts to ensure that a major fo-
cus is on educating hotel/motel owners and operators about how to improve the
performance of their facility. Not a lot is done to communicate to the travelling
audience what specific best practices the Green Leafs are associated with.
V E R S AT I L I T Y The program is directed solely to the accommodation sector. It is flexible given

its focus on a best practice approach -- ratings are based only on services and
circumstances associated with the property in question. This being said, the
Green Leafs concept has been successfully applied to other commercial sectors.
CHALLENGE The best practices are fairly easy to implement, and are not related to specific
performance targets. For example, rather than specifying overall energy perfor-
mance, the practices ask that lightbulbs be changed to preferred eco-efficient
models. The overall rating does not demand an enormous amount beyond code.
MANAGEMENT TOOL The program is very focused on providing information and recommendations
in a way that is directly applicable to an owner or operators responsibilities.
The requirements are broken down in a way that leads to direct action (see the
lightbulb example above) rather than the need to determine actions to achieve a
prescribed goal.
Low High
Baseline / energy model? Y N Building portfolios? Y N
Customization? Y N Recertification? Y N
The rating is related only to the services provided by Annual fee required.
the hotel.
Audubon GreenLeaf
Page 21
RATING SYSTEM: BOMA GO GREEN
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The BOMA Go Green Environmental Certification program is a voluntary program
designed for existing or occupied buildings. It is offered by BOMA Canada as a service
to all member and non-member commercial building owners. The tool is being market-
ed nationally, however, BOMA Go Green has been used mostly in Vancouver, Calgary
and Montreal, with little exposure in other locations in the country.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BOMA Go Green targets institutional and commercial sectors, with a key focus on the
BUILDING TYPE office and retail segments. As the tool was developed by the Building Owners and
Managers Association, the tool has been designed to specifically target building own-
ers, managers and operators.
DEVELOPMENT & The tool was developed in British Columbia by the Building Owners and Managers
D E L I V E RY Association of BC (BOMA BC). BOMA GO Green was initially delivered only through
BOMA BC, but is now directed and administered by Building Owners and Managers
Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). Delivered by BOMA local associations across
the country.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H BOMA Go Green utilises “best practices” as defined by a survey of the commercial
building industry. These best practices cover energy use,water use, construction was
te,recycling,hazardous materials,material selection,ozone depleting substances,indoor
air quality, HVAC maintenance, communication program.
OUTPUTS A series of audits and management plans are generated in each of the issue areas
described above. Upon successful application a decal and GoGreen designation is pro-
vided to the applicant.
COSTS Costs range from $750 - $3,500 depending on size of building or number of buildings in
an office park. Fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA members.
TIME ON MARKET BOMA Go Green has been operating since 2003 in British Columbia. It is now being
rolled out as a national program.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.bomagogreen.com
www.bomacanada.org
Application is completed by building management. The system uses a pass or fail approach.
BOMA certifies accuracy with walk-through.

Mandatory audits and a written management plan are There are no standardized benchmarks used to define
required in each issue area. All ten best practices must the requirements of the audits or management plans.
be addressed.
Page 22
COMPREHENSIVENESS BOMA Go Green is comprehensive in terms of breadth but less so in terms of
depth. While Go Green covers a broad range of aspects, the level of detail and
the performance expectations is left to the individual user.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The tool is easy to implement, but does not have the ability to be customised.
The tool is simple to use and understand. The time requirements to conduct the
necessary audits may be relatively short.
SUPPORT Go Green documentation provides information on program requirements, rec-

ommended practices and documentation requirements. Target user is building
manager, therefore, the requirements are integrated into their work environ-
ment.
VA L U E The value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance, and peer
recognition. Cost savings have been profiled and demonstrated. By structuring
Go Green as a system of pass or fail, it does not permit third parties to assess
whether one rated building performs better than another rated building.
E D U C AT I O N The tool provides a high level assessment of environmental issues and opportu-
nities, thus providing education to the user.
V E R S AT I L I T Y The tool is primarily focused on the office sector, and was originally designed
and piloted in BC. However, Go Green has now gone national and is providing
ratings across the country.
CHALLENGE BOMA Go Green uses “best practices” as defined by industry experts. No addi-
tional recognition is provided for innovation. A common criticism of BOMA Go
Green is that the best practices represent a minimum level of performance and
the tool does not encourage performance that exceeds it.
MANAGEMENT TOOL The target user for Go Green is the building operator and is aligned with his/her
reponsibilities. Further, the tool was designed with input of the target users,
and therefore it is structured with that user group specifically in mind.
Low High

There is a reduced price for office parks.
Recertification is required every three years.
BOMA Go Green
Page 23
RATING SYSTEM: GO GREEN PLUS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION BOMA Go Green Plus (formerly Go Green Comprehensive) is the newest element of
the Go Green program. Based on the Green Globes web-based assessment tool, Go
Green Comprehensive adds a more in-depth benchmarking tool to Go Green’s best
practices model. Go Green Plus uses an on-line audit tool for assessing and rating
buildings against best practice, industry standards, and general concepts underlying
green buildings.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / BOMA Go Green Plus is an industry developed national environmental recognition

