Design and sustainable commercial buildings

Article Rating:

0 votes

This article introduces issues related to the design of sustainable commercial buildings.

Summary

This article introduces issues related to the design of sustainable commercial buildings. The concept of design as both an approach and a management process delivering sustainable outcomes and sustainable design as a product is explained. The process of design is outlined, and situations where design is applied are examined. The importance of design for sustainability performance is discussed and the benefits of an integrated design approach and management process for different user groups are explained. The potential risks of sustainable design are also discussed, along with barriers to the implementation of design processes that are more supportive of sustainable outcomes. Policies, regulations and standards relating to sustainable design processes are outlined, including their drivers and potential future impacts on development. Opportunities for implementing a successful sustainable design process are identified. The article finishes with links to sustainability tools, organisations and associations, and a list of references and resources.

Definition

• What is design?
  • Design as a process
  • Sustainable design as a product/outcome
• How is it done?
• Where is sustainable design used?
  

What is design?

Design is a series of activities that results in the production of a building. The design life cycle includes activities ranging from developing the brief, concept or sketch design, through to detailed documentation. Concurrently, design is a set of management processes that overlays these activities and includes planning, coordination, communication, cost management and quality assurance tasks.

According to Chapman (1998), design 'is a dynamic and highly iterative process with a continual process toward identifying solutions and then testing them against the needs of the project'.

There are many terms in the building industry that are used to describe the consideration of sustainability aspects in the design of buildings. These include 'sustainable design', 'green design', 'eco-design', 'design for the environment', 'high performance green design' and 'integrated design'. These terms can be equated with 'good design'. Good design is an appropriately holistic process that is sensitive to sustainability principles. The production of sustainable commercial buildings does not require a new or different type of design; rather, designers need to ensure that sustainability decision making is integral to their day-to-day design processes and solutions.

Sustainable design, or designing to achieve sustainable outcomes, is the process of designing the physical environment according to the triple bottom line principles of economic viability, social equity and minimum detrimental impact on the environment. The ultimate goal of sustainability is to develop products, materials and buildings that reduce the consumption of both renewable and non-renewable resources, meet social needs, are cost-effective and that potentially provide a benefit to the environment. Design can be applied at the micro level (to designing sustainable products) and at the macro level (to designing sustainable buildings and cities).

According to Van der Ryn and Cowen (1996), 'ecological or sustainable design is a design approach, not a style. It is a framework for designing buildings so that they minimise their environmental impacts and preserve ecological integrity. This entails respect for species diversity, minimising resource depletion, preserving water and nutrient cycles, maintaining habitat quality and maintaining conditions which preserve human and ecological health'.

The motivation for sustainable design was articulated in Small is beautiful (Schumacher, 1973), which points out that treating the world's natural resources (particularly fossil fuels) as expendable income, rather than capital (as they are not renewable and are subject to further depletion), results in an unsustainable economy. More recently, sustainable design has evolved as a reaction to international environmental problems, such as global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, population pressures, the depletion of natural resources, and the loss of biodiversity.

Conventional design practices do not typically take into consideration the environmental and social impacts associated with their products and services. However, there is growing interest and uptake of design processes to achieve sustainable outcomes across design disciplines. Design does not refer only to architecture, but to the entire panorama of design disciplines including architecture, engineering (structural, mechanical, electrical, façade, hydraulic, geotechnical etc.), interiors and landscape architecture. Each of the design disciplines has a significant role to play in ensuring that sustainability is integrated into both processes and solutions.

Designers use a number of tools that can assist them to integrate sustainability into design. Designers, such as sustainability consultants, architects and engineers, can undertake building information modelling using computer simulation software. These programs allow the space or building to be modelled in three dimensions with designated building materials. The designers can then test the sustainability performance in terms of the thermal comfort, visual comfort and daylighting associated with various fabric and services options. This has the advantage of bringing the engineering agenda forward in the design process and allowing decisions to be made to ensure optimal sustainability performance.

There are also a number of rating tools in the industry, which can either be design-based or performance-based. Green Star is an example of a design-based tool used by design teams to assess the opportunities for incorporating sustainability features into their projects. Green Star can also be used as a management process for planning and coordinating the integration of ecological sustainable development (ESD) initiatives during construction. The Australian Building Greenhouse Rating (ABGR) is an example of a performance-based tool that designers use to benchmark the performance of a building and to identify where sustainability initiatives may be incorporated into the design to improve performance. In addition, tools such as life cycle assessment and triple bottom line (TBL) assessment can be used to determine the degree of sustainability of a product, material or building. More information about these tools can be found in the tools section of this article.

Design as a process

For a traditional project delivery method, the design process consists of four distinctive phases: briefing, schematic design, design development and construction documentation (see left figure). In the briefing phase, the activities carried out include understanding the client's needs and the requirements that the building solution must fulfil, development of the brief, and determining the budget, program and time frame. The schematic design phase commences the problem-solving stage, which focuses on high-level strategic design solutions and responses to the requirements determined in the briefing phase. Minor details are ignored at this stage, as the aim is to create a coherent holistic solution. In the design development phase, the schematic design is refined into the final design by focusing on individual aspects, such as spaces or construction materials, rather than the whole design. In the construction documentation stage, the final design is detailed and documented in terms of all of the information that is required for builders and contractors to construct the building. These construction documents are typically sent to prospective tenderers. Throughout the construction phase of the building, the design may be amended as construction problems or material supply issues arise. The traditional design process ends with the practical completion of the building. However, good (sustainable) design entails the continuation of the role of the design team during the commissioning phase, as well as their participation in post-occupancy evaluation (POE) studies, which usually take place at least six months after the building's completion and occupation. Educating building users is an equally important component of the sustainable design process, and is critical to its success.

