Buildings, Infrastructure, and Ecology Summary

From Common Energy UVic

Note: There is now an updated version of this progress report in the Going Beyond Climate-Neutral Progress Report - April 2007

This is the draft progress report of the Buildings, Infrastructure, and Ecology Working Group.

Editors note: Boxes in blue are suggestions.

Boxes in this colour will be questions

The question posed to the Buildings, Infrastructure, and Ecology Working Group:

How can the University catalyze the revitalization of our buildings and infrastructure?

Contents 1 Introduction 2 Providing Information and Changing Behaviour 3 Building Vision, Policy and Codes 4 Restoring Campus Ecology 5 Beyond Climate-Neutral

[edit] Introduction

British Columbia has always been a world leader in sustainability. Of all the provinces BC has the largest number of buildings rated through the LEED system (Leadership in Energy Efficiency and Design). The Capital Regional District (CRD) has many examples, including the Operations Centre for the Gulf Islands National Park Reserve (Parks Canada) in Sidney, the new CRD headquarters downtown, the Vancouver Island Technology Park, and the Dockside Green community development project.

There are 24 LEED-rated educational buildings in BC registered on the Canada Green Building Council website (retrieved May 2, 2007) (http://www.cagbc.org/green_building_projects/leed_certified_buildings.php). Educational buildings include high schools, K-9 schools, “lecture hall/classroom” buildings, laboratories, and libraries.

Recent construction at UVic, such as the new Medical Sciences building which achieved a LEED-Gold rating, has incorporated high performance (green) features which reduce its ecological and energy ‘footprints,’ increase the owner’s return on investment, and improve the productivity and comfort of building users.

Editors note: Could use the Sustainability Report as a reference for this - Report Writer's response: the link doesn’t work; don’t know how this report would be used here.

While UVic, the city, and the region are home to excellent individual green developments, they are a long way from being sustainable communities. According to the greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory of the CRD done for the Community Energy Plan, 41% of direct GHG emissions in the region come from buildings. A significant reduction in this impact will require initiatives in both new construction and existing building retrofits. Full sustainability requires a change in our thinking, in our approach; it means more than the piecemeal addition of green features to conventional building designs. Fulfilling CE’s goal of moving UVic BCN requires changing the way we relate to our environment, our relationships, and ourselves.

The benefits of this change in approach will be considerable for all stakeholders. The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (UK) found that “A lot of attention [on high performance buildings in Canada, the US, and the UK] has been focused on energy savings. However, they are usually less than 1% of business operating costs. By comparison, total annual real estate expenses are usually around 10% of such costs, whilst staff costs can be as high as 85%. This means that the biggest return on investment should arise when green buildings improve business productivity. While the benefits to asset value are compelling, they are minor compared with the benefit to business.”

[Reference: Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (UK). 2005. Green Value: Green buildings, growing assets. http://www.rics.org/Property/Green%20value.htm ]

A high performance building can cost more, the same, or less to build than a conventional building depending on the individual case. Studies generally indicate a green ‘cost premium’ in Canada and the United States of 2.5% over conventional construction methods. The Kats report from California stated that “minimal increases in up-front costs of 0 to 2 per cent to support green design will result in life cycle savings of 20 per cent of total construction costs—more than 10 times the initial investment.” Business-case benefits also include: • improved public profile and community relations; • free publicity; • reduced liability risk – the insurance industry is becoming increasingly aware of lawsuits associated with building sickness and other indoor air quality issues; and • future proofing against rising utility costs and shortages.

[[[References: McDonald, Rodney C. 2005. The Economics of Green Buildings in Canada: Highlighting seven key to cost effective green building. Master’s Thesis. Royal Roads University. http://e-dialogues.royalroads.ca/green/R_McDonald_Thesis_2005.pdf

Kats et al. 2003. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/GreenBuilding/Design/CostBenefit/Report.pdf

Why Build Green? UBC Architecture Students. c.2003. http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/Portals/0/docs/pdf_files/1-Why%20Build%20Green.pdf ]]]]

Busby, Perkins + Will, the architects for Dockside Green, refer to a study by Turner Construction of New York (September 2004) which surveyed more than 700 green building owners, developers, architects, engineers and consultants. http://www.cec.org/greenbuilding/symposium/pres/GB-Pres-Busby_en.pdf Significant proportions of the executives surveyed said that green buildings outperform conventional ones with: • greater health and well-being of occupants (86%); • higher building values (79%); • higher worker productivity (76%); and • higher ROI (63%).

Educational institutions have also recognized the economic and human benefits of sustainable buildings. Better buildings lead to better learning outcomes for students and teachers such as higher test scores, increased attendance, and increased lecturer satisfaction. UVic's Sustainable Building Guidelines are a good example of this kind of recognition.

Editors note: Needs references - here's one from the CaGBC - LEED for Education Institutions, it could probably use another though to give a better indication of how widespread it is. We will also need to reference the Sustainable Building Guideline - I'll get on uploading that. Writer’s response: Here are refs. to student productivity (below).