BUILDING TYPE and certification program for existing commercial buildings. While designed primarily
for office buildings, Go Green Plus is being used for institutional, industrial, and retail
properties.
DEVELOPMENT & BOMA Go Green Plus is directed and administered by Building Owners and Manag-
D E L I V E RY ers Association of Canada (BOMA Canada). The verification process is delivered by
BOMA local associations across the country. Based on Green Globes Assessment Tool.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H Builds on 10 best practice requirements of Go Green and drills down into additional
depth, adding a benchmarking tool for each requirement. The Report gives an overall
percentage rating. Buildings must achieve at least 70% to be certified, and receive a
pass or fail score.
OUTPUTS Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the
ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential
savings. Recognition signage and materials (including a certificate of achievement) aer
provided for display at the site.
COSTS Costs range from $1,500 to $7,000 depending on the size of the building, or the number
of buildings in an office park. The fees are higher for applicants who are not BOMA
members.
TIME ON MARKET May 2005, as a development from BOMA Go Green (which was launched in January
2004).
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.bomagogreen.com
www.bomacanada.org
A verifier authorized by BOMA conducts a site review A score is provided, although certification is either pass
to ensure conformity. or fail.

Improvements in energy performance may be required References CBIP requirements. Is more focused, how-
as a condition for maintaining certification. ever, on leveraging each building’s strengths.
Page 24
COMPREHENSIVENESS Includes fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues, including such as-
pects as noise. Light coverage in areas of environmental impact.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The dynamic on-line tool asks directed questions, and then generates a report
that includes recommendations, sources of information, preliminary modelling
results, etc. The comments and input are generated on-the-fly by the tool.
SUPPORT Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing
and unlimited.
VA L U E Provides good value in terms of tenant health, comfort and productivity. Pro-
vides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.
E D U C AT I O N The online tool and report provides a detailed range of information and links
specifically directed towards possible strategies for inclusion.
V E R S AT I L I T Y Because the emphasis is on leveraging the value of each building, a fair amount
of versatility is provided in terms of strategies, best practices, and so on. The
on-line tool includes examples of best practices that allow the applicant to
choose those that best suit the situation.
CHALLENGE Program measures each building’s environmental factors such as energy use,
indoor health and environmental performance against the existing best industry
operation and management practices.
MANAGEMENT TOOL Is developed to allow for the development of action plans to achieve savings on
resource consumption costs and through waste management.
Low High

A baseline model is not required, although audits Portfolios of buildings can be assessed, although the fo-
are called for. A preliminary CBIP rating (compli- cus in this regard is on office parks. Buildings on other
ance path) is automatically generated based on report multi-building complexes must be certified individually.
inputs.
Certification is valid for three years from date of appli-
cation. Certification applies to the building, so does not
change with ownership transfer.
Go Green Plus
Page 25
RATING SYSTEM: CASBEE (EXISTING BUILDING)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment Efficiency, or
CASBEE, is a suite of assessment tools for the various phases of the building being
evaluated: planning, design, completion, operation, and renovation. It also adopts an
environmental efficiency approach, by providing results that are based on the quality
of environmental performance, divided by the environmental load.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / This assessment tool targets the existing building stock, based on operation records for
BUILDING TYPE at least one year after completion. It was developed to be applicable to asset
assessment as well. It can be used to generate proposals for building operation moni-
toring, commissioning and upgrade design with a view to ESCO (Energy Service Com-
pany) projects, which will be increasingly important in future, and for building stock
renovation. This tool is designed for ascertaining the degree of improvement (increased
BEE), relative to the level that preceded renovation. Labeling is also possible by third-
party agencies.
DEVELOPMENT & Research and development of CASBEE has been carried out as a cooperative project
D E L I V E RY between industry, government and academia with the assistance of Japanese Ministry
of Land, Infrastructure and Transport. Newly-formed Japan Sustainable Building
Consortium and affiliated sub-committees provide overall management of CASBEE,
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H The assessment result is communicated in terms of an equation: BEE=Q/L. Building

environmental efficiency is equal to building environmental quality and performance
divided by building environmental loadings. The numeric score is translated to a chart,
which results in a letter rating (Class S, which is excellent, to Class C, which is poor).
OUTPUTS Comprehensive report that measures the performance of each building based on the
ten requirements, and that identifies strengths, weaknesses, and areas for potential
savings.
COSTS
TIME ON MARKET Disseminated for use in June 2004.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english
Verification can be provided, although typically the Scores are given on program areas and then translated
tool is used to improve performance. Some municipali- into an overall number. The final score is associated
ties are mandating its use. with poor to excellent designations.
Mandatory requirements? Y N External benchmarks? N

Y
Page 26
COMPREHENSIVENESS Includes detailed coverage of a wide range of criteria, and allows for extension
of these to scales broader than building alone.
USER-FRIENDLINESS A fairly mathematical approach is used, which can be confusing in the process.
However worksheets are simpler, and the final result is easy to understand.
SUPPORT Support is provided through the use of the on-line tool, and therefore is ongoing
and unlimited.
VA L U E It is mandatory for building permit applicants (larger than 2000m2) in Nagoya,