In addition to the traditional design process described above, there is the design and construct method, which is particularly prevalent in the mechanical services industry. This is where a design engineer develops the brief and the contractor then develops the design documentation before construction commences.

The design process most likely to achieve sustainable outcomes is one that allows the design team to identify synergies between building elements, and enables contributions to the design from experts associated with design, construction and operation. This is often referred to as integrated design and, at its best, will ensure that the result is more than the sum of each individual's contribution. As Hes (2005, p.249) states, 'green innovation needs to be integrated from the beginning – a key role in practice is to ensure design professionals have knowledge to influence clients'.

As the figure above depicts, the pre-design stage of the building life cycle provides the best opportunity to influence sustainable outcomes, as most environmental impacts (and therefore the greater number of opportunities to minimise environmental impacts) are determined in the early design stages of a project. Some of the early design decisions that may affect building performance include site selection-related aspects (such as proximity to public transport and whether it is a brownfield site), the building's orientation, configuration, and massing and space layout, circulation, and location of the lift core.

A key feature of the management of sustainable design activities is the establishment and maintenance of a communication and feedback loop between the people who design, construct, occupy and manage the building. This loop forms the critical link between building operations (measured outcomes of building performance collected by building management systems) and informed design decision making. The loop needs to be initiated in the design stage and must include a post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

One concept for an improved design and procurement process aiming to achieve sustainable outcomes is outlined in the Opportunities for implementing a successful sustainable design process section of this document.

Sustainable design as a product/outcome

The key outcome of undertaking a sustainable design process is the delivery of a sustainable building. The attributes of a sustainable building are described in detail in the Definition of sustainable commercial buildings article.

How is it done?

In conventional design, the architect, contractor and mechanical engineer each have their own scope of works, which is often undertaken without adequate communication and collaboration with other project team members. If design team members do not collaborate on optimising the building layout, services and fabric options to produce an integrated solution, building services systems may be designed that do not take the building's improved thermal performance into consideration, resulting in over-sized, stand-alone systems. The sustainable design and management process entails the consideration and design of the building fabric, building elements and services in an integrated manner from the early concept design phase, in order to achieve sustainable outcomes. The client or financier must recognise the importance of the early engagement of consultants in the design process, with the resultant fee allocation occurring earlier in the project delivery process.

The architect or head consultant generally facilitates and manages the sustainable design process. However, such a process relies on the early selection of all consultants and the availability of all relevant stakeholders for consultation and engagement at key times during the sustainable design process. These stakeholders may include internal stakeholders (e.g. facility managers, occupants, cleaners and maintenance personnel) and external stakeholders (e.g. building approval authorities, the local community and special interest groups).

The client must have a project brief that permits the design team to innovate where appropriate. Prescriptive briefs and design standards that restrict designers to standard solutions and systems may reduce opportunities for design teams to explore alternatives and synergies between building systems. Performance-based briefs may be seen to grant a client less certainty; however they will grant design teams the scope to innovate in direct proportion.

An effective technique to commence the integrated design process is to undertake a charrette-type workshop at the very beginning of the project with the client, consultants, builders, financiers and tenants. During the workshop, performance objectives regarding the site, climate and brief, are collectively discussed, as are the required resource efficiencies. This collaborative process allows each of the team members to have an impact on all aspects of the building design, highlights where integrated solutions are feasible, and reveals any potential system inefficiencies that may not have been apparent had team members been working in isolation. It also helps to engender ownership of the sustainable building by all stakeholders. However, it is important to remember that integrated design is an ongoing process, not a one-off event, and that the principles of communication, integration and cross-functional collaboration must continue beyond the charrette.

Where is sustainable design used?

Integrated design is undertaken at the frontier of sustainable design, where the project brief requires best practice standards in building design and high sustainability performance. Melbourne's Council House 2 (CH2) is an excellent example of the integrated design process, the successful incorporation of new sustainability technologies, and the delivery of sustainable performance outcomes. The design process used at CH2 will inform the design and development of subsequent commercial buildings, thus facilitating the transition toward standard practice in the industry.

The importance of sustainable design

• What are the drivers for sustainable design?
• What are the benefits of sustainable design?
  • Benefits for designers
  • Benefits for developers
  • Benefits for builders
  • Benefits for managers
  • Benefits for occupiers
  • Benefits for owners
• What are the barriers to the take-up of sustainable design?
• What are the risks associated with sustainable design?

Buildings have a significant impact on the environment, both in their construction and in their operation. Buildings consume around 32% of the world's resources, including 12% of its water. Buildings also produce 40% of waste going to landfill and 40% of air emissions (OECD, 2003). In Australia, commercial buildings produce 8.8% of the national greenhouse emissions, and therefore have a major part to play in meeting Australia's international greenhouse obligations (DEH, 2001).

According to Romm (1994, p.111, 'when just one per cent of a project's up-front costs are spent, up to 70 per cent of its life cycle costs may already be committed; when seven per cent of project costs are spent, up to 85 per cent of life cycle costs have been committed'.

Pears (2000, p.174-175) states that the first casualties of cost cutting by developers and owners are time for analysis and optimisation of the design, and lack of integration between specialists in the planning stage. These may have significant implications for life cycle costs and environmental performance, leading to costly system faults, imbalances and failures as the system goes into operation.

The implementation of a successful design process facilitates the achievement of sustainability outcomes for the building, as sustainability is embedded from the outset as an integral part of the design process. Successful design entails the collaboration of the disciplines and project team members, and the optimisation of the design solution, with the aim of reducing the building's life cycle costs and minimising impacts on the environment and society.