[[[References: Heschong Mahone Group, Inc. A Study of Student Performance and the Indoor Environment. http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/Portals/0/docs/pdf_files/4-AStudyOfStudentPerformanceAndIndoorEnv.pdf

High Performance (Green) Buildings – A compelling case for education sector. http://www.greenbuildingsbc.com/Portals/0/docs/ValuePropositionforEducation.pdf ]]]

Green planning and design reduce the ecological impacts of new construction but do not eliminate them. Given the current heavy footprint of our existing infrastructure, any new building should be carbon neutral and ecologically beneficial. This requires the elimination of all avoidable negative ecological impacts. To be carbon neutral and ecologically beneficial, all new development must produce public benefits and reduce C02e impacts. Attaining these two goals for new building activity would benefit the UVic community ecologically, socially, and economically, and each worker, administrator or student individually. UVic is already headed in this direction. The Social Sciences and Math Building, currently under construction, will have a green roof and natural landscaping that will reduce its impacts, improve its performance, and provide new habitat.

Editors note: Tried to clarify somewhat - I will incorporate this language into the proposal in the building policy below. Writer’s response: If the concept of “way of being” (mentioned earlier but now deleted) is too complex to introduce in this short summary, the same would be true of ecological financing, sustainable flows of ecological services, consumption of natural capital, etc., in the paragraph immediately above. I agree that concepts like these can be introduced and properly defined in the longer version of the document to be written later in the summer. I would also, at this time, NOT emphasize green roofs. Insurance companies are refusing to insure them. Subjectively, too, I have a quibble: a green (planted) roof is not necessarily a major contributor to the energy and resource efficiency of a building. So I’ve simplified it into two paras. If you think those are worse, here is the original paragraph: "Green building reduces the ecological impacts of new building but does not eliminate them. Given the heavy footprint of our existing built infrastructure, for a new building to be sustainable it should be carbon neutral and ecologically beneficial. This requires the elimination of all avoidable negative ecological impacts, relying on sustainable flows of ecological services instead of the unsustainable consumption of natural capital, and the internalization of all remaining costs through ecological financing mechanisms. In other words, to be carbon neutral and ecologically beneficial the new development must reinvest in the restoration of natural capital and climate financing to produce public benefits and reduce C02e impacts. Achieving these twin goals in new building would transform UVic with substantial ecological, social, economical, and personal benefits. We are already headed in this direction. The Social Sciences and Math Building, currently under construction at UVic, will have a green roof and natural landscaping that will reduce its impacts, improve its performance, and provide new habitat."

Given the large contribution of buildings to our climate footprint (41% in the CRD), and given the international recognition of the effect on the planet of increasing C02e emissions, there is an need to expand on the work that has already been done in the UVic Sustainable Building Guidelines so that they provide a model for the region. Leadership and innovation by UVic in this regard will have an important effect on both the growth of the green building industry in Victoria, and the re-writing of provincial and federal building codes to incorporate appropriate sustainable building principles and practices. Furthermore, UVic's Campus Plan calls for the creation of a "village core" in the next major round of development. This is a positive direction. The village core development will provide an excellent opportunity to take our sustainable building practice to the next level by modelling higher density and mixed-use urban design. This will reduce impact through technologies like district heating, and result in diverse indirect benefits such as less need for transportation and more community awareness.

Finally, the actual design process for buildings is critical to their success. Planning for sustainable building needs to take place as early as possible; by the time the first 1% of a project’s up-front costs are spent, up to 70% of its life-cycle costs may already be committed.

[[[Reference: “Value Case for Sustainable Building in NZ” (Feb. 2006) http://www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/sus-dev/value-case-sustainable-building-feb06/index.html ]]]

One method that is particularly helpful for sustainable building is the integrated design process (IDP). Whichever process is used, “sustainability emerges from meaningful engagement and collaboration between a diversity of communities, combining expert and non-expert information to create new pathways for a desirable future” (Center for Interactive Research on Sustainability http://www.cirs.ubc.ca/assets/pdf//media/CIRS%20CE.pdf )

Editors note: This is great, and should be expanded on and clarified. It can then be incorporated into the actions and proposals for the building section. Also, the quote needs to be referenced. Writer’s response: Quote is now referenced. And Whoooa. It’s not accurate to relate IDP to the Common Ground planning process. IDP is a professional engineering and design process with a great deal of money, material, and time constraints at stake. This is a huge contrast to the Common Ground process of “whoever is here, whatever you want to say, ...” etc.. I’ve transferred that paragraph to this box for you to peruse if you think I’m wrong. “Indeed, IDP is based on the same logic of participation and collaboration between diverse perspectives that forms the foundation of Common Energy's Common Ground planning process.”

This working group recognizes the relatedness of buildings, their users, and the environment in which they exist. The three foci of this group are: 1) Providing Information and Changing Behaviour 2) Building Vision, Policy and Codes, and 3) Restoring Campus Ecology.

Question: As sections 1 and 3 develop the introduction should be updated to incorporate them more directly. Is there an overall theme that can be developed in this introduction to include them? From a first glance - the systematic and ecological perspective of the built environment would work well. Writer’s response: Good point. I’ve tried to do that in the way I’ve responded to the Editors’ notes, and filled out the Intro.

[edit] Providing Information and Changing Behaviour

The process of creating a green building does not end with the completion of construction. There is a post-occupancy relationship between the building and its users. High performance buildings have sensitive monitoring and control systems. Maintenance staff and the building owner require feedback and active participation from occupants in order for the building to function optimally. During the commissioning phase of a new structure, the maintenance staff is trained in the operation of its systems. On occupancy, users must also be educated about the features of their new work environment. This education and orientation ‘component’ allows occupants greater control over their work station ambience (ventilation, lighting, temperature) than they do in conventional buildings. This general result is better morale, higher productivity, and no ‘sick building syndrome.’

High performance buildings can also be used as educational tools to promote awareness of sustainability principles, through school and self-guided tours for members of the campus and regional communities.

To reduce our impact we must also learn to use our existing buildings better in conjunction with consumption of C02e-intensive products in the workplace. While there is a great deal of information available on the actions that people can take to use their buildings more efficiently, these need to be presented in a way that is fun and engaging. Monitoring energy use and climate impacts can also help people understand and change (improve) their behaviour.

• Action: Collaborate with UVic Communications to prepare informative signs and pamphlets for students, staff and community visitors to our green buildings -

• Action: Develop a University Challenge to integrate energy and C02e measurement with information and plans for departments to reduce their relative C02e impacts in the context of a friendly competition that will reward those who act the most - this will provide a comprehensive method for educating people and inducing them to lighten their C02e footprints

• Proposal: Deploy smart metering in buildings to provide people with a real-time sense of their energy use - smart metering has been shown to reduce consumption on its own, and will compliment the University Challenge. http://www.hydroonenetworks.com/en/community/projects/smart_meters/faqs_new.htm#1

[edit] Building Vision, Policy and Codes

Achieving sustainability in our built environment will require comprehensive and long-term thinking. Developing a sustainable vision for UVic, beyond the current Guidelines, will lead us in the right direction. Policy then becomes a key tool for developing a sustainable built environment on campus and providing an example for the region.

Coming changes to local government building codes and national building standards will remove obstacles to the university’s decision to become fully sustainable. As UVic develops its building policy obstacles to innovation can be addressed to inform the municipal, provincial, and federal governments that create the regulatory context and the green building industry that will realize a sustainable building vision.

• Action: Collaborate broadly to research the triple-bottom line costs and benefits of LEED and other green building standards and hold a workshop in July - existing standards all have costs and benefits that should be compared within the framework of an overall sustainable building goal.
• Action: Collaboratively research the best methods for retrofitting existing buildings to a standard as close as possible to the one identified as optimal for the construction of new buildings - our current building stock is not sustainable and must be revitalized
• Action: Research best-practices in sustainable building policy and design for achieving the least ecological impact with the most economic benefit - reductions in the impact of building are often investments in superior performance of the building and the green building industry will be a key component of a green business cluster in the region
• Action: Include considerations for building features that will promote reductions in C02e impacts in other areas, such as videoconferencing - indirect impacts, such as plane travel, are often hidden from view and enormous
• Proposal: The Sustainable Building Guideline is updated to incorporate these best practices and give them a mandate
• Proposal: Development of "village core" at UVic uses IDP and creates a model for compact and mixed use planning

Editors note: Incorporated the anticipated work from a directed studies on the costs/benefits of LEED

[edit] Restoring Campus Ecology

Sustainable buildings do not exist in isolation, but in relation to their ecological surroundings. Efficient lighting, water capture and treatment, and ventilation all require ‘input’ from the sun, rain, land, and wind.

Editors note: The editors really like the way that this introduction situates the buildings and infrastructure within their ecological context. Perhaps this could be elaborated on somewhat? Also, this section concept will need to be expanded somewhat to include the diversity of actions and proposals below. Writer: sorry, this is the one section I haven’t been able to expand yet. Over to you, or I’ll continue to work on it the final go-round.

Action: Engage in a dialogue with First Nations about appropriate restoration of native plants on campus.

• Action: Collaboratively develop a strategy for restoring the ecosystem at UVic to a natural and locally appropriate state - as invasive grasses require enormous quantities of water to maintain, the return of the land to a natural state will ensure that UVic protects and benefits from the ecological integrity of less visible university land, like the ‘Haro’ area to the northeast of the main part of campus.

• Proposal: Integrate the strategy for restoring UVic's ecology into curricula for the Restoration of Natural Systems program with increased funding as necessary

• Proposal: Foster a discussion about the treatment of sewage from the 10-Mile Point, Frank Hobbs, and Queen Alexandra areas surrounding the campus. There may be an opportunity for the university to build a sustainable treatment plant on the 'Haro' land over which UVic holds a covenant, in order to recover the energy now being lost. UVic could ally itself with the CUPE locals interested in waste treatment issues, and engage the services of Stephen Salter, a local environmental engineer who proposes that Victoria could benefit significantly by following practices used in Sweden.

Editors note: Brandy Sistilli will incorporate the work on water from the Water Project at POLIS

[edit] Beyond Climate-Neutral

Question: How do the actions and proposals in this section lead to a beyond climate-neutral effect on the region?