Osaka, Yokohama to submit the assessed data, part of which is to be disclosed
on the website of local government.
E D U C AT I O N Outputs are provided in a standardized, yet graphical way that is educational

and indicates broader impact of performance.
V E R S AT I L I T Y Can be applied to range of different buildings, regions, scales, and the synergy
between different tools in the suite is strong.
CHALLENGE CASBEE includes a broad range of categories, and has many sub-areas under
each category. The level of rigour is very good, and weightings are included that
ensure a suitable mix of effort.
MANAGEMENT TOOL CASBEE is designed to support the management of assets, although the struc-
ture of the inputs and outputs are not closely aligned with typical job reponsi-
bilities.
Low High

Models are required for an evaluated building and a Multiple projects can be evaluated.
standard building so that comparisons can be done.
Customization? Y N Recertification?
Scores are relative to a standard building, which can
be selected to reflect the regional circumstances within
which the assessed building will be considered.
CASBEE (Existing Bldg.)

Page 27
RATING SYSTEM: CHPS
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The Collaborative for High Performance Schools (CHPS, often pronounced “chips”)
aims to facilitate the design of high performance schools. CHPS is developing a cer-
tification system that explicitly defines a high performance school while remaining
flexible to accommodate a particular district’s needs.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / CHPS was designed to enhance the performance of new school facilities in California
BUILDING TYPE and targets school administrators and designers. Many of the credits are based on a
customisation of LEED-NC Credits to a california school environment.
DEVELOPMENT & CHPS was developed and is delivered through the Collaborative for High Performance
D E L I V E RY Schools (CHPS) in California, USA.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H CHPS utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the aggregation
of points based system and prerequisities. A minimum of 28 points is required for
certification and a maximum of 81 points are available.
OUTPUTS A scorecard is developed in completion of CHPS. The program is marketed primar-

ily to reduce operating energy costs, and increase school attendance and these are the
primary outputs.
COSTS An annual membership is required.
TIME ON MARKET CHPS has been operating since 2002.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.chps.net/
Self certification is used. CHPS uses a pass/fail system. A minimum of 28 out
of a possible 81 points are required to achieve CHPS
certification.

Prerequisites are defined, utilising Title 24 energy and The primary benchmark is the california energy code
ventilation codes, as well as a range of US national requirement, Title 24.
standards.
Page 28
COMPREHENSIVENESS CHPS is a customised version of LEED. Therefore it is comparable to LEED-
NC in terms of issues addressed.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The Tool is designed to be easy to use, with less flexibility and more prescriptive
requirements than LEED.
SUPPORT There are design guidelines and a support network to assist in tool application.
VA L U E Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance.
E D U C AT I O N CHPS offers design support, workshops best practice guides and a resource
manual for program participants.
V E R S AT I L I T Y The tool is designed specifically for schools in California and has less applicabil-
ity ouside that building segment and jurisdiction.
CHALLENGE CHPS is based on LEED-NC so is comparable to LEED-EB and LABS21 in

terms of rigour.
MANAGEMENT TOOL CHPS aligns with building operations by including maintenance procedures and
requirements.
Low High

A baseline energy model is requred to demonstrate School districts can participate
compliance with relevant codes.
The tool focuses on schools and school districts in Cali-
fornia, and is not supported outside that jurisdiction.
CHPS
Page 29
RATING SYSTEM: GBTOOL
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The GBTool software has been developed as part of the Green Building Challenge
process, an international effort to establish a common language for describing “green
buildings”. GBTool provides a standard basis of comparison for a wide range of build-
ings. A feature of GBTool is that the method is designed from the outset to reflect the
very different priorities, technologies, building traditions and even cultural values that
exist in various regions and countries.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / GB Tool covers all Institutional and Commercial Segments targeting architects, en-
BUILDING TYPE gineers, and academics. GB Tool was originally designed for rating new buildings,
however it has also been applied to existing buildings. Finally, the tool has been used
most extensively within a reaserch context, and while commercially available, it does
not target widespread commercial application.
DEVELOPMENT & GBTool is under development and is currently supported by iiSBE. It was originally
D E L I V E RY developed as the rating tool used in the Green Building Challenge (1998), and has been
used in subsequent forums.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H GBTool includes an assessment scale and best practices. One of the key benefits of
GBTool is that it is based on a life cycle assessment methodology, and permits cus-
tomised weighting of aspects. As the tool was designed to permit comparison among
international design teams, GBTool can account for the very different priorities,
OUTPUTS Spreadsheet documentation is prepared in support of accreditation. As the tool has

been used primarily in support of international sustainable building competitions, a
complementary output is the potential for recognition within the international design
community.
COSTS The tool is free for members of iiSBE ($75 annual membership fee).
TIME ON MARKET Since 1998.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.iisbe.org/iisbe/gbc2k5/gbc2k5-start.htm
The tool requires self-assessment. Scores are provided for 4 phases of building activ-
ity including, Pre-Design, Design, Construction and
Operations.