Sustainable buildings produced using an integrated design process improve the environmental bottom line in a number of ways. The resources specified to construct and operate the building either have a lower environmental impact or their use reduces the impact. This reduces the rate of resource depletion (e.g. energy and water) and reduces environmental impacts like pollution, emissions and waste generation. Conserving resources is important for future generations.

The application of sustainable design improves the social bottom line by promoting the health, well-being and productivity of building occupants. The identity and image of an organisation is largely tied to their place of business and, as environmental and humanitarian corporate responsibility gains widespread recognition, so does the importance of ensuring that business practices meet social expectations.

Implementing a successful sustainable design process also improves the financial bottom line over the life cycle of the building, as the building solution minimises operational costs (such as water, energy and waste disposal costs), and can increase the rental return and financial value of the building. The largest financial outlay of an organisation occupying a commercial building consists of the wages of their workers. Worker productivity, health, absenteeism and staff churn are all significantly affected by indoor environment quality (IEQ), which is addressed during the sustainable design and decision-making process.

What are the drivers for sustainable design?

A combination of the 'pull' from an increasing market demand for green buildings and the 'push' from government legislation is systematically weeding out the worst environmentally performing buildings and slowly but surely moving the market towards a more sustainable base. Sustainability performance in buildings is being increasingly legislated in the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and in state and local government regulatory controls. In addition, many government agencies and private developers are requiring certain sustainability performance levels to be achieved (e.g. Green Star, ABGR) in the refurbishment or construction of their projects. The successful achievement of these performance requirements necessitates the implementation of a sustainable design process.

In addition to this increased demand for sustainable buildings, designers have a responsibility to advocate for better environmental, social and economic outcomes when designing buildings. Those who have the knowledge, foresight and experience in implementing sustainable design and managing the integrated design process will take the opportunity to position themselves at the forefront of the field of sustainable design.

What are the benefits of sustainable design?

Benefits for designers

Designers who have experience in applying the sustainable design process have the opportunity to position themselves at the forefront of the field of sustainable design, meaning that they are more likely to win work, particularly with government clients or tenants who are required to lease or construct buildings with clear sustainability performance standards.

In conventional practice, there is a lack of accountability for design outcomes, resulting from the lack of a communication loop between designers, builders, managers and occupiers to provide post-occupancy feedback. The sustainable design process, with its emphasis on post-occupancy evaluation (POE) and building performance assessment, means that designers can be held accountable for the design decisions they make, which in turn ensures that designers learn from past practices and apply the lessons learned to their next project. In doing so, sustainable design consultants will continue to improve, gaining market share.

Benefits for developers

As a result of the sustainable design process, buildings are created that are likely to appeal to a growing niche market. An increasing number of tenants are looking for green buildings in which to house their staff, usually for environmental and social reasons (e.g. corporate responsibility, corporate branding, worker productivity). Developers who respond to this growing niche market are more likely to attract like-minded tenants or purchasers, particularly government clients or tenants who are required to lease or develop buildings with clear sustainability performance standards. In contrast, non-sustainable buildings may not appeal to government agencies and other organisations, decreasing the demand for (and therefore the value of) the building.

Benefits for builders

Builders benefit from a sustainable design process as many sustainability initiatives make materials handling on site safer, ensuring a healthier work environment for contractors. Sustainable design advocates non-toxic materials, adhesives, sealants and finishes, such as E0 MDF and low volatile organic compound (VOC) paint. Sustainable design also advocates resource efficiency, and builders benefit from this on site by collecting, separating, storing and recycling or re-using materials, thereby offsetting the costs of new materials and reducing the fees associated with taking materials to landfill. Other benefits for builders include being recognised for their expertise in sustainable construction and for being a good corporate citizen.

Benefits for managers

Sustainable design produces buildings that create less construction waste, use fewer resources to operate, and incorporate technology to provide performance feedback. Sustainable design also embeds mechanisms with which to improve operational waste management and disposal. These features permit building managers to more closely monitor the building's resource consumption. It is only when one can measure elements of a building's operation that one can start to effectively manage and improve them.

One of the major benefits to facility managers of sustainable design is that they are likely to spend less time responding to complaints, as the building systems should work better(due to the integrated design process and appropriate installation/commissioning processes).This frees them to work on higher-level issues, like improving operations.

Building managers and maintenance staff working in sustainable buildings reap the same social and health benefits of improved indoor environment quality (IEQ) as tenants do. Managers can also optimise IEQ through their choice of maintenance chemicals and maintenance techniques, such as those required under AS/NZS3666 part 2 and duct cleaning. These benefits can be further enhanced through their knowledge of the building's active systems (plant and services) and reduced dependency (due to optimised building fabric) on air-handling equipment that uses ozone-depleting and global-warming synthetic refrigerants. Using Australian Refrigeration Council (ARC) licensed refrigeration technicians is essential (see http://www.arctick.org for more information), as are the proper handling of gases and reclamation.

Benefits for occupiers

Buildings that are designed using a sustainable design process will increasingly appeal to tenants, who seek to provide workplaces that offer the best physical environment for their staff. Indoor environment quality (IEQ) is a key component of sustainable design. Good IEQ has social, health and financial benefits (due to improved worker productivity, reduced absenteeism and staff turnover).

As corporate responsibility (CR) gains widespread recognition, so does the importance of selecting, leasing or purchasing sustainable buildings or workspaces for organisations. A sustainable design process ensures that environmental standards are met and social expectations and needs are fulfilled.

