A Comparison of International Rating Tools 16th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference 24 - 27 June 2009 Stockholm Richard Reed Anita Bilos Sara Wilkinson Karl Werner-Schulte Deakin University IRE|BS University Regensburg Australia Germany

International rating tools The need for global rating tools Overview International rating tools The need for global rating tools The development of rating tools from an international perspective An international comparison of BREEAM, LEED, Green Star, CASBEE and DGNB Difficulties with comparing rating tools Conclusion and further research

Figure 1. Complex System of International Rating Tools Source: IRE|BS

Figure 2. Countries with Established or Emerging Rating Tools Source: IRE|BS

Figure 3. Countries with Various Rating Tool Development Levels Source: IRE|BS

Figure 4. LEED and BREEAM based Rating Tools Source: IRE|BS

Figure 5. Countries with Rating Tools only accepted by WGBC Source: IRE|BS

Figure 6. Timeline of the Development of Rating Tools in Different Countries Source: IRE|BS

Table 1. Main Rating Tools – ‘A Greener Profession’ (2007) UK and Europe Americas Rest of the World BREEAM (inc Eco-homes) LEED (US & Canada) Greenstar (Australia) The Green Guide to Specification U.S. DOE (U.S. Department of Energy) Design Guide (US) BEAM (Hong Kong) Office Scorer WBDG (Whole Building Design Guide) (US) LEED (China and India) ENVEST HOK Sustainable Design Guide (US) Greenmark (Singapore) Sustainability Checklists (e.g. SEEDA; BRE) BREEAM Canada (Canada) GBTool (South Africa) Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) Source: RICS 2007

Table 2. Existing Rating Tools Source: IRE|BS

Figure 1. Complex System of International Rating Tools BREEAM LEED Green Star CASBEE DGNB Launch Date 1990 1998 2003 2004 2009 Ratings PASS/GOOD/VERY GOOD/EXCELLENT/ OUTSTANDING Certified/Silver/Gold/Platinum One Star/Two Star/Three Star/Four Star/Five Star/Six Star C/B-/B+/A/S Gold, Silver, Bronze Weightings Applied to each issue category (consensus based on scientific/open consultation) All credits equally weighted, although the number of credits related to each issue is a de facto weighting Applied to each issue category (industry survey based) Highly complex weighting system applied at every level Applied to each issue category Information Gathering Design/management team or assessor Design/management team or Accredited Professional Design team Design/management team Third Party Valuation BRE N/A GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) nominated assessors Third Party Agencies e.g. JSBC (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium) Federal Ministry of Transport, Building, and Urban Affairs (BMVBS) Certification labelling USGBC (United States Green Buildings Council) GBCA JSBC Update Process Annual As required Governance UK Accreditation Service (UKAS) USGBC Required qualification Competent persons scheme Passed exam Training scheme and exam Assessor/AP CPD requirements Carry out at least one assessment per year No CPD requirements Status renewed every three years No CPD requirements at this moment Compound Annual Growth Rate 93% (1998-2007) 86% (2002-2007) Not available Assessment Collation Fee* £2000-£10000 ($3971-19857) Up to £37,770 ($75000) £2015-4030 ($4002-8004) Unknown 6.000 – 15.000 € Certification fee £740-£1500 ($1469-2979) £1133-£11331 ($2250-22500) £2550-£7185 ($5063-14268) Cost of credit appeals Free £252 ($500) £403 ($800) Credit interpretation requests cost/allowance Free/unlimited number £111 ($220) unlimited number Free/Maximum of two Number of units certified** 110808 1823 50 23 19 certified, 28 pre-certification Domestic 109450 540 All Non-Domestic 1358 1283 - Availability of assessment information Estimator tools are available free of charge. Guidance is currently only available to people who attend the training courses The tools are available free of charge and technical guidance is available for £100 ($200) The tools are available free of charge and the technical manual is available for £224 ($444) The assessment tool and guidance is available free of charge in Japanese and English. Guidance and checklists are only available for DGNB member. The website with general information is available in English.

Table 4. Issue weighting comparison table DGNB Ecological Quality 22,5 Economical Quality Socio-cultural and Functional Quality Technical Quality Quality of process 10 Source: BRE2008 & DGNB

Table 5. A Broad Comparison of Four Rating Tools Gold Silver Bronze DGNB Source: BRE2008 modified by Authors

Table 6. A Broad Comparison of Four Rating Tools UK UK/EU Hong Kong Japan Germany Australia France USA Italy Assessment Criteria BREEAM CFSH* EPCs DECs BEAM CASBEE DGNB-Seal Green Star HQE LEED Protocol ITACA Energy X CO2 Ecology Economy ? Health and Wellbeing Indoor Environmental Quality Innovation Land Use Management Materials Pollution Renewable Technologies Transport Waste Water Source: Kings Sturge 2009, modified by Authors

Global set of ‘benchmark’ parameters are established for rating tools Conclusion and further research Global set of ‘benchmark’ parameters are established for rating tools Individual characteristics of each country are considered e.g. water (flooding vs. drought) Include all buildings, not just new buildings Further research is conducted to remove confusion between rating tools

contact Richard Reed Anita Bilos richard.reed@deakin.edu.au anita.bilos@irebs.de Deakin University IRE|BS Australia Germany