National benchmarks are defined by the teams using
the tools.
Page 30
COMPREHENSIVENESS GB Tool can be customised to expand the breadth and depth of analysis to
accommodate different situations. Includes normal to detailed coverage of a a
very broad range of issues, including a number of environmental impacts such
as global warming, ozone depletion, smog, etc.
USER-FRIENDLINESS GB Tool is primarily a research tool and has limited application beyone the GBC
activities, therefore, user-friendliness has come second to research rigour.
SUPPORT GB Tool is supported by the iiSBE, but there is little support during assess-
ment.
VA L U E As a research tool, certification provides a basis of comparison for international

competitions.
E D U C AT I O N The tool offes a lifecycle assessment methodology that provides an extensive

educational component.
V E R S AT I L I T Y The tool has been applied to a range of building types and throughout the
world, permitting extensive comparison.
CHALLENGE The tool may be scoped up or down in terms of rigour to accommodate the
interests of the user. In addition, the user may adopt his own benchmarks and
best practices, permitting flexibility in terms of rigour.
MANAGEMENT TOOL The tool is intended as a research tool and is not designed as a tool to assist in
the management of buildings.
Low High

GB Tool includes an assessment baseline model. An Multiple projects can be evaluated.
energy model is mandatory.
GB Tool can be customised in terms of weighting of as-
sessment criteria and customisation of benchmarks.
GBTool
Page 31
RATING SYSTEM: GREEN GUIDE FOR HEALTHCARE
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Green Guide for Health Care™ is the healthcare sector’s first quantifiable sustainable
design toolkit integrating enhanced environmental and health principles and practices
into the planning, design, construction, operations and maintenance of their facilities.
The Green Guide for Health Care borrows the credit numbering scheme and credit
outline structure of the US Green Building Council (USGBC) LEED® family of prod-
ucts, with some modifications.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / The GGHC is focused on the healthcare sector, and applies to new freestanding facili-
BUILDING TYPE ties, additions to existing facilities along with renovation, and extensive rehabilitation
/ adaptive reuse projects. It is customized for buildings such as acute care hospitals,
medical office buildings and clinics, and others.
DEVELOPMENT & The GGHC was initiated by a diverse group of health care industry leaders. It is con-
D E L I V E RY vened by the Center for Maximum Potential Building Systems, and has three major:
founding sponsors (Hospitals for a Healthy Environment; Merck Family Fund; NY-
SERDA); 25 Founding Partners; and numerous Endorsers.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H The GGHC borrows the credit scheme and organizational structure of the LEED. It
does not provide achievement level thresholds, but these come during the current pilot
phase. During the pilot phase, achievement is indicated by total number of points.
Total of 96 points for design and construction, and 72 for operations.
OUTPUTS Similar to LEED, outputs include the various documentation materials that are re-
quired to show compliance with individual credits.
COSTS The GGHC is an open source document provided at no charge.
TIME ON MARKET Pilot version released in November 2004.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.gghc.org
Provides points, but does not translate them into
achievement ratings (such as silver or gold, etc.)

As it is informed by LEED products, GGHC has pre- Includes thresholds and reference standards.
requisites in the same vein as LEED tools.
Page 32
COMPREHENSIVENESS It includes different credit categories associated with Construction and Opera-
tions. For Construction, the credit categories are the same as LEED-EB, but for
Operations a different structure is used. Includes many of the LEED strategies,
but has also added some standards from ISO 14001.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The main document is somewhat dense, with over 400 pages included. Navi-
gating the full document requires a lot of time and focus. Some information is
included in the document of what strategies to employ to achieve credits, but in
a minimal, text-based way. Not linked to on-line tools.
SUPPORT Currently, the Steering Committee and staff are unable to offer consultation on
individual projects. Participants can engage in peer-to-peer discussions through
a web-based Forum.
VA L U E Currently identifies early adopters.
E D U C AT I O N The program is designed to serve as a voluntary educational guide for early

adopters of sustainable design, construction, and operations practices, to en-
courage continuous improvement in the healthcare sector.
V E R S AT I L I T Y Is focused on healthcare buildings, and in particular, institutional occupancies

such as acute care hospitals, where regulatory requirements have created par-
ticular needs. Medical office buildings, clinics and other buildings where health-
care concerns are dominant can also use the Guide.
CHALLENGE Provides some strategies for how to achieve credits, but like LEED does not
prioritize.
MANAGEMENT TOOL The Operations section is structured in a way that facilitates management roles
and responsibilities. In the Operations section, alignment is much more direct
than within the Construction section.
Low High

Similar to LEED tool. Is targetted to healthcare facilities, thus allows for
portfolios to be considered (particularly in terms of
Operations section).
GGHC
Page 33
RATING SYSTEM: GREEN STAR (OFFICE SUITE)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Green Star is a national voluntary rating system which evaluates the environmental
performance of buildings. It has been developed by the Green Building Council of
Australia, but has been built on existing systems and tools in overseas markets includ-
ing the British BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assess-
ment Method) system and the North American LEED (Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design) system.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / Focuses on encouraging developers, professional services, and project managers to as-