Benefits for owners

A sustainable design process produces buildings that use resources which, of themselves or by their use, reduce the environmental impacts of construction and operation. As a result, the building owner may benefit through reduced operational and maintenance costs. Improved building fabric performance (including the use of shading, insulation, thermal mass etc.) may result in reduced demand on active systems, thereby reducing plant and system sizing and the area required for services, and extending the intervals between plant replacements.

As consumer awareness of sustainability issues increases, so does the demand for high-performance sustainable buildings for tenants to occupy. Owners responding to this market direction by modifying, upgrading and enhancing their building stock accordingly will find it increasingly easy to lease or sell office space. Like developers, owners of sustainable buildings are also likely to benefit from the decreasing demand for (and therefore the decreasing value of) non-green buildings by government and other organisations.

What are the barriers to the take-up of sustainable design?

Although most designers factor energy efficiency considerations into their designs (e.g. passive solar design), sustainable design has been seen in the past as 'nice to have' or an 'add-on' to supplement conventional design, but certainly not as essential or an integrated part of the design process. This barrier is beginning to be overcome as awareness about environmental impacts and the threat of climate change increases. Additionally, there are clients who are not very discerning or informed. Their ideas of sustainable design are sometimes limited to eco-gadgetry in isolation (e.g. PVs and rainwater tanks).

A barrier to effectively applying a sustainable design process is the conventional discipline-specific approach of professionals and their lack of understanding of an integrated multi-disciplinary process. Conventional professional practitioners need to develop an understanding of a holistic design process and how to tailor their contribution in the context of the whole. Through the sustainable design process, project team members work within their area of expertise, but can take advantage of information from other disciplines that affect their design processes and outcomes.

The construction industry is fairly conservative and very risk averse. The amount of money invested in construction means that mistakes and delays to the project time frame can be very costly to the client, building owners, developers, designers and builders. This, in turn, means that they are less likely to deviate from conventional practice and promote 'new' methods, such as sustainable design. Successful large-scale builders, designers, developers and owners are reluctant to change the status quo, as there is significant momentum and money invested in repeating financially successful past practices in preference to the perceived risk of new processes.

Sustainable design has the potential to add time to each phase of a project. In the briefing and feasibility stages, extra time may be required to justify budget allocations for sustainability initiatives and to discuss the client's expectations for the building. More time may be required to facilitate an integrated design process and the construction program may require more time to install environmental management practices, such as waste recycling. Finally, at handover, extra time may be required to commission and finetune a sustainable building, as well as to educate users about the systems within the building.

A barrier to sustainable design is the lack of accountability of sustainability outcomes, which makes it difficult to quantify any real benefits. There is a growing demand for rating tools to measure and benchmark building design and performance. These include Australia's Australian Building Greenhouse Rating Scheme (ABGR), National Australian Built Environment Rating Scheme (NABERS) and Green Star, which are designed to assist design teams and building managers in numerating the benefits and outcomes of sustainable building design and operation.

According to the principle of sustainable design, the entire life cycle of the building should be addressed from the planning phases through to building design, construction, operation and demolition. Most of Australia's rating tools (and international tools, such as BREEAM and LEED) cover the design stage of a building and, in part, the construction and operational phases. However, there is a distinct lack of whole-of-life cycle coverage among these standards, with the exceptions of rating tools from Canada and Germany. In addition, some of these tools also shy away from addressing the social issues inherent in the sustainable design of buildings. As Bunz et al. (2006, p.61) state, 'designing sustainable buildings depends on considerations of the entire life cycle when implementing sustainable features into designs. Designing for the life cycle of a building will help designers meet the needs of today, without adversely affecting future generations'.

What are the risks associated with sustainable design?

Many of the risks associated with sustainable design relate to accurate assessments of the future impact of design decisions. Assumptions are often made of the likely impact of sustainable design features, such as shading, increased thermal mass, durable finishes and more efficient plant. However, as these systems have often not been included in existing buildings, these assessments are based on simulation or well-informed speculation that predicts potential, but not actual, outcomes.

There are many appropriately qualified and skilled sustainability professionals in the industry; however, there are also many people claiming to be sustainability experts that are not. This can mislead clients, hinder or prevent ratings from being achieved, and discourage developers from building green in the future.

Individual occupant behaviour is impossible to predict, and design decisions are usually made on majority behaviour. Even the most advanced comfort evaluation system in use today, known as predicted mean vote (PMV), will only identify a certain indoor condition as comfortable in relation to a majority of 'typical' people and never to all. Sustainable design is best measured and appreciated in relative terms. Occupant behaviour can also be troublesome when it comes to building operation. For example, the design team may make assumptions about how users will behave when comfort conditions change; however, if the occupants behave differently, then the expected outcomes may not occur. When building systems require participation from users, varying levels of occupant ownership will result in varying levels of cooperation. This risk may be reduced if users and occupants are consulted and engaged in the design process, if a building handover (and building manual) are provided, and if users are trained about how the building works and why cooperation is important. Furthermore, there is also a need to recognise that, in some building types, there is a high turnover of occupants. Maintaining occupant understanding of building operation is very difficult in such situations.

A potential risk for HVAC engineers involved in the sustainable design process is that 'in many cases, designers may be penalised for producing more energy efficient designs. If, for example, the basis for HVAC engineers' fees is the size of the HVAC equipment, it is not to their economic advantage to reduce energy requirements, because they will also reduce the equipment size and thus their fee' (Papmichael, 2000, p.8). However, this is not a common occurrence in Australia, as engineers tend to work on a fixed-fee basis or hourly rate.

