Eisenstein, W; Fuertes, G; Kaam, S; Seigel, K; Arens, E and Mozingo, L (2017) Climate co-benefits of green building standards: Water, waste and transportation. Building Research & Information, 45(8), pp. 828-844. ISSN 0961-3218
Abstract
This paper quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions co-benefits associated with water, waste and transportation usage in certified green commercial office buildings in California. The study compares the measured values of water, waste and transportation usage self-reported by office buildings certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for Existing Building Operations and Maintenance (LEED EBOM) to baseline values of conventional California office buildings. The green buildings in the LEED EBOM dataset produced 50% less GHGs due to water consumption than baseline buildings, 48% less due to solid waste management, and 5% less due to transportation. If applied to the entire California office building stock, performance typical of the certified green buildings would save 730,038 MgCO(2)e/yr (metric tonnes) from transportation, 87,601 MgCO(2)e/yr from water, and 45,280 MgCO(2)e/yr from waste, for a total potential savings of about 862,920 MgCO(2)e/yr relative to conventional construction. In addition, buildings earning additional credits for specified performance thresholds for water and waste in the LEED EBOM code attained performance levels even higher than required by the code provisions, suggesting that such code provisions in other contexts may help incentivize larger GHG emissions reductions than anticipated. Specific recommendations are made for building standards and certification schemes.;This paper quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions co-benefits associated with water, waste and transportation usage in certified green commercial office buildings in California. The study compares the measured values of water, waste and transportation usage self-reported by office buildings certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for Existing Building Operations and Maintenance (LEED EBOM) to baseline values of conventional California office buildings. The green buildings in the LEED EBOM dataset produced 50% less GHGs due to water consumption than baseline buildings, 48% less due to solid waste management, and 5% less due to transportation. If applied to the entire California office building stock, performance typical of the certified green buildings would save 730,038 MgCO2e/yr (metric tonnes) from transportation, 87,601 MgCO2e/yr from water, and 45,280 MgCO2e/yr from waste, for a total potential savings of about 862,920 MgCO2e/yr relative to conventional construction. In addition, buildings earning additional credits for specified performance thresholds for water and waste in the LEED EBOM code attained performance levels even higher than required by the code provisions, suggesting that such code provisions in other contexts may help incentivize larger GHG emissions reductions than anticipated. Specific recommendations are made for building standards and certification schemes.;This paper quantifies the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions co-benefits associated with water, waste and transportation usage in certified green commercial office buildings in California. The study compares the measured values of water, waste and transportation usage self-reported by office buildings certified under the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system for Existing Building Operations and Maintenance (LEED EBOM) to baseline values of conventional California office buildings. The green buildings in the LEED EBOM dataset produced 50% less GHGs due to water consumption than baseline buildings, 48% less due to solid waste management, and 5% less due to transportation. If applied to the entire California office building stock, performance typical of the certified green buildings would save 730,038 MgCO 2 e/yr (metric tonnes) from transportation, 87,601 MgCO 2 e/yr from water, and 45,280 MgCO 2 e/yr from waste, for a total potential savings of about 862,920 MgCO 2 e/yr relative to conventional construction. In addition, buildings earning additional credits for specified performance thresholds for water and waste in the LEED EBOM code atta ned performance levels even higher than required by the code provisions, suggesting that such code provisions in other contexts may help incentivize larger GHG emissions reductions than anticipated. Specific recommendations are made for building standards and certification schemes.;
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | environmental assessment; building assessment systems; green buildings; life-cycle energy; residential buildings; greenhouse effect; green development; environmental design; environmental engineering; emissions; emission standards; commercial buildings; solid waste management |
| Index terms: | residential building, building assessment, certification, emission standard, commercial office, greenhouse effect, environmental design, office building, environmental engineering, savings, commercial building, green development, green building, dataset, building operation, water consumption, solid waste management, environmental assessment, greenhouse gas |
| Subjects: | sustainable design, management, design practice, administrative processes, environmental engineering, data management, sustainable engineering, asset management, environmental impact, waste management, climate science, construction type, economic analysis, sustainability and energy, environmental resource management |
| Topics: | Business Strategy, Construction Technology, Sustainability, Design Practice, Digital Applications, Contract Administration |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here