BUILDING TYPE sess the environmental attributes of existing office buildings. The tool is oriented to-
wards all existing buildings that have been constructed and handed over not less than
24 months prior to application.
:
DEVELOPMENT & Was developed by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA). Is also delivered
D E L I V E RY by the GBCA. The UK’s Building Research Establishment is acknowledged, as is Vi-
cUrban.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H A six star approach is used to rate building performance. Credits are given a score, with
different weightings for each. 1-3 stars are not eligible for formal certification. 4 stars
(45 points) represent Best Practice, 5 stars (60 points) is Australian Excellence, 6 stars
(75 points) is World Leadership. Based on original BREEAM approach.
OUTPUTS Building input worksheet with general information about the building construction
and services, net lettable area, etc. Checklist of points. Graphical summaries provide
bar chart analyses. Successful certification results in an award certificate and Green-
Star logos.
COSTS The GBCA provides worksheets and credit calculators free of charge. The tools al-
low for a quick evaluation for points likely to be received through formal certification
process. Less 5000m2 NLA=$5500;5,000 - 10,000m2 NLA $6,500; 10,000 - 20,000m2
NLA $8,500 ; 20,000 - 40,000m2 NLA $11,500; greater than 40,000m2 NLA $15,500.
TIME ON MARKET While some of the Green Star tools have been on the market since 2003, OfficeAsset is
still in pilot phase.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.gbcaus.org
Formal assessment required in order to publicly com- A single overall score is identified through aggregat-
municate a Green Star rating. ing the weighted scores for each category. This is thenN
translated into a “Star” rating.

References “predicted” performance as calculated by a
calculator tool.
Page 34
COMPREHENSIVENESS Addresses a wide range of issues (energy, emissions, water, indoor environ-
ment, materials, transport, biodiversity,some environmental impacts). Does
not address embodied or renewable energy, materials consumption, water reuse,
amongst others.
USER-FRIENDLINESS An excel worksheet tool is provided that assists in managing the identification
of credits and requirements. Automated, linked calculators are provided for in-
dividual credits. Graphical summaries are provided. Identifying what strategies
to use to achieve credits is not part of the tool.
SUPPORT Incorporates calculators and tools right into system. Provides manuals and
training sessions. Technical clarifications are provided on-line.
vides recognizable label. Facilitates carbon emissions trading.
E D U C AT I O N Some information is provided, and access to resources, but it is up to the design

teams to identify.
V E R S AT I L I T Y Is applicable to “Class 5” office buildings, so not directed at all types of com-

mercial buildings. Allows for modification based on regional location -- the
building’s location and type alters the predicted rating. Is appropriate for use by
both design professionals and property managers.
CHALLENGE Achieving full points for credits requires a broad range of strategies that ad-
dress all aspects of a building’s impacts.
MANAGEMENT TOOL Includes strategies that can be incorporated into action plans,and that are
aligned with management responsibilities. Certification necessary for each
building in a portfolio.
Low High

Is suitable for portfolio profiling.
The building’s location and type can alter the predicted
rating, against which the ultimate score is calibrated.
Green Star (Office Asset)

Page 35
RATING SYSTEM: LABS 21
GENERAL DESCRIPTION Labs21 is a voluntary program dedicated to improving the environmental perfor-
mance of U.S. laboratories.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / The target audience for LAB21 includes owners and designers of laboratory facilities.
BUILDING TYPE As the tool is based off a LEED rating platform, the target audience will likely have a
previous knowledge of that tool.
DEVELOPMENT & LABS21 was developed in partnership with the US EPA, US Federal Energy Manage-
D E L I V E RY ment Program, Lawrence Berkely Laboratory and the National Renewable Energy
Laboratory. LABS21 is delivered though the US EPA.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H Performance standards Using the LEED rating criteria with additional credits that
are specific to the unique circumstances of laboratory facilities, including for example,
management of hazaedous materials, and occupant safety. In addition, LABS21 en-
courages users to utilise lifecycle costing in their decision making process related to
building retrofit and renovation activities.
OUTPUTS Documentation is prepared in support of each credit, including for example, signed
letters of compliance, drawings, work sheets and simulation model outputs. The
USGBC presents the project team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED
plaque indicating the certification level
COSTS There is no cost to participate in LABS21, although should participants also wish to
participate in the LEED Program there are costs associated with that.
TIME ON MARKET LABS21 has been available since 2002.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.labs21century.gov
There is a team of expert reviewers who provide design Like LEED, a score is associated with level of perfor-
advice. In addition, for those wishing to achieve LEED mance, including certified, silver, gold, platinum.
certification, 3rd party verification is provided.

Yes, all the prerequisites defined in LEED are manda- A range of external benchmarks are referenced (pri-
tory. In addition there are a number of requirements marily LEED-NC), however all are US based bench-
specific to laboratories, marks.
COMPREHENSIVENESS The tool covers all the aspects of LEED NC. In addition there are a range of
aspects related specifically to laboratories, including hazardous materials etc.
USER-FRIENDLINESS The tool includes a series of case studies and resource guides to enhance the user
friendliness. As noted previously, LABS 21 is built off a LEED NC platform
and sufferes from the structural limitations of that program.
SUPPORT There is a users group, case studies and an extensive support network to assist
in the implementation of the tool.
VA L U E Cost Savings, enhanced environmental performance, peer recognition.
E D U C AT I O N In addition to the resources provided through LEED, LABS21 offer design

courses, telephone forums and a student design competition.
V E R S AT I L I T Y The tool is designed specifically for labs and is not intended for other building
types.
CHALLENGE LABS 21 Is more rigourous than LEED as it contains additional prerequisites

and points.
MANAGEMENT TOOL LABS 21 is intended as a design tool for new construction and is not designed as
a management tool for operating facilities.
Low High