Sustainable commercial buildings are increasingly becoming more highly engineered, incorporating sophisticated design and technologies in a variety of innovative ways. This means that these buildings need to be continually tuned in the same manner as a high performance car to ensure that performance is optimal. If the design team does not facilitate knowledge transfer to building managers regarding building services, and does not ensure that a management plan is in place to ensure continual building tuning, severe operational inefficiencies can occur, resulting in financial losses, poor indoor environment quality (IEQ), and increased risk and liability for the building owner.

Accompanying the sustainable design process is the perceived risk of failure of innovative materials or technologies. These materials or technologies may not have been tested in the range of Australian climates, for a particular building-type, or under certain operational conditions. Risks include operational inefficiencies (due to poor function), or complete failure, resulting in financial impacts and potential social and environmental impacts. Unfamiliarity of contractors with the installation of innovative materials and technologies can potentially lead to time delays in the construction schedule, consequently resulting in increased costs. For example, concrete with higher recycled content requires longer curing times. The selection of innovative materials or technologies can also lead to unpredicted cost blow-outs, due to the valuer's potential inexperience with costing or valuing new materials, technologies and methods.

In the current climate, the market response to green buildings is likely to be favourable; however this is not guaranteed. Therefore building owners, developers and investors can not be certain of a high rental return.

Sources of major impact

Sources of inefficiency and ineffectiveness in the design process that can potentially have a significant impact on sustainability performance include:

• failure to ensure that cross-disciplinary collaboration and communication extends beyond the charrette and throughout the entire project life cycle
• failure to follow through, develop, refine and implement the planned sustainability initiatives at each stage of the project's life cycle
• resistance of project financiers to paying the higher costs of an integrated design process
• separation of responsibilities along the building life cycle.

The holding of a design charrette can be a potential source of impact on the sustainability outcomes of the building. Often the charrette, as a mechanism for integrated design, is seen as an event that happens once. A risk of a one-off charrette is that the sustainability objectives and strategy developed in the charrette may not be followed through and implemented at all stages of the development process. A truly sustainable design process will ensure that the communication, integration and cross-disciplinary collaboration extend beyond the charrette and are part of a continuing process.

Failure to follow through, develop, refine and successfully implement the planned sustainability initiatives at each stage of the project's life cycle can have a major impact on the sustainability performance of a building. For example, a building owner who has requested the design team to innovate, but who has not allowed for the time or costs required to follow up the implementation of the proposed sustainability initiatives with commissioning and post-occupancy evaluation (POE) studies, can undermine the sustainability outcomes arising from the design process. Feedback, identification of lessons learned, and critical analysis are required in order to facilitate continual improvement.

Another source of impact is a lack of knowledge and understanding of the design process required to achieve sustainable outcomes. Many financiers of commercial buildings (e.g. owners, developers, trusts etc.) also fail to understand the costs associated with sustainable design processes. Financiers may resist paying the higher costs involved with implementing an integrated design process due to the extra time required by the project team for coordination and collaboration.

The separation of responsibilities throughout the project life cycle can be a source of inefficiency that can potentially have an impact on sustainability performance. There is a general lack of knowledge sharing and communication amongst design team members and stakeholders in the traditional design process, particularly between the design team, building managers and building occupants. Designers, such as engineers, tend to be only involved until the end of the design process, and architects tend to be involved in the design process up until the end of the construction period, whereas facility managers and occupants assume occupancy post-construction. There is a risk that the building may not be operated, managed and maintained by the building managers and tenants as the design team envisioned, leading to operational inefficiencies and, potentially, a greater impact on the environment. This is a barrier that needs to be highlighted up-front to the client, design team and stakeholders, and overcome by a sustainable design approach and an integrated design process.

Policies, regulations and standards

• What current sustainable design policies, regulations and standards exist?
  • What current sustainable design process policies exist?
  • What current sustainable design regulations exist?
  • What current sustainable design standards exist?
• What is driving sustainable policies, regulations and standards?
• What are the impacts of future sustainable design policies, regulations and standards on developments?

Policies are designed to set directions, regulations are used to enact polices, and standards contain the technical mechanisms required to measure and report outcomes. Policies, regulations and standards rarely dictate a process to follow, but rather focus on a finished product or an outcome. There are varying policies, regulations and standards at local, state and national levels of government in relation to sustainable building design outcomes. However, one consistent shortfall is their lack of measurable targets.

What current sustainable design policies, regulations and standards exist?

What current sustainable design process policies exist?

There are currently few policies in Australia that set directions for sustainable design as a process. However, there are a number of policies and guidelines relating to a sustainable building as an outcome or product of the design process. Some examples of these include:

• Victorian Government Property Group (VGPG), now Victorian Government Services Group, design guidelines require all new Victorian Government office buildings and fit-outs to achieve ESD standards (deferring to Green Star).
• NSW's Landcom have a set of sustainability objectives and targets for consultants working on any of their projects.
• The Melbourne Docklands ESD guide requires all new developments to meet their minimum compliance levels for energy, water etc.
• The Doncaster Hill precinct design guide (City of Manningham) requires all new developments within this activity centre to meet certain ESD standards.
• Melbourne City Planning Scheme (City of Melbourne) calls for all new office developments over a certain size to achieve a Green Star rating at the town planning submission stage.
• The Victorian and South Australian Governments have mandated a 5-star Green Star rating for all new commercial office accommodation built or leased.
• The NSW Government requires new office accommodation to be 4.5-star ABGR or better.
• The Property Council of Australia guide to office building quality includes a requirement for premium grade and A-grade buildings to achieve a 4-star Green Star certified rating.
  Top

What current sustainable design regulations exist?

There are currently no regulations in Australia that outline requirements for implementing a sustainable design process.