ASHRAE compliance is a prerequisite, resulting in
mandatory energy models.
There is the potential for points related to design in-
novation. As noted previously, LABS21 is largely a
customised version of LEED, so extensive customisa-
tion has already occurred.
LABS 21
RATING SYSTEM: LEED (CI)
GENERAL DESCRIPTION The LEED-CI (Commercial Interiors) Rating System is part of a comprehensive suite
of LEED assessment tools under development by the USGBC to promote sustainable
design, construction, and operations practices in buildings. The LEED-CI Rating
System is applicable to tenant improvements of new or existing office space. LEED-
CI gives the power to make sustainable choices to tenants and designers, who do not
always have control over whole building operations.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / LEED-CI deals with design and construction during tenant improvement --focuses
BUILDING TYPE on aspects of fit-out that are within control of the tenant and design team. As such is
more relevant to new construction than to existing buildings, considered to go hand-
in-glove with LEED-Core &Shell. Its focus on the tenant is a unique characteristic of
this tool.
DEVELOPMENT & LEED-CI was developed and administered by the US Green Building Council, a
D E L I V E RY diverse non-profit membership based organization. It will be administered by the
Canada Green Building Council for Canadian projects at the end of September 2006.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H Aggregation of points (up to 57) to end up with a final score that is then correlated to
4 performance levels (certified,silver,gold,platinum).
OUTPUTS Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance
letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project
team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certifica-
tion level.
COSTS For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq
ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft.
- $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.
TIME ON MARKET Launched in November 2004 following a pilot phase.
F O R I N F O R M AT I O N www.usgbc.org
Verification of credits is completed by USGBC staff. Score is associated with level of performance, including
certified, silver, gold, platinum.

As with other tools within LEED suite, prerequisites A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are
are included. US-based benchmars.
Page 38
COMPREHENSIVENESS Includes a fairly standard coverage of a wide range of issues. Light coverage in
areas of environmental impact.
USER-FRIENDLINESS LEED Online is being launched in March 2006 for LEED-CI. This makes the
documentation and submittal process much easier, although it is more of an
information management tool than an input tool. The Reference Manual is still
a necessary component of the process, however, and is not yet online.
SUPPORT Technical support is provided through credit interpretations, as well as gen-

eralized training workshops. As well, full review and validation of submission
package is included.
vides recognizable label.No studies yet on whether premiums are required.
E D U C AT I O N The Reference Guide has some information, although less than the original
Guide for LEED NC. The USGBC website offers some links, but the educational
value tends to be directly related to the research activities of the design / man-
agement team.
V E R S AT I L I T Y Is applicable to a broad spectrum of commercial buildings, and can be used for

interiors on different floors of a building. Like other LEED tools, references US
standards, and is not easily customized to different locations / regions.
CHALLENGE LEED CI ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements.

Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.
MANAGEMENT TOOL Is relevant to capital costs associated with design and construction of tenant
improvements. Permits managers to identify priorities and strategies for interior
improvements.
Low High

Simulation models are required to demonstrate achieve-
ment of energy performance.
Page 39
LEED-CI
RATING SYSTEM: LEED-EB
GENERAL DESCRIPTION (LEED-EB) is part of a suite of assessment tools under development by the USGBC
to promote sustainable design, construction, and operations in buildings. Focused
on existing buildings, the LEED-EB criteria cover building operations and systems
upgrades in existing buildings where the majority of interior or exterior surfaces re-
main unchanged. It provides sustainable guidelines for building operations, periodic
upgrades of building systems, minor space use changes and building processes.
TA RG E T AU D I E N C E / LEED-EB covers all institutional and commercial segments. Whereas LEED-CI

BUILDING TYPE targets tenants in commercial buildings, LEED-EB focuses on building managers
and owners. The intent of LEED-EB is to certify the operation of the building,
capturing both its physical systems (equipment, design, etc.) as well as the way the
building is occupied and operated by its managers (waste management, temperature
monitoring,etc.) So where LEED-NC and LEED-CI certify the act of renovating,
constructing or tenant fit-out, EB certifies the completed and operated building as it
functions on an ongoing basis.
DEVELOPMENT & LEED-EB was developed and is delivered through the US Green Building Council.
D E L I V E RY The LEED-EB Committee, a group of experts representing various facets of the
industry, developed a draft of the rating system with input from the LEED Steering
Committee. Technical Advisory groups, the Technical and Scientific Advisory Com-
mittee, and representatives from all major sectors of the building industry also guided
the development of LEED-EB. The rating system was piloted in 100 buildings to
ensure its practicality as a tool for achieving sustainability.
R AT I N G A P P ROAC H LEED-EB utilises a series of Best Practices. Buildings are rated based on the ag-
gregation of points based system and prerequisities. A maximum of 85 points are
available. Four performance levels are considered including certigied, silver, gold and
platinum.
OUTPUTS Documentation associated with each individual credit, including signed compliance
letters, supporting drawings, simulation models, etc. USGBC presents the project
team with an award letter, certificate and metal LEED plaque indicating the certifica-
tion level.
COSTS For Design Review: Less than 50,000 sq ft - $1,250; 50,000 to 500,000 sq ft - $0.025/sq
ft; more than 500,000 sq ft, $12,500. For Construction Review: Less than 50,000 sq.ft.
- $500; 50,000-500,000 sq.ft. - $0.01/sq.ft.; more than 500,000 sq. ft., $5,000.
TIME ON MARKET Comments on the pilot rating system received from pilot participants and members of
the public guided revisions to the draft system, and the USGBC membership approved
a final, ‘balloted’ version of LEED-EB in October of 2004.There are currently no
plans to support a Canadian version of the product.
Verification of credits is completed by USGBC staff. Score is associated with level of performance, including
certified, silver, gold, platinum.

Mandatory requirements include such categories as A range of benchmarks are referenced, although all are
Erosion & Sedimentation Control, Age of Building, US-based benchmars.
Water Efficiency, Existing Building Commission, En-
ergy Performance, etc.
Page 40
COMPREHENSIVENESS Addresses cleaning and maintenance issues including chemical use; ongoing
indoor air quality; energy efficiency; water efficiency; recycling programs and
facilities; exterior maintenance programs; and systems upgrades to meet green
building energy, water, IAQ, and lighting performance standards.
USER-FRIENDLINESS A criticism of the current version of LEED-EB is the labour intensive require-
ments for certification. Future plans may include development of a web based
platform to enhance the user-friendliness.
SUPPORT Reference guides and user templates are provided. In addition, workshops are
delivered periodically. Target user is architect or registered professional, rather
than occupant of building.
VA L U E Value includes cost savings, enhanced envirnomental performance and peer rec-
ognition. LEED-NC is currenly positioned as the premier new building rating
tool with a high level of brand recognition. As a result, the value of LEED-EB
certification may be enhanced.
E D U C AT I O N USGBC is developing an accreditation for LEED-EB. As noted above, exten-

sive resource material is currently available, including training and a resource
guide.
V E R S AT I L I T Y LEED-EB references US Standards, limiting its versatility in Canda in the

short term. LEED-EB covers a range of ICI building segments and focuses on
building managers. LEED EB includes performance based and prescriptive
based requirements.
CHALLENGE LEED EB ensures minimum performance through prescriptive requirements.

Additional rigour is provided with higher performance levels.
MANAGEMENT TOOL As an outgrowth of LEED_NC, the tool is designed more with architects in
mind, rather than building owners or managers. While LEED-EB was not de-
signed to align with management responsibilities, it is consistent with property
manager responsibilities.
Low High

Baseline energy model required. Minimum EnergyStar May be addressed by modelling and submitting for each
60 required. building.
Points are provided to design innovation, which may be Required every five years.
customized.
Page 41
LEED EB
6.0 Conclusions
Multiple rating tools are available and in use through-out
the commercial and institutional building sector. These
tools may contribute to a range of benefits to building
owners and tenants, including cost savings and reduced
environmental impact. As the drivers for utilising rating
tools vary among a range of actors, there is a rationale
for the support of multiple tools
While there is a range of tools available, experience

with their application in Canada is limited. Currently,
the BOMA Go Green product has the most significant
market penetration with over 60 buildings rated and a
target of 100 buildings by the end of 2006. Go Green Plus
has recently been chosen by Public Works Government
Services for the rating of their owner occupied stock,
and while application of the tool to date is limited,
other large corporate users (such as Great Western Life)
are using it. Conversely, there have been no buildings
rated using LEED EB, and the application of LEED CI for
renovation is limited. Evaluating and showcasing the
impact of the rating tools in terms of cost savings and
enhanced environmental performance will be key to
creating market demand for these tools. Analysis of the
impact of rating tools through a post-retrofit performance
evaluation is recommended.
The development of multiple stand alone building rating

tools is symptomatic of an immature market. As the
market matures over the next three to five years, it
can be expected that harmonisation of tools will occur,
resulting in a more streamlined process. The ISO is
currently developing a protocol for the design of building
rating tools, and this will provide a framework for
subsequent harmonisation efforts that may be supported
by the client group.
While rating tools are an important component of a

management system for buildings, they will benefit
with greater integration to other management systems
currently in place, such as the financial, environmental
and human resources management systems, and
additional analysis of this issue is recommended.
Finally, the explosion of building automated control

systems is having a profound impact on how buildings
and facilities are being operated and managed. There is
growing interest and awareness in the opportunities to
integrate “smart” and green technologies as the “next
big thing”. Better understanding of the opportunities and
challenges may have a much greater impact than focusing
efforts only on rating tools.
Page 42
Page 43
APPENDICES
6.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Criteria for Determining