For sustainable buildings, Sections I and J of the Building Code of Australia (BCA) introduce minimum energy performance requirements and maintenance for energy efficiency into national legislation for commercial buildings. Requirements for other sustainability aspects (e.g. water conservation and materials use) may be incorporated into the BCA in the future (for more information, see The legislative context of sustainable commercial buildings).

What current sustainable design standards exist?

There are currently no standards in Australia pertaining to the implementation of a sustainable design process. Standards Australia Committee SB-000 is working on a standard for sustainability in buildings. All other Australian standards are being reviewed for possible inclusion of sustainability aspects.

The Architect's Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA) competency standards have been in existence for around 14 years, and include all of the competency standards required for registration as an architect in Australia.

The Building Designers Association of Australia (BDA) have developed competency standards for the provision of building design services, which outline the competency-based occupational standards for design professionals practicing in the design of buildings in Australia. The standards cover activities undertaken during the conventional design and documentation process. Some of the activities refer to the incorporation of sustainability initiatives.

What is driving sustainable design policies, regulations and standards?

There are a number of drivers for the development of policies, regulations and standards relating to the sustainable design process. These include:

• the growing awareness in the community and industry of climate change
• advances in scientific data and research
• social expectations
• future-proofing against future legislation, utility costs etc.
• the need to consistently raise the bar that represents minimum sustainability performance
• high-profile business failures (e.g. Enron), industrial accidents (e.g. Exxon Valdez) and health, safety and environmental duty of care breaches (e.g. James Hardie asbestos crisis)
• international pressure
• marketability.

These drivers are outlined in further detail in The legislative context of sustainable commercial buildings.

What are the impacts of future sustainable design policies, regulations and standards on developments?

The increasing regulation of buildings and their sustainability aspects will necessitate the implementation of a sustainable design process in order to achieve the desired (or regulated) sustainability outcomes.

For example, the Victorian Government has a policy to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from their buildings by 15% by July 2005/06. However, benchmarks, methods of measurement and compliance reporting are not contained within this policy. Instead, the policy has been enacted through a revision of the Victorian Government Property Group's (VGPG) design and accommodation guidelines (DTF, 2005). These guidelines require new government buildings and tenancies to achieve ESD targets, and refer to other assessment tools for the methods of measurement and reporting (Green Star and ABGR). The pre-determined sustainability goals will only be achieved if a sustainable design process is commenced from the project's inception. The use of Green Star as a compliance tool, rather than a tool to reward excellence, will be interesting to observe.

Measures and assessment

In Australia, there are a range of tools that can be applied to sustainable buildings as products or outcomes of the design process. These tools go beyond minimum compliance with the Building Code of Australia (BCA) and measure performance in terms of good and best practice. The tools allow designers to assess a building's sustainability performance and to benchmark their design against others. They include:

• the Green Star suite of rating tools
• Australian Building Greenhouse Rating (ABGR)
• National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS), which includes ABGR, NABERS Water and NABERS IEQ
• Victoria's Sustainable Design Scorecard (SDS).

International design assessment tools include:

• LEED, ASHRAE (US)
• C-2000 IDP, CBIP, GBTool (Canada)
• BREEAM (UK)
• Guideline for Sustainable Building (Germany)
• GreenCalc (The Netherlands)
• CASBEE (Japan)
• HK-BEAM (Hong Kong)

In addition, the success of the design outcomes can be measured by undertaking a triple bottom line (TBL) assessment, which gauges the short- and long-term financial, environmental and social impacts of the building in a holistic manner. There is no clear consensus on how to balance the financial, environmental and social components of a triple bottom line assessment. For example, is the indoor environment quality (IEQ) of an office building more important than reducing the energy consumed in guaranteeing that IEQ? Many social measures, such as IEQ, are difficult to translate into a common denominator for evaluation against financial and environmental outcomes. Finding a balance or assigning a weighting of importance between the three categories of a triple bottom line assessment is a subjective matter and is likely to remain so.

Another key aspect in assessing the social, environmental and economic outcomes of a building project is to recognise the conflicting priorities of the parties involved. The owner, developer, contractors, designers, occupiers and managers will all emphasise different TBL measures, depending on the impact of that measure on their involvement in the project. For example, owners may be concerned with capital cost and tenancy occupation rates; the developer with construction time; the occupiers with tenancy operational costs and staff productivity levels; and the building manager with maintenance requirements. These factors are all interrelated and it is the designer's role to balance these requirements with their own aesthetic and design agendas.

Opportunities for implementing a successful sustainable design process

• Early establishment of project team
• Appointment of an ESD ombudsman
• Early establishment of project sustainability goals
• Sufficient design development time
• Enhanced communication pathway
• Life cycle costing
• Design/construction/operational team review

The sustainable design and management process is considered by some academics and practitioners to be a new style or process; however, the majority believe that sustainable design is an improvement to the existing conventional design process.

Isaacs (2002) proposes that 'sustainable building can be achieved when using a new way of thinking and an improved process for design and management which involves early team formation, definition of team responsibilities, holistic design, establishment of goals and evaluation criteria, and use of life cycle costing and value management'. The figure below shows Isaac's model of team organisation and the tasks required to improve the design and procurement process, in order to achieve sustainable outcomes. The shaded boxes in the figure represent the 'improved process' elements, which include:

• definition of environmental and financial goals
• seeking an environmental rating level
• a true teaming approach, where all are considered partners to determine and achieve goals, and where integrity, professionalism and appropriate innovation are fostered and rewarded
• the appointment of a 'sustainability facilitator', who acts as an ombudsman to guide the sustainability thinking and advancement of initiatives and to ensure consistent application of goals and evaluation criteria
• value management supported by financial modelling, using life cycle costing and any tax incentives. Evaluation criteria must be agreed upon and the client must be directly involved
• a possible performance contract that provides additional incentive for the design team to meet environmental goals
• the use of guidelines and tools (such as standards and benchmarks), a sustainable specification, and computer-based simulation studies
• access to new products and materials, including developing technologies – 'leading edge' and not 'bleeding edge'.

Riley et al. (2004) believe that integrated design is a new design approach, stating that:

'an integrated design process is needed to achieve "green" attributes, and this places great demand on the design team. The integrated design process primarily involves increased interaction and communication among design disciplines, due to the increased interplay between building systems. In an integrated design process, building systems are designed in parallel, rather than series, so that the cumulative effect of design decisions concerning one system can be evaluated on other systems. This process departs from established "sequential" design processes, where various disciplines contribute to a design with limited interaction with other disciplines. This new design approach presents a major challenge to creating coherent and complete designs, and typically requires increased expenditure of project resources for design services'.

There are a range of opportunities for improving the efficiency of the sustainable design process. These are discussed below.

Early establishment of project team

The key project team members should be identified from the outset of the project, so that the process of creating a holistic and integrated design solution can commence. In the conventional design process, design professionals and experts tend to be brought on as required. Giving conscious thought to the sustainability goals, needs and requirements at the earliest possible moment will facilitate the prompt engagement of relevant experts. The design professionals' roles and responsibilities should be clearly defined to ensure that the sustainability initiatives that they are responsible for are followed through, developed, refined and implemented from the outset of the project. If responsibilities are not assigned, sustainability initiatives could potentially slip through the cracks or be cut out.

Appointment of an ESD ombudsman

In the conventional design process, the architect or engineer often take up the role of ESD champion, which can lead to a focus on the ESD aspects of the building fabric or building services, and not necessarily a building solution that integrates both fabric and services in a holistic manner. The appointment of a sustainability ombudsman to the project team is aimed at providing an independent facilitator to guide the sustainability discussion and to negotiate and advance the sustainability inputs of the design professionals, ensuring consistent application of objectives and assessment criteria.

Early establishment of project sustainability goals

During the scoping stage of the project and engagement of the project team, environmental, social and financial goals should be discussed and determined. The advantage of setting project sustainability objectives early is that a framework and strategy develops that enables and facilitates the achievement of these goals. The sustainability evaluation criteria and the required level of sustainability (minimum compliance through to best practice) should be set. These activities can be further developed and refined by the project team and key stakeholders as part of an integrated design process.

Lorch (2000, p.156) suggests that an integrated approach to design 'may require additional professional input in terms of thought, time, effort and communication' but that the value added to the resulting project is typically disproportionately greater than the rewards earned by the design team. Lorch (2000, p.158) also proposes that 'a performance-based fee that rewards the design team for their extra efforts and skills in adding value to the building may be necessary and appropriate in order to encourage the valuing of design and in order to drive sustainable building design'.

Issacs (2002) agrees, proposing that the design team could potentially be engaged under a performance contract, which would provide additional incentive for the design team to meet environmental goals.

Sufficient design development time

It is generally acknowledged that the process of sustainable, or integrated, design can take additional time and effort from those involved, particularly during the early concept design phase. However, it is also universally acknowledged that the extra time spent on design can result in time saving during the construction process, as well as operational savings over the lifetime of the building. In competitive fee bidding, consultants are unlikely to allow for such an additional commitment unless it is requested by the client in the brief. Thus the sustainable design process relies much upon clients having the vision and the will to set aside additional fees and time for the delivery of the design.

Enhanced communication pathway

A common mechanism to encourage communication, collaboration and integration of the design team is the design charrette, or workshop. Participants include the client, representatives of the design, construction and management teams, occupiers (if known), and key stakeholders. Charrettes provide participants with the opportunity for equitable participation and contribution. The aims of a charrette are to provide an open forum for discussion and debate of sustainability issues amongst the design team, and to define the constraints and opportunities for the project. Ideas for consistent, integrated approaches are formulated for the building solution, and actions that lead to positive outcomes and impacts are identified.

A key feature of the sustainable design process is the establishment and continued maintenance of an enhanced communication and feedback loop between the design professionals and the people who construct, occupy and manage the building. This loop forms the critical link between building operations (measured outcomes of building performance collected by building management systems) and informed design decision making. The loop needs to be initiated in the design stage and must include a post-occupancy evaluation (POE).

Life cycle costing

An essential aspect of the sustainable design process is the activity of value management supported by life cycle costing. Typically, financial modelling undertaken during the conventional design process only considers the up-front capital costs of materials, equipment and building services. Many sustainability initiatives can be more expensive than equivalent conventional systems, yet yield far greater operational savings, which will be accounted for in the life cycle costing process. Life cycle costing accounts for the financial aspects of the project and building over the life of the building, and factors operational savings, paybacks and tax incentives into the equation. This gives a more realistic financial bottom line, as increased rental returns or capital value can be included. The evaluation criteria must be agreed upon with the client, and the client must be directly involved in the life cycle costing and value management process.

Design/construction/operational team review

To facilitate continual improvement to the design process, it is essential that designers are aware of the performance outcomes of their design. In the traditional design process, the role of the design team finishes with the building's practical completion and occupation. It is very rare for the architect or consultant to return at a later date and receive feedback on how the building is performing and whether the occupants' needs are being met. A sustainable design process includes a mechanism for knowledge sharing between the design team, contractors, managers and occupiers, in the form of a post-occupancy evaluation (POE). POEs assess whether a building is performing to expectations, whether the sustainability goals have been achieved, and whether the occupants are happy with their work environment. The results of the POE highlight the lessons learned (both successes and mistakes) by the design team, so that they can carry this knowledge to subsequent projects. POEs are commonplace in Europe and are growing in use in Australia. If current trends persist, they will also become common practice here.

Links

Tools

Australian Building Greenhouse Rating (ABGR): http://www.abgr.com.au
Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM): http://www.bre.co.uk
Docklands ESD Rating Award Scheme: http://www.docklands.com
Green Star: http://www.gbcaus.org
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED): www.usgbc.org/LEED
National Australian Built Environment Rating System (NABERS): http://www.nabers.com.au/
Sustainable Design Scorecard: http://www.morelandsteps.com.au

Organisations and associations

Architect's Accreditation Council of Australia (AACA): http://www.aaca.org.au
Association of Consulting Engineers Australia (ACEA): http://www.acea.com.au/
Australian Building Codes Board (ABCB): http://www.abcb.gov.au/
Australian Institute of Air-conditioning and Heating (AIRAH): http://www.airah.org.au
Australian Institute of Landscape Architects (AILA): http://www.aila.org.au/
Building Designers Association of Australia (BDA): http://www.bdaa.com.au/
Department of the Environment and Water Resources (DEWR): http://www.environment.gov.au
Engineers Australia (EA): http://www.engineersaustralia.org.au/
Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA): http://www.gbcaus.org
Landcom: http://www.landcom.com.au
Property Council of Australia (PCA): http://www.propertyoz.com.au/
Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI): http://www.rmi.org/
Royal Australian Institute of Architects (RAIA): http://www.raia.com.au
Standards Australia: http://www.standards.org.au/
Victorian Government Services Group (VGSG): http://www.dtf.vic.gov.au

References

Bunz, K.R., Gregor P., Henze, P.E. & Dale K. (2006), 'Tiller survey of sustainable building design practices in North America, Europe and Asia', Journal of Architectural Engineering, March.

Chapman R.J. (1998), 'The role of system dynamics in understanding the impact of changes to key project personnel on design production within construction projects', International Journal of Project Management, 16, 235-347.

Clipson, C. (1992), 'Contradictions and challenges in managing design', Journal of Architectural Education, 45(4).

Cole, R.J. (2000), 'Editorial: cost and value in building green', Building Research and Information, 28(5/6), 304-309.

Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (2002), The value of good design: how buildings and spaces create economic and social value, London: CABE.

Department of Environment and Heritage (2001), Australia state of the environment report, Canberra: DEH.

Department of Environment and Heritage (2006), ESD design guide for Australian Government buildings (Edition 2), Canberra: DEH, Accessed from
http://www.environment.gov.au/settlements/publications/government/esd-design/.

Department of Sustainability and Environment (2003), Environmentally sustainable design and construction (ESDC): principles and guidelines for capital works projects, Melbourne: DSE, Accessed from Department of Sustainability and Environment website.

Building and Construction Interchange Australia & Green Building Council of Australia (2006), Green building market report, Sydney: BCI & GBCA.

Department of Treasury and Finance (2001), Victorian Government office building standard guidelines, Melbourne: DTF, Accessed from DTF website.

Department of Treasury and Finance (2005), Victorian Government office accommodation guidelines, Melbourne: DTF, Accessed from DTF website.

Green Building Council of Australia (2006), The dollars and sense of green buildings: building the business case for green commercial buildings in Australia, Sydney: GBCA

Hes, D. (2005), Facilitating 'green' building: turning observation into practice, PhD thesis, RMIT University.

Isaacs, P. (2002), Achieving sustainable building results from new processes and strategies, Accessed from www.cre8ive.com.au.

Larsson, N. & Clark, J. (2000), 'Incremental costs within the design process', Building Research and Information, 28(5/6), 413-418.

Lewis, M. (2002), Green buildings – The growing emphasis on building performance and occupant health, Accessed from http://www.ctg-net.com/Energetics/YourResources/green-buildings-article-OCAIA.htm

Lockwood, C. (2006), 'Building the green way', Harvard Business Review, 84(6), 129-137.

Lorch, R. (2000), 'Editorial: rewarding professionals', Building Research and Information, 28(3), 156-158.

Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (2003), Environmentally sustainable buildings: challenges and policies, Paris: OECD.

Papmichael, K. (2000), 'Green building performance prediction/assessment',
Building Research and Information, 28(5/6), 394-402.

Pears, A., 'Technologies and processes for ecological sustainability', in Dunphy, D., Benveniste, J., Griffiths, A. & Sutton, P. (eds) (2000), Sustainability: the corporate challenge of the 21st century, St Leonards: Allen & Unwin, 167-190.

Riley, D.R., Magent, C.T. & Horman, M.J. (2004), Sustainable metrics: a design process model for high performance buildings, Proceedings from the CIB T4 Sustainable Construction group. Toronto: CIB.

Romm, J.J. (1994), Lean and clean management: how to boost profits and productivity by reducing pollution, New York: Kodansha International.

Schumacher, E.F. (1973), Small is beautiful, New York: Harper & Row Publishers Inc.

Sustainable Building Leaders Project (2006), Sustainable building pathway: accelerating transformation in the commercial building sector, Melbourne: Building Commission Victoria, Accessed from http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/www/html/813-sustainable-building-pathway.asp.

Tombesi, P., Dave, B., Gardiner, B., & Scriver, P. (2007), 'Rules of engagement', Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 49-64.

Van der Ryn, S. & Cowen, S. (1996), Ecological design, Washington DC: Island Press.