Shortlist of Rating Tools
Criteria Description
Existing/New Building Describes whether the tool targets new or existing buildings. The scope of the
current analysis is on rating tools for existing buildings.
Industry Supported As a market transformation driver, tools must evolve to remain relevant and
to push the envelope of innovation. This criteria reflects whether the tool is
currently supported and whether continued evolution of the tool is likely.
Commercialized / Different tools focus on discrete stages of the market transformation process.
Research Tool While a research tool may assist the early adopters in more of a research
capacity, rating tools that focus on the design community and have been
commercialized will have the largest uptake.
Used in North America Most industrialized countries have developed rating tools that reflects the
unique social, environmental and economic opportunities and constraints from
the country of origin. The current focus is on tools that can be readily adapted
to fit the Canadian context. This in turn is reflected by whether the tool has
been used previously in North America.
Range of Building Types Different tools focus on specific segments of the commercial/institutional
sector, while other tools may be applied across all segments. The scope of the
current analysis is the entire commercial and institutional sector, however, as
noted previously, educational services, offices and retail trade make up almost
70% of commercial floor area. Tools that target those segments will have the
most significant impact.
Educational Value Tools can offer education value through the broader awareness they bring to
the environmental impacts of buildings. They can also offer value through
encapsulating methodologies and approaches that are interesting and important
for those developing / investigating tools to be exposed to.
Analyse Based on the results of the above criteria, a decision whether to analyse the
tool was made using the qualitative analysis.
Page 44
Appendix B: Evaluation of Comprehensive
List of Rating Systems
Used in
Existing/New Industry Commercialized North
Rating System Building Supported /Research America Range of Building Types Educational Value Analyse?
LEED-EB Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Yes
LEED-CI Existing/New Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Yes
CASBEE New No Research No Commercial Yes Yes
Green Star Existing No Commercial No Office Only Yes Yes
NABERS Existing Yes Commercial No Residential/Commercial Yes No
GBTool New Yes Research Yes Commercial Yes Yes
BOMA Go Green Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Yes
Boma Go Green
Plus New/Existing Yes Commercial Yes Commercial Yes Yes
ECO QUANTUM New No Research No Commercial No No
HK-BEAM Existing/New Yes Commercial No Residential/Commercial No No
BREEAM Yes, But
Greenleaf Existing/New Superceded Commercial Yes Residential/Commercial No No
TGBRS Existing/New No Commercial No All No No
GreenGuide for
Healthcare Existing / New Yes Commercial No Healthcare Yes Yes
Audubon Green
Leaf Existing Yes Commercial Yes Hotel / Motel Yes Yes
CHPS Existing / New Yes Commercial No Schools Yes Yes
LABS 21 Existing /New Somewhat Both No Laboratories Yes Yes
ISO 14000 Existing Yes Commercial Yes Yes No
Page 45

Assessment of Tools For Rating The Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Assessment of Tools For Rating The Perfomrance of Existing Buildings

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Assessment of Tools for Rating the

Performance of Existing Buildings:

Prepared for the GVRD

2.0 TOOLS FOR RATING THE PERFORMANCE OF BUILDINGS 7

3.0 SITUATION ANALYSIS: EXISTING BUILDING STOCK 9

4.0 SELECTING A RATING TOOL 10

5.0 ASSESSMENT OF RATING TOOLS 17

British Columbia has been at the forefront of this activity.

Create shortlist of tools to evaluate c4 Value

Table 3: Rating Tool Evaluation Criteria

Leadership Leaders establish unity of purpose and • Basis of Comparison

Involvement of people People at all levels are the essence • User-friendliness

Process approach A desired result is achieved more • Ability to educate

System approach to Identifying, understanding and • Value of Certification

Continual improvement Continual improvement of the • Time on Market

• Balance between performance

Table 5: Needs of End Users of Rating Tools

Actor Design Best Audit Monitor Market

Figure 1: Commercial Floor-space in Canada, by

4 □ What materials are created in the process of rating performance?

5 □ What are the costs of preparing an assessment?

6 □ When was the tool was created?

7 □ What is range of building performance aspects that are covered?

8 □ How easy is the tool to adopt and implement?

9 □ What level of organizational infrastructure is provided by the tool’s administrators?

10 □ What is the perceived value to different actors?

Table 7 lays out the attributes that are assessed for

The attributes through which the rating systems are

A= Title Key Question Sub-Questions

B= Title Key Question Response

b1 Verification Are the results of an assessment verified by Y/N

b2 Mandatory Requirements Does the tool include mandatory Y/N

C= Title Key Question Sub-Questions

Low depth of coverage Different parameters included for each issue

User-Friendliness Results confusing Results easy to understand

Lack of templates or standard approach Templates easy to use

Level of effort high Time and costs not onerous

Support Input / information provided periodically Fast access to input / information

Assistance dependent on hiring professionals Assistance in identifying and selecting strategies

Value Low market recognition Wide recognition by market

Impact on market transformation low Resultant bottom line savings substantial

Measurable change encouraged by techniques

Education Information not embedded in material Emerging issues / concerns included

Provides details necessary to incur innovation

Difficult to link to other tools Is applicable to range of audiences

Can link to other tools

Challenge Performance standards not included Level of rigour is high

Certification possible without broad coverage of Provides incentives to do more

Breadth of activities required

Applicable to individual buildings only Supports portfolios of buildings

Does not inform design / operation process Helps prioritize strategies

The table below provides a summary of the “B” and “C”

Table 9: Summary Table of “B” and “C” Attributes

b7 Building portfolios No Yes Yes Yes Y

b8 Recertification Yes Yes Yes No N

c1 Comprehensiveness Medium High High High H

c2 User-friendliness High High High Medium Me

c3 Support Medium Medium High High L

c8 Management Tool High High High Medium Me

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes