MASTER THESIS - C2C-Centre Report.pdf · MASTER THESIS . Master’s Degree ... review and positive support gave me so much confidence throughout the research process ... IGBC Indian

MASTER THESIS

Master’s Degree

International Building Project Management

(Building, Real Estate & Infrastructure)

LEED V4 + CRADLE TO CRADLE

Analyses of the Challenges for the Implementation of LEED V4 + Cradle to Cradle Criteria on Selected LEED 2009 Platinum Rated Office Buildings in India

Submitted by: B. Arch. Naveed Zargar Student Matriculation Number: 810368 First Supervisor: Professor Jürgen Marc Volm University of Applied Science, Stuttgart Second Supervisor: Dr. - Ing. Markus Koch Vorstand, BAM Germany AG

- ii -

Master Thesis | IBPM | SS 2014-15 LEED V4 + C2C

Declaration I declare, that the thesis with the title:

LEED V4 + Cradle to Cradle

Analyses of the Challenges for the Implementation of LEED V4 + Cradle to Cradle Criteria on Selected LEED Platinum Rated Office Buildings in India

is entirely my own work. No resources and means other than those specified were used. In each case, the source of direct quotations and references from other works were given and indicated. Stuttgart, 12/01/2014 Signature

- iii -


Acknowledgment It has been an immense challenge since I joined this course in September 2013. Being a

practitioner from last seven years didn’t make the studies very easy, but later it does help

me in finding the groove with the new paradigm of construction. I was not aware of the

system in this perspective before the studies here, but the Professors in IPM made us so

well versed with many new ideas that a new future stands ahead of me.

I strived very hard wherever I could and tried my best to put in and achieve something for

the rest of my career ahead. I take this opportunity to especially thank Prof. Jürgen Marc

Volm for being a very keen and critical support. We always need such a critique otherwise

we end up learning nothing new and extraordinary.

I would also like to thank Dr. Markus Koch for believing in me and giving me an

opportunity to work under him. It was very generous of him for taking time out from his

rather hectic schedule and being very critical throughout my meetings with him. His critical

review and positive support gave me so much confidence throughout the research process

and making my work standout.

I would also like to thank all the Professors and visiting faculty of IPM for making this

course and the journey an unforgettable one for the rest of our lives.

I would like to especially thank my friend Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, for being a learning support

throughout the research. It was his dire assistance which made it possible to research on

certified case studies. Also like to thank Ms. Angela Blanco Vogt for listening and providing

her positive ideas throughout my research.

My special thanks to my wife Ms. Ripu Jain for being always there and pushing towards

making it better and better. These words always encouraged me to achieve best out of

me, which is a credible achievement for my career as a practitioner.

And to all people who participated in my interviews, questionnaires and even special

thanks to one’s who suggested refinements during the entire research process.

Above all, my family without whom I cannot see myself today, wherever I am.

- iv -


Table of Contents

Declaration ........................................................................................................................... ii

Acknowledgment ................................................................................................................. iii

List of Figures ..................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ....................................................................................................................... ix

List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. x

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1

1.1 Background ............................................................................................................ 1

1.2 Motivation of the research project .......................................................................... 7

1.3 Aim and Objectives ................................................................................................ 9

1.4 Structure of the research project .......................................................................... 11

2. Literature Review ...................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Sustainability and Sustainable Development ....................................................... 13

2.1.1 Sustainable Assessment Methods ....................................................... 14

2.2 LEED V4: Principles & Implementation Criteria ................................................... 18

2.2.1 Cradle to Cradle Certification ............................................................... 21

2.2.2 Cradle to Cradle Principles and C2C in the built environment ............. 23

2.3 Sustainability, LEED, and GRIHA in India ........................................................... 25

2.3.1 Challenges in the Indian Construction Industry .................................... 28

2.4 Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) of Sustainability frameworks .................................. 30

2.4.1 LCA in LEED: Assessment of New Features ....................................... 31

2.5 Summary .............................................................................................................. 33

3. Methodology .............................................................................................................. 34

3.1 Research Philosophy and Approach .................................................................... 35

3.2 Research Strategy and Methods ......................................................................... 36

3.2.1 Unit of Analysis ..................................................................................... 40

- v -


3.3 Strategy of Data Collection .................................................................................. 40

3.3.1 Primary Data ........................................................................................ 40

3.3.2 Interview Protocol & Procedure ............................................................ 41

3.3.3 Secondary Data .................................................................................... 42

3.4 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 42

4. Findings, Discussion & Analysis ............................................................................. 43

4.1 Analysis of the Case Studies ............................................................................... 43

4.1.1 Description of the Case Studies ........................................................... 43

4.1.2 Main Goal of Certifying the Projects ..................................................... 45

4.1.3 Important Credits Considered for Certification ..................................... 46

4.1.4 Major Credits not feasible under LEED New Construction ................... 47

4.1.5 Barriers & Challenges Faced in the Implementation Process .............. 49

4.1.6 Major Shortcomings/Gaps of the Projects ............................................ 50

4.1.7 Lessons Learned and their implementation in Future Projects ............ 50

4.2 Impact of New LEED V4 + C2C criteria’s on selected case studies .................... 51

4.2.1 LCA Analysis & Implementation Assessment ...................................... 52

4.2.2 Integrative Process ............................................................................... 55

4.3 The Adoption level of LEED V4 + C2C in the Indian Construction Industry......... 58

4.3.1 First Impression of LEED V4 + C2C ..................................................... 61

4.3.2 Recommendations for the implementation and adoption of LEED V4 +

C2C in the ICI ....................................................................................................... 63

Manufacturing Base .......................................................................................... 63

Policy Framework ............................................................................................. 65

Change in Mindset ............................................................................................ 66

Knowledge Level .............................................................................................. 66

4.4 LEED V4 + C2C implementation using Integrative Process ................................ 68

Unique Features of LEED V4 + C2C ................................................................... 76

- vi -


Site Orientation .................................................................................................... 76

Bio Diversity ......................................................................................................... 76

Use Period of Building Products .......................................................................... 76

Business Case ..................................................................................................... 76

5. Conclusion & Recommendations ............................................................................ 79

The first objective ........................................................................................................ 79

The second objective .................................................................................................. 80

The third objective ....................................................................................................... 81

The fourth objective ..................................................................................................... 83

Further Research Potential ......................................................................................... 87

6. Word Count................................................................................................................ 89

7. References ................................................................................................................. 90

8. Appendices .............................................................................................................. 102

Appendix – I: List of Definitions ........................................................................................ 102

Appendix – II: Letter of Consent ....................................................................................... 103

Appendix – III: List of Interviewees ................................................................................... 104

Appendix – IV: Questionnaire........................................................................................... 105

Appendix – V: Analysis of the Case Studies .................................................................... 115

Appendix – VI: LEED V4 Certification .............................................................................. 119

Appendix – VII: GRIHA Certification ................................................................................. 121

Appendix – VIII: LEED V4 Categories Intent .................................................................... 123

Appendix – IX: Relationship Between LEED V4 & C2C ................................................... 124

Appendix – X: Minimum Program Requirements, LEED 2011 ......................................... 126

Appendix – XI: LCA Analysis ............................................................................................ 128

9. About the Author ..................................................................................................... 130

- vii -


List of Figures

Figure 1.1: The Building Energy Gap (WBCSD, 2009) ........................................................ 2

Figure 1.2: Introduction to the Research (Author) ................................................................ 4

Figure 1.3: Visual Abstract of the Research (Author) ........................................................... 6

Figure 1.4: Analysis of the Problem (Author) ....................................................................... 8

Figure 1.5: Aim & Objective Description (Author) ............................................................... 10

Figure 2.1: International Rating Tools (Reed et al. 2011, p.2) .......................................... 15

Figure 2.2: Timeline of Development of Sustainability Assessment Methods (Markelj et al.

2013, p.23) ......................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.3: LEED certified around the globe (Arup 2014, p.9) ........................................... 19

Figure 2.4: LEED V4 NC Categories (USGBC,2013) ......................................................... 21

Figure 2.5: C2C defined metabolisms (McDonough & Braungart, 2002) ........................... 24

Figure 2.6: Evolving landscape of sustainable habitats in India: genesis of GRIHA (GRIHA,

2013) .................................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 3.1: Interrelationship between different building blocks of research (Grix, 2002) ... 34

Figure 3.2: Flow chart showing the methodology adopted (Author) ................................... 39

Figure 4.1: Major factors for certifying the projects (Author) .............................................. 45

Figure 4.2: Analysis of factors on case studies (Author) .................................................... 52

Figure 4.3: Representation of LCA assessment of the case studies (Author) .................... 53

Figure 4.4: Factors affecting the decision of clients, manufacturers and consultants for

adopting LCA (Author)........................................................................................................ 54

Figure 4.5: Current state of working inducting SC and LEED 2009 (Author) ..................... 56

Figure 4.6: Integrative process team working (Author) ...................................................... 57

Figure 4.7: Factors affecting the adoption of LEED V4+C2C in ICI (Author) ..................... 58

Figure 4.8: Working of LEED in ICI and possible solutions (Author) .................................. 60

Figure 4.9: Hero Motocorp project features (WM+P, 2014) ............................................... 62

Figure 4.10: Manufacturing base possible solution (Author) .............................................. 64

Figure 4.11: Policy Frameworks as a baseline (Author) ..................................................... 65

Figure 4.12: Improving the knowledge management aspect (Author) ................................ 67

Figure 4.13: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Author) ................... 68

Figure 4.14: Integrated Activity Model using LEED V4 + C2C (Author) ............................. 70

Figure 4.15: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Boecker, 2014) ....... 71

- viii -


Figure 4.16: Integrative Process Using LEED V4 + C2C for Projects (Author) .................. 75

Figure 4.17: Overall analysis using LEED V4 + C2C (Author) ........................................... 78

Figure 5.1: Perspectives & Driver for the Client, SC, & Manufacturer's (Author) ............... 86

- ix -


List of Tables

Table 2.1: Six main constituents of a Green Building (Lipu et al. 2013, p.184) .................. 14

Table 2.2: A comparison of included criteria in BREEAM, LEED, DGNB and SBTool

methods (Reed et al., 2011; Ebert et al., 2011,p.97 ) ........................................................ 17

Table 2.3: Building area certified by two major assessment methods of LEED and

BREEAM (USGBC, IGBC, GRIHA, 2014) .......................................................................... 18

Table 2.4: Changes in the LEED V4 (USGBC, 2013) ........................................................ 20

Table 2.5: List of Professionals using, Building Types certified & Phases of Construction

using LEED & C2C (USGBC, 2013; C2CI) ........................................................................ 20

Table 2.6: Benefits of C2C certification in business, social & environmental aspects (C2CI

2014a, pp.3–5) ................................................................................................................... 23

Table 2.7: Principles of Cradle to Cradle Philosophy (McDonough & Braungart 2002; van

Dijk et al. 2014) .................................................................................................................. 25

Table 2.8: Key Achievement of LEED/IGBC as of August 2014 (IGBC, 2014) .................. 26

Table 2.9: Basic Features of GRIHA (GRIHA, 2009) ......................................................... 27

Table 3.1: Comparison of research philosophies in management research (Saunders et

al., 2009) ............................................................................................................................ 36

Table 3.2: Differences between quantitative and qualitative research approach (Saunders

et al., 2009) ........................................................................................................................ 37

Table 3.3: Differences between inductive and deductive research approach (Saunders et

al., 2009) ............................................................................................................................ 38

Table 4.1: Brief Description of the Case Studies (Author) .................................................. 44

Table 4.2: Energy conservation measures adopted in the Case Studies (Author) ............. 47

Table 4.3: Credits NA during the LEED Certification (Author) ............................................ 48

Table 4.4: Integrative Process adaptation (USGBC, 2014) ................................................ 55

Table 4.5: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Boecker, 2014) .......... 73

- x -


List of Abbreviations AEC Architecture, Engineering & Construction Industry

BE Built Environment

BEE Bureau of Energy Efficiency

BIS Bureau of Indian Standards

BREEAM Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology

BOD Basis of Design

C2C Cradle to Cradle

C2CI Cradle to Cradle Institute

C2G Cradle to Grave

CEN European Committee for Standardization

COA Council of Architecture

CPWD Central Public Works Department

CR Credit

CS Core & Shell

CSO Central Statistical Organization

CSR Corporate Social Responsibility

C&D Construction & Demolition

CD Construction Documents

CD Concept Design

DD Design Development

DGNB Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V Germany Sustainable Building Certificate

EA Economic Aspect

ECM Energy Conservation Measures

ECBC Energy Conservation Building Code

EPD Environmental Product Declaration

EQ Environment Quality

GB Green Buildings

GRIHA Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment

ICI Indian Construction Industry

IP Integrative Process

- xi -


ISO International Standards Organization

IS Indian Standards

IGBC Indian Green Building Council

LCA Life Cycle Assessment

LCC Life Cycle Cost

LCEA Lifecycle Energy Assessment

LEED Leader in Energy and Environmental Design

LEED APs LEED Accredited Professionals

LEED V4 LEED Version 4

MINERGIE Mehr Lebensqualitat, tiefer Energieverbrauch

Higher quality of life, lower energy consumption

MT Million Tonne

MPR Minimum Program Requirements

MR Major Renovations

MR Materials & Resources

NABERS The National Australian Built Environment Rating System

NBC National Building Codes & Standards

NC New Construction

OPR Owners Project Requirements

PM Project Manager

PR Prerequisite

RC Recycled Content

RICS Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors

SAFs Sustainability Assessment Frameworks

SA Social Aspect

SBTool Sustainable Building Tool

SC Sustainable Construction

SC Sustainability Consultant

SC Subcontractor

SD Schematic Design

SD Sustainable Development

TBL Triple Bottom Line

TIFAC Technology Information, Forecasting and Assessment Council's

TRACI Tool for the Reduction and Assessment of Chemical and other

- xii -


environmental Impacts USGBC United States Green Building Council

WBCSD World Business Council for Sustainable Development

WCED World Commission on Environment and Development

WM+P William McDonough + Partners

- 1 -

Introduction LEED V4 + C2C

1. Introduction

1.1 Background Climate change is a fundamental threat to sustainable economic development, with

devastating impacts on agriculture, water resources, ecosystems, and human health.

Equally we are facing the threat of depletion of natural resources very fast, various

certifications have been driving themselves to attain the best potential outcomes for

sustainable living, so that the time to come will not be stripped of the natural resources

(Magdoff 2013). The environmental impact of construction, green buildings, designing for

recycling and eco-labeling of building materials have captured the attention of building

professionals across the world (Ding 2008; Johnson 1993; Cole 2006; Crawley & Aho

1999; Rees 1999).

Construction sector is being listed as one of the largest producers of pollution emission

and consuming resources (RICS 2008). According to the World Business Council for

Sustainable Development, building block accounts for 30% to 40% of total energy

consumption (WBCSD 2009), shown below in the Figure 1.1. The carbon emission of

buildings across the world will reach 42.4 billion tones in 2035, adding 43% on the level of

2007 (Zuo & Zhao 2014; USEIA 2010). Buildings are estimated to account for more than a

third of the world’s resources in construction, 40% of global energy (including embodied

energy), 12% of fresh water use, and generate 40% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

and make up40 % of waste to landfill (Lipu et al. 2013; IPCC 2007). The annual growth of

building sector energy consumption was 52.8 EJ in 2007, which is projected to reach 72.8

EJ in 2035 (WBCSD 2009).

However, countries like Asia and the Pacific region are facing unprecedented financial and

environmental challenges in their pursuit of achieving rapid growth and consumer

demands. As per recent estimates by central statistical organization (CSO), India's

planning commission has projected an investment of US$ 1 trillion for the infrastructure

sector during the 12th Five Year Plan from the year 2012 (IBEF 2014), with 40% of the

funds coming from the private sector.

- 2 -


This rapid increase in the construction Industry, has led various academicians and

practitioners to think of a solution, which will shift towards a sustainable development. This

initiative has helped stakeholders, planners, architect and contractors reach a sustainable

goal by reducing the side-effects caused by the construction industry. The term

sustainability has been defined by various organizations in different ways, as Bruntland

Commission states:

“Sustainability promotes meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability

of future generations to meet their own needs. Its success is measured by the triple

bottom line: environmental responsibility, economic prosperity, and social equity” (WCED

1987, chap.2).

Sustainable development has long been recognized as the next step that humankind

should take in order to recuperate from the aftermath of the industrial revolution (Syal

2007; Gottfried & Simon 2000). In the design phase, sustainable development has largely

been realized through the creation and implementation of sustainability development tools.

These tools equip designers, builders, owners, and end users with design strategies that

reduce the environmental impact of developments (Matthews et al. 2014; Reeder 2010).

There are a number of tools or sustainability assessment frameworks (SAFs) (Luong et al.

2012), which have been developed and used globally, according to the regional context for

example BREEAM, LEED, CASBEE, DGNB etc.

Figure 1.2 below describes the researcher’s approach towards introducing the subject. As

contemplated in the figure the researcher clearly highlighted the primary issues for

Figure 1.1: The Building Energy Gap (WBCSD, 2009)

Building 38%

Industry 36%

Transport 26%

- 3 -


adopting the sustainability, then proceeding towards the solution by offering sustainable

development and building. This however, has led to the development of various SAFs,

including the development of the framework in India as highlighted. The important

characteristics of LEED V4 + C2C are highlighted, providing the researcher a chance to

evaluate the credibility and possible implementation of the same in the Indian construction

industry (ICI). Refer to Appendix I for list of definitions.

- 4 -


Figure 1.2: Introduction to the Research (Author)

Introduction to the Research

Construction Industry Major Consumption of Energy; Waste Production, C02 & Pollution

POSSIBLE REMEDY | SOLUTION Sustainable Development & Sustainable Buildings

“Development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”

“It should be the one which meets people’s needs – as a home or a workplace for example – in ways which enhance its positive impacts and minimize its negative impacts, environmentally and socially, both locally and globally over time”

Resource efficiency Energy efficiency (Including

greenhouse gas emissions reduction) Pollution prevention (including indoor

air quality and noise abatement) Harmonization with environment 5

Integrated and systemic approaches

Main Goals of SD

Sustainable Assessment Tools like: BREEAM, 1990 LEED, 1993 DGNB, 2007

LEED / IGBC - developed in 2001: Part of Confederation of CII

LEED V4 + C2C

• Globally Accepted Certification

System • LEED Accredited Professionals

on Rise

• Certified Square Foot Increased

• Government Regulations pushing the reforms

• Revised Version – Core Changes for achieving LC Benefits.

SAF in India

Introducing New Version in ICI

- 5 -


In India, sustainable construction is neither the vision nor the immediate goal of its

modernization thrust, (Kataria et al. 2013). It is growth, efficiency, productivity, greater

share in the market and profit. Improved performance on the environmental front

(reduction of pollution or substitution of high energy consuming materials), or on human

aspects (better tools and working conditions for the construction workforce), is mainly a

welcome by-product, useful in public relation rhetoric, not more. Various researchers

(Shah 2001; Roy & Gupta 2012; Bhandare et al. 2013) stated that the challenge of

sustainable construction, therefore, is more than changing tools, technology or energy

consuming materials, it is changing the mindset, the attitude. As mentioned earlier, the

need for sustainable construction is dire and consequential for achieving a better and

healthy future.

SAFs like LEED have been instilling a concept of “Less Bad”, which is based on the

ideology of “Cradle to grave” (C2G) concept (MBDC 2013). The ideology has pushed and

achieved in making the environment less polluted, reduction in use of landfill due to the

building waste, but the questions still exists about the credibility of being 100 %

sustainable building. A response to the negative effects of the reduction approach (i.e.

“doing more with less”) within eco-efficiency strategies, William McDonough and Michael

Braungart, in the year 2002, have put forward the concept of eco-effectiveness. Central to

this concept, Cradle to Cradle (C2C), is a positive agenda for the design and manufacture

of products and services, in which the synergy between economic, ecological and social

targets must be forcefully promoted (McDonough & Braungart 2002; Braungart et al. 2007)

“Our goal is a delightfully diverse, safe, healthy and just world, with clean air, water, soil

and power - economically, equitably, ecologically and elegantly enjoyed.”

A visual abstract of this master thesis is shown in the Figure 1.3 below. It will help the

reader in understanding the complete approach of the researcher as described below:

- Describing the problems in the ICI along the present SAFs. The present problem

solving capacity is also showcased.

- The literature analysis showcasing the tools used at a global level and the new

perspective of V4 + C2C

- Analysis using features like IP, C2C principles, LCA, SS, and M&R – resulting in the

findings for a better adoption of the V4 + C2C

- 6 -


Natural Products & Renewable Products Use – No Regulation; C&D Waste; Water Scarcity(UA); Fast Growing; Complex; Unorganized Construction; Weak Regulations

Indian Construction Industry

Present Problems

Present SAF’s

MNRE, BEE Guidelines for Sustainable Development

Rating Tools LEED & GRIHA LEED – NC (highlighted)

Sustainable Assessment Frameworks

BREEAM, 1990 EA, EEA, ES, SCA, FA, DI, TA, Pr, Lo

GOALS ACHIEVED BY LEED Less Energy Consumption Buildings Sustainable Environment Clients – Profitability Assessment Tool

LEED USGBC, 1998 EA, EEA, ES, SCA, FA, DI, TA, Pr, Lo

DGNB, 2007 EA, EEA, ES, SCA, FA, DI, TA, Pr, Lo

SBTool, 2007 EA, EEA, ES, SCA, FA, DI, TA, Pr, Lo

LEED V4 - Promote Triple Bottom Line - Establish Leadership - Reconcile Humanity with Nature - Foster Social Equity - Maintain Integrity - Be Inclusive - Exhibit Transparency C2C - Waste Equals Food - Use Current Solar Income - Social Diversity

GLOBALLY USED TOOLS

INTEGRATIVE PROCESS CASE STUDIES – OFFICE BUILDINGS - Description of projects - Main Goal of Certification - Important Credits Considered - Major Credits not feasible in V4 - Barriers & Challenges Faced in

Implementation - Major Shortcomings/Gaps - Lessons Learned

C2C PRINCIPLES

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

SUSTAINABILITY SITES

MATERIALS & RESOURCES ADOPTION LEVEL IN ICI

PRACTITIONERS PERSPECTIVE

IMPACT ON CASE STUDIES

LITE

RATU

RE R

EVIE

W

INTR

ODU

CTIO

N &

PRO

BLEM

DEF

INIT

ION

AN

ALYS

IS U

SIN

G P

ARAM

ETER

S

Figure 1.3: Visual Abstract of the Research (Author)

OFFICE BUILDINGS | CASE STUDIES - Marketing, Financial Profit, Availing Local Incentives – Main Reasons - Lower Design Energy Cost, Use of ECMs – Important Credits - Brownfield Development, Reuse of Materials – Credits not relevant - Educating Consultants, Late Client’s Decision – Barriers & Challenges - Sustainability Development Rooms, Publishing of lessons learned

LEED V4 + C2C ON CASE STUDIES - Clients Inclination & Use of

Natural Materials - LCA not very promptly used - Manufacturing Base, Cost & Time

Aspects - LCA in Use Period of Products - Use of IP – Quite an Important

Decision - Change in SC’s Contract Type

ADOPTION LEVEL - Manufacturing Base,

Policies Framework – Required

- MR Credits – Difficult to adopt

- Base case of C2C in India

- Policies aspect from Netherlands

- Knowledge for Education & Practitioners

- 7 -


1.2 Motivation of the research project

The background reveals the need to deepen into the analysis of the implementation of

LEED V4 plus C2C certification in the ICI. Sustainability has a different challenge in

implementing and its meaning in India, which makes it rather very interesting and

necessary to analyze the new criteria’s. The reason why it has become necessary to

assess the impacts of the rating system is that the rating systems are now getting linked

with governments’ promotional policies for green buildings (Roychowdhury et al. 2012).

Increasingly, governments are linking official incentive programs to promote rating of

buildings to give a push to the green building movement.

As LEED certification launched its new version in September, 2013 globally, making it

mandatory since June 2015 (USGBC 2014). Additional criteria’s listed in the new version

will impose a new challenge for the construction industry to implement. These will bring

rigorous challenges in the ways of implementing the new V4. Figure 1.4 below reflects the

authors approach for analyzing the problem. Triple bottom line (TBL) coined by Elkington

in 1994 has been considered a major credibility in achieving sustainability.

It becomes quite necessary to analyze the new criteria’s value towards the same theory.

The figure also made a few highlights on which the LEED V4 and C2C ideas are based,

which makes them quite unique and even protruding towards the main goal. The question,

post analysis, which the author had, is “how the new version’s changes will bring the

Indian construction near towards the goal of being a sustainable nation”. This created the

interest towards this whole research project.

- 8 -


But the additional criteria’s in LEED V4 + C2C certification have not been investigated post

its launch except the beta projects which were launched by LEED before rolling out the

final version. There is a very limited scope of literature available, which makes it essential

to highlight the issues (IGBC 2014b), especially the one’s which will be faced in India

during the implementation of the new criteria’s. The comparative literature, which reflects

the earlier studies are mostly based in United States (Chandratilake & Dias 2013), but the

ideology of C2C, has been pushed in the built environment in Netherlands (Wille 2011a),

on a very large scale. Even as seen in the urban planning level, the projects like Park

20|20, is making a way forward by using the C2C philosophy (Wille 2011a).

The new certification will pose a new daunting challenging especially the criteria’s

(USGBC 2011) like Integrative process, Building product disclosure & optimization –

environmental product declarations (EPD), health product declarations (HPD), lifecycle

analysis (LCA), etc., to implement in the robust, fast growing construction industry in India.

The researcher is aiming to analyze the nature of the involved practitioners especially

LEED AP’s and Project managers. This will help in knowing the ground reality and create

a path ahead for USGBC/IGBC to implement the new version in the context of the

developing countries like India.

LEED & GRIHA Sustainable development & construction Less than 10% CI certified LEED Assessment post operation TBL – Not balanced Poor regulations for energy, C&D Waste


Fast growing Unorganized & unplanned 70% building stock by 2030 C&D Waste – Major problem

LEED V4 Integrative process Water & energy metering TBL – efficient Improved C&D waste

management +

C2C Material content analysis Life cycle analysis – unique

perspective User of solar income

PRESENT CATALYST EXISTING SITUATION FUTURE CATALYST

Figure 1.4: Analysis of the Problem (Author)

- 9 -


1.3 Aim and Objectives

The Aim of this research project is to “analyze the challenges for the Implementation of

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Version 4 (v4) + Cradle to Cradle

(C2C) New construction criteria’s in India”.

It can be accomplished by examining the case studies certified by LEED 2009, thereby

finding the shortcoming/gaps in the complete process of its implementation. Besides the

analysis of the LEED APs perspective in the implementation process will help in

configuring a better prospective for the V4 implementation.

Thereby finding the research question, that is:

Which new additional criteria’s of LEED V4 plus cradle to cradle certification, will be implemented realistically and profoundly in developing country like India?

To resolve the submitted question for finding which LEED V4 + C2C criteria’s will be

carried out in the ICI, following objectives are framed:

1. Analysis of the four selected case studies in India certified by LEED/IGBC 2009,

thereby learning the shortcomings and gaps during the implementation process.

2. To assess the impact of LEED V4 + C2C on the selected case studies, thereby

evaluating the reasons for credits adaptation and their impact on the rating system.

3. Comparing and analyzing the LEED V4 + C2C adoption level in the ICI, thereby

helping in providing a solution, this can be adopted more realistically.

4. Analyzing the practitioner’s perspective on the implementation of LEED V4 + C2C.

By evaluating the Integrative process perspective, thereby providing a way out for

the implementation and positive results.

- 10 -


Figure 1.5: Aim & Objective Description (Author)

INPUT Analysis Evaluation Credits Adaptation

TOOL Case Studies Office Building LEED 2009 NC

Platinum

OUTPUT Shortcomings/Gaps Impact on Rating System Lessons Learned &

Other Prospective Features Possible Amendments

INPUT LEED APs

Perspective 5 Distinctive

Barriers

SOLUTION LEED V4 + C2C Integrative

Process LCA Assessment Parametric

Analysis

OUTPUT Feasibility of LEED V4 +

C2C Challenges & Barriers Ways of Adapting in ICI Use of IP

Implement on Case Studies

Guidelines Recommendations

- 11 -


1.4 Structure of the research project In order to address the underlying objectives to solve the research questions, and

therefore to achieve the overall aim of this research project:

The beginning section of this paper will delineate the existing literature on the matter by

discussing rating systems, life cycle assessment, cradle to cradle philosophy and

challenges faced in the Indian construction industry.

The second section of this report will deal with the research tool used in more depth to

increase the reliability and originality. This will include the methodology for analyzing

critically the selected case-studies, as they offer a baseline for reviewing the new criteria’s.

The third part will deal with an analysis based on case studies and the findings based on

the use of research tools. The researcher will then talk about these in reflection with

different concepts and debates, highlighted in the literature review.

The final section will be dispatched by the conclusion, which will spotlight the major

findings of the inquiry task. Enabling to justify the aim and objectives set out in the very

outset of the research.

The appendix will include further background information as well as the detailed analysis

of the case studies and the findings. In addition, an electronic copy of this research paper

as well as all necessary data files to ensure the originality of this research project, are

submitted alongside.

- 12 -

Literature Review LEED V4 + C2C

2. Literature Review This chapter will provide a deep and close insight in the research area “LEED V4 + C2C Certification; Implementation, Challenges & Recommendations”. For a clear

acknowledgement of the literature the chapter has been divided into four parts.

The first section will provide insights into the definition of Sustainability, the theories

corresponding and the certification assessment frameworks and tools used globally (focus

will be on LEED)

The second section will provide the insights in the LEED V4 and C2C Built Environment

certification. This will aid not only in recognizing the certification processes, but their

adoption levels globally as well as regionally.

The third section will provide insights into the Sustainability & LEED maturity level in India.

A closer perspective of AEC industry on the adaptation of the certification will also be

reflected.

The fourth & final section will provide insights in the Lifecycle Assessment criteria, which

the researcher realized is a completely new paradigm in LEED V4. Besides, the impacts of

new credits in LEED 2009/IGBC will be critically evaluated, using various sources of

literature.

- 13 -


2.1 Sustainability and Sustainable Development It all began with the Bruntland definition of sustainability coined during World commission

on Environment and Development in the year 1987. Since then, there have many ideas

which were associated with it, for example the concept of triple bottom line (TBL) coined

by Elkington, 1997. Bruntland (WCED 1987) defined sustainable development (SD) as the

development that

“meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs”.

This definition views development as much more than material progress; it links micro to

macro, present with future, human to nature, and material to spiritual; values natural

resources as social capital; points out limits to growth, the finite nature of the globe’s

resources, and it emphasizes its judicious and responsible use and equitable sharing; it

puts ecological balance and environmental vulnerability in perspective and emphasizes

the link with human activity. Sustainable development puts economic growth in the

framework of lasting human happiness (Shah 2001). However, sustainability has also been closely linked with Green Buildings (GB), because

GB contribute to a large number of factors which lead to human and ecological health and

also are related to the built environment (Berardi 2013). According to the study by (Hoseini

et al. 2013; Joelsson & Gustavsson 2009), with view to the effectiveness of green

buildings towards decreasing the use of energy and its negative impacts on the

environment, there are fundamental strategies including ‘reducing the energy demands’,

‘enhanced energy efficiency’ and ‘application of passive design techniques’. The concept

of green building is also known as “sustainable” and “high-performance” building

(Falkenbach et al. 2010).

Talking about sustainable development (Gottfried & Simon 2000) mentioned that it is a

recognized necessary step that humankind should take in order to recuperate from the

aftermath of the industrial revolution. In addition, sustainable construction (SC) also is an

associated term, which is defined as “creating a healthy built environment using resource-

efficient, ecologically based principles” (Chang et al. 2007). The aim for sustainability

- 14 -


assessment goes even further than at the design stage of a project to consider its

importance at an early stage, before any detailed design or even before a commitment is

made to go ahead with a development (Ding 2008). Overall, researchers seem to agree on

defining the sustainable development on pretty similar lines. These terms hold their

importance to understand, as the researcher is intending to evaluate the globally used

SAFs like LEED, which is based on the principles of this terminology.

The major criteria for sustainable construction of GB includes: reducing resource

consumption, reusing resources, utilization of recycled materials, conservation of the

natural environment, removing toxic, considering the economic efficiency, and reinforcing

the quality are substantially recommended for ensuring sustainable construction (Kibert

2012). According to Ding (2008), the four sustainable key factors for sustainable

construction of green building which include reduction of environmental impacts,

decreasing the utilization level of resources, increasing utility, and exploiting the economic

considerations. Overall, researcher’s criteria’s (Lipu et al. 2013) can be summed up as

shown in Table 2.1 below.

No. Criteria Explanation 1 Renewable Energy Encourage and recognize increasing levels of on-site

renewable energy self-supply in order to reduce environmental and economic impacts.

2 Minimum energy performance Establish the minimum level of energy efficiency for the proposed building and systems.

3 Fundamental commissioning of the building energy systems

Verify that the building's energy related systems are installed, calibrated, and perform according to the OPR, BOD & CD.

4 Enhanced commissioning Begin the commissioning process early during the design process and execute additional activities after system performance verification is completed

5 Measurement and verification Provide for the ongoing accountability of building energy consumption over time

6 Optimize energy performance Achieve increasing levels of energy performance above the baseline in the prerequisite standard.

Table 2.1: Six main constituents of a Green Building (Lipu et al. 2013, p.184)

2.1.1 Sustainable Assessment Methods Significant effort worldwide has therefore gone into the development of such systems to

measure the environmental performance of buildings, with intensive studies employed for

this purpose (Alyami & Rezgui 2012; Ali & Nsairat 2009; Chang et al. 2007; Cole 2006;

- 15 -


Cooper 1999; Crawley & Aho 1999; Haapio & Viitaniemi 2008b). In the design phase,

sustainable development has largely been realized through the creation and

implementation of sustainability development tools. These tools equip designers, builders,

owners, and end users with design strategies that reduce the environmental impact of

developments (Matthews et al. 2014; Reeder 2010). An overview of the tools used globally

is shown in Figure 2.1 below.

Figure 2.1: International Rating Tools (Reed et al. 2011, p.2)

Since 1990s, there has been extensive development of building environmental

assessment methods, many of which have subsequently gained considerable success

(Alyami & Rezgui 2012; Cole 2006; Seo et al. 2006; Todd et al. 2001) Many countries

have developed their own standards for green building or energy efficiency for buildings—

for example, BREEAM in the United Kingdom; LEED in the United States; NABERS in

Australia; Minergie in Switzerland; Green mark in Singapore; DGNB in Germany; GRIHA

in India; etc. (Markelj et al. 2013). Figure 2.2 reflects the timeline of the development of

the sustainability assessment methods.

- 16 -


Figure 2.2: Timeline of Development of Sustainability Assessment Methods (Markelj et al. 2013, p.23)

These tools can be categorized as first and second generation (Essig 2010; Lützkendorf et

al. 2012). Tools which only consider the environmental and energy-efficiency of buildings

(partly social) are called first generation like BREEAM, LEED. The tools which consider

the TBL are called the second generation like SBTool (Sustainable Building Tool), DGNB.

Each system is based on diverse cultures, political regulations, and climate conditions,

which complicate the comparability of these systems (Reed et al. 2011). Table 2.2 below

reflects the comparative analysis of the tools. The X’s indicate which of these criteria are

also common to the other green building rating systems reviewed.

Categories Criteria BREEAM LEED DGNB SBTool

Environmental Aspect

Strain on the environment/pollution x x x x

Materials / Sources x x x x

Waste x x x x

Water x x x x

Energy Efficiency aspects

CO2 emission x x x x

Efficiency of energy use x x x x

Renewable energy sources x x x x

Energy efficiency of the buildings outer x x x

- 17 -


layer

Technical equipment in the building x x x x

Control over energy use x x x x

Intermediate counters and meters x x

Equipment with electric appliances x x x

Economic aspect

Building’s cost throughout its lifecycle x x x x

Preservation of the property’s value x

Socio-Cultural aspect

Security and safety x x x x

Accessibility to physically handicapped persons

x x x

Regional and social aspects x x x x

Possibility of control by user x x x x

Functional aspects

Effective use of spaces x x

Possibilities for rearrangement x x

Design and Innovation

Architectural quality x

Inclusion of art x

Innovation x x

Technical aspect Fire safety x

Quality of the exterior x x

Cleaning and simplicity of maintenance x

Resistance to the efforts of weather x x

Process Planning process x x x

Course of construction work x x x

Ordering x x x

Operation x x x x

Location Micro location x x x x

Traffic connections x x x x

Comfort for cyclists x x x x

Neighborhood x x x x

Possibility of extensions x

Use of space x x x

Protection of nature and the building use x x

Biodiversity x x x

Table 2.2: A comparison of included criteria in BREEAM, LEED, DGNB and SBTool methods (Reed et al., 2011; Ebert et al., 2011,p.97 )

- 18 -


The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) building rating system was

developed by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998 (USGBC 2013b;

Baum 2006). LEED is currently the dominant system in the United States market and is

being adapted to multiple markets worldwide (Nelson et al. 2010). Table 2.3, below shows

the certified value of the LEED & GRIHA certifications in USA & India.

LEED, USA LEED/IGBC - India GRIHA, India

Certified buildings

11.4 Billion Sqft

66 Million Sqm

20 Million Sqm

Registered buildings

213906

1657

550

Table 2.3: Building area certified by two major assessment methods of LEED and BREEAM (USGBC, IGBC, GRIHA, 2014)

The LEED rating system uses a 100-point system to designate buildings LEED certified,

LEED silver, LEED gold or LEED platinum (USGBC 2014). In India, IGBC administers the

LEED-India certification system (IGBC 2014a).

The overall literature related to the rating tools depicted the development of various tools

as per regional context of the country, however, the presence of LEED globally has seen

an exponential growth especially in the development countries like India. The

implementations of LEED and the challenges faced will be discussed in the following

chapter.

2.2 LEED V4: Principles & Implementation Criteria The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, and a market-driven system

which provides third-party certification program regulated by the US Green Building

Council dedicated to leading sustainable building (USGBC 2011). It assesses the

environmental performance of a building from a whole building perspective over a

building’s life cycle. LEED Green Building Rating system is one of the most mature

systems that cover a wide range of project sectors and scopes: LEED for New

Construction (NC) and Major Renovations (MR), LEED for Existing Buildings, LEED for

Core & Shell, LEED for Schools, LEED for Neighborhood Development, LEED for Retail,

- 19 -


LEED for Healthcare, LEED for Homes, and LEED for Commercial Interiors (USGBC

2014).

In 1993, Rick Fedrizzi, David Gottfried and Mike Italiano established the U.S. Green

Building Council (USGBC). Their mission was to promote sustainability in the building and

construction industry (USGBC 2013b). The development of LEED in various countries can

be seen in the Figure 2.3 below. A quick review of the changes (USGBC 2013a) in the

new version is shown in Table 2.4.

Figure 2.3: LEED certified around the globe (Arup 2014, p.9)

The most recent update of this assessment system, LEED V4 was launched in November

2013 and opened LEED to a wider range of building types and manufacturing industries,

delivering the benefits of green building up and down the supply chain. The guiding

principles of LEED, 1) promote the TBL, 2) establish leadership, 3) reconcile humanity with

nature, 4) foster social equity, 5) maintain integrity, 6) be inclusive, and 7) exhibit

transparency, has made a very lasting influence on the way buildings, sustainability,

assessment criteria’s are being evaluated.

- 20 -


New Market Sectors

Data centers, warehouses and distribution centers, hospitality facilities (i.e. hotels), existing schools and existing retail, and LEED for Homes Mid-Rise.

Increased Technical Rigor

Revisions to credit weights, new credit categories focusing on integrated design, life cycle analysis of materials, and an increased emphasis on measurement and performance.

Streamlined Services

An improved LEED user experience that makes the LEED online platform more intuitive and introduces tools to make the LEED documentation process more efficient.

Table 2.4: Changes in the LEED V4 (USGBC, 2013)

Various studies reflected the usage of certification by various groups. It was found that

AEC professionals, consultants, researchers and authorities are the biggest user groups of

LEED, BREEAM (Haapio & Viitaniemi 2008a). The Table 2.5 below shows the usage of

LEED and C2C by various groups.

Assessment Tool

AEC Professional

Producers of building products

Investors, building owners

Consultants

Residents

Facility Managers

Researchers

Authorities

LEED ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ C2C ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Assessment Tool

Existing Building

New Building

Refurbishment of a Building

Building Product / Component

Buildings

Residential Building (multi-unit)

Residential Building (single family)

Office Building

LEED ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ C2C ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Assessment Tool

Production Construction

Use/Operation

Maintenance

Demolition

Disposal

LEED ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

Table 2.5: List of Professionals using, Building Types certified & Phases of Construction using LEED & C2C (USGBC, 2013; C2CI)

Also, the building environmental assessment tools can be used to assess existing building,

new buildings, buildings under refurbishment, and also building products and components

(Haapio & Viitaniemi 2008a). Table 2.5 above shows the various types of buildings

certified by LEED & C2C. It is observed that LEED doesn’t certify the building products

- 21 -


within its domain, however, certification of products by third party is highly recommended

to gain the credit under the specific category. In C2C certification, the existing buildings &

refurbishment of buildings are not certified, as the philosophy of C2C ensures the 100%

recycle of the products to be used. The aspects of LEED certification are however is

based on the cradle to grave philosophy (Haapio & Viitaniemi 2008a) LEED for NC & MR rating system consists of five key rating categories and four levels of

ranking: Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Certified. Figure 2.4 below reflects the nine main

categories. Also, the credits points & %ages assigned to each category are shown.

Appendix – VI provides a detailed description of the LEED V4 categories.

Figure 2.4: LEED V4 NC Categories (USGBC, 2013)

2.2.1 Cradle to Cradle Certification One concept to incorporate sustainability in organizations is Cradle to Grave (C2G).

Considering the birth and lifetime of a product (Cradle) until it becomes waste again

(Grave) (Douglas & Michael 2010). Producers design and create products that pollute

less, and produce less waste during production and usage (Braungart et al. 2007). It was

nearly 20 years ago that Braungart and McDonough first laid out their Cradle to Cradle®

philosophy in the book, “Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the way we make things” — a new

model for abundance and prosperity in which the making of things is transformed from a

1

16

10

11

33

13

18

6

4

0.9

14.5

9

10

30

11.8

16.3

5.4

3.6

Integrative Process

Location & Transportation

Sustainable Sites

Water Efficiency

Energy & Atmosphere

Materials & Resources

Indoor Environmental Quality

Innovation in Design

Regional Priority

LEED V4 - Credit Categories

Percentage Credit Points

- 22 -


destructive process into a positive force for people, economy and planet (McDonough &

Braungart 2002). Today, this vision is being widely adopted by manufacturers as part of

the Cradle to Cradle Certified Products Program (C2CI 2014b).

The Cradle to Cradle Certified™ program is a third party, multi-attribute certification

administered by the Cradle to Cradle Products Innovation Institute (C2CI) that assesses a

product’s safety to humans and the environment and design for future life cycles (Atlee &

Roberts 2014). The materials and manufacturing practices of each product are assessed

in five categories: Material Health, Material Reutilization, Renewable Energy, Water

Stewardship, and Social Fairness (C2CI 2013). According to Braungart and McDonough,

our definition of recycling is often down-cycling (MBDC 2013). To downgrade a resource

and use it in a product that is of a lesser quality. In their approach they strive to product re-

cycling, or even better, up-cycling where products maintain the same or better quality

(Bjørn & Strandesen 2008). The leading benefits of products with C2C certification are

listed in the Table 2.6 below (C2CI 2014b). It highlighted the points where in the need of

certification proved not only good for the business but also has a positive impact on the

society, health and environment.

BUSINESS BENEFITS Benefits How

Cost reduction Companies can achieve structural cost reduction through re-using product material and increasing resource efficiency.

Improved Product Value

Environmentally and socially superior credentials as a result of product optimization and certification.

New Revenue Streams

Re-marketing product materials at the end of their traditional use.

Avoided Risks Avoiding traditional resource markets, thus reducing risk from volatile prices and supply disruption. Minimizing greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutant impacts.

SOCIAL BENEFITS Improved transparency and commitment towards social goals

Companies evidenced a range of social fairness monitoring routines (operationally and throughout supply), including audits, management systems and third party certification.

Benefits derived from environmental benefits

Reduced pollution impacts linked to healthier product materials and increase of renewable energy use.

- 23 -


ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS Manufacturing safe products, designed for reutilization

Phasing out or eliminating hazardous materials and replacing them with healthy and safe alternatives, designed to be reused continuously in either the technical or biological cycle.

Increased use of renewable energy

Renewable energy provides many environmental and social benefits, including avoided air pollution and climate change impacts, alongside decreased dependency on finite fossil fuel resources.

Improved water stewardship

Water conservation and protection, provides vital social and environmental benefits including climate regulation, as well as underpinning essential business inputs.

Table 2.6: Benefits of C2C certification in business, social & environmental aspects (C2CI 2014a, pp.3–5)

2.2.2 Cradle to Cradle Principles and C2C in the built environment Various guidelines for C2C in the built environment were established since the 1990s

through published declarations such as the Hannover Principles (McDonough Architects

2000) and more recently in the Netherlands the Floriade Venlo Principles and Almere

Principles (Douglas & Michael 2010). However, those extensive documents are only

effective if they can be translated into measurable results. The first step to doing that is by

studying and implementing the three defining Cradle to Cradle® Principles (McDonough et

al. 2003);

Waste = Food. Everything is a Nutrient for Something Else.

Use Current Solar Income. Energy that can be renewed as it is Used.

Celebrate Diversity. Species, Cultural, and Innovation Diversity.

Those principles define and support two types of metabolisms for every product and

process; Biosphere metabolisms for products designed to support biological processes,

and Technosphere metabolisms for products designed to provide a technical service

and whose materials are continuously recycled (Mulhall & Braungart 2010). Figure 2.5

depicts how the two metabolisms function.

- 24 -


Figure 2.5: C2C defined metabolisms (McDonough & Braungart, 2002)

The Table 2.7 below provides a descriptive analysis of the principles, which were

mentioned above. As the literature study revealed that the various C2C principles and

protocols were only developed near the turn of the millennium, a 100% Cradle to Cradle

building does not exist yet (Mulhall & Braungart 2010) , also due to the time required for a

conservative building industry to adopt new concepts and products. However it is still

possible to describe and construct a building that uses C2C innovations and C2C-defined

products and materials already existing in the marketplace. In that context, it can generally

be said that a building has an excellent chance of achieving C2C if it fulfills the three basic

C2C principles and the C2C Defined Metabolisms. Thereby giving us a definition of C2C

built environment (BE) (Douglas & Michael 2010):

“A Cradle to Cradle building contains measurable elements that add value and celebrates

innovation and enjoyment by; measurably enhancing the quality of materials, biodiversity,

air, and water; using current solar income; being deconstructable and recyclable, and

performing diverse practical and life-enhancing functions for its stakeholders.”

- 25 -


Waste Equals Food

In the C2C theory, waste virtually does not exist. It refers to the regenerative systems of nature, in which organic waste provides nutrients to other metabolisms. Concurrently, industrial processes can be mirrored as such: materials from industrial processes and products provide nutrients for the biological or technical metabolisms.

Use Current Solar

Income

C2C sees the sun as a giant nuclear power source at a safe distance from earth. In nature, plants and trees manufacture food, using solar radiation as an energy source. Likewise, the designed society can harvest solar income as solar power, solar heat, daylight, wind energy, etc.

Celebrate Diversity (or

stated differently, Respect

Diversity)

As diversity in nature makes a robust system, the same goes for the designed system: Current industry favors simplification and monotony, which opposes the diversity of place and culture. As an example: this general-purpose system depletes topsoil caused by monoculture and the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.

Table 2.7: Principles of Cradle to Cradle Philosophy (McDonough & Braungart 2002; van Dijk et al. 2014)

The literature review provided a deeper understanding of how LEED and C2C have

developed, and on what grounds these certifications are proving the sustainability

assessment methods. A list of C2C Built Environment & their relationship with LEED V4 are drawn by the researcher, enclosed in the Appendix – IX. The reality behind the

driving forces of LEED and C2C were highlighted, in reflecting the principles.

The section of the literature review provided a richer and deeper perspective of how the

development of LEED V4, C2C principles and C2C in the BE has happened since their

origin. It also highlighted the use of these certifications in specific building types, users and

entire process presence. Apparently, various authors seem to agree with the implication of

these certifications, which of course will not be an easy challenge, but will improve the

construction sector dominance over the usage of energy, production of waste and

pollution, especially in the developing countries like India.

2.3 Sustainability, LEED, and GRIHA in India As reflected in Chapter 1, the term sustainability has been accepted broadly in the

construction Industry in India. Although there were several initiatives by the governments

in the developing countries to address sustainability in the construction sector, these

initiatives have either faced economic and social problems or did not have a proper

implementation strategy to ensure their successful adoption in the society (Potbhare et al.

- 26 -


2009). But, the recent trend in India suggests a rapid adoption of GB guidelines. The

Table 2.8 below presents a clear picture of LEED/IGBC implementation level in India and

provides a scope of adoption of green building guidelines in the Indian construction

industry (IGBC 2014a)

Indian Green Building Council Projects 2770 Area in Sqft 2.23 Billion Registered organizations 1940 Local chapters 15 Rated buildings 540 Editions of Green building congress 12 Student chapters 43 IGBC accredited professionals 1320

Table 2.8: Key Achievement of LEED/IGBC as of August 2014 (IGBC, 2014)

It all started with the establishment of IGBC in 2001 (IGBC 2014a). India got its first LEED

USGBC certified green building in 2004 with the inauguration of CIISohrabji Godrej Green

Business Centre in Hyderabad covering around 20,000 square feet (IGBC 2014a). The

government has launched the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) under the

National Building Codes and Standards to promote green buildings in India (Roy and

Gupta, 2012).

Figure 2.6: Evolving landscape of sustainable habitats in India: genesis of GRIHA (GRIHA, 2013)

- 27 -


With an overall objective to reduce resource consumption, reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and enhance the use of renewable and recycled resources by the building

sector, TERI has played a crucial role in the convergence of various initiatives, essential

for effective implementation and mainstreaming of sustainable habitats in India. With over

two decades of experience on green and energy efficient buildings, TERI has developed

GRIHA, which was adopted as the national rating system for green buildings by the

Government of India in 2007(GRIHA 2013) shows in the Figure 2.6 above. The features

and benefits of GRIHA are summed in the Table 2.9 below as well.

Basic Features

Design and Evaluate new buildings

Building assessment throughout the life cycle

Life cycle stages are: Preconstruction stage

Building planning & construction stages

Building operation & maintenance stages

Benefits

Reduced energy consumption without sacrificing the comfort levels

Reduced destruction of natural areas, habitats, and biodiversity, and reduced soil loss from erosion etc.

Reduced air and water pollution

Reduced water consumption

Limited waste generation due to recycling and reuse

Reduced pollution loads

Increased user productivity

Enhanced image and marketability

Table 2.9: Basic Features of GRIHA (GRIHA, 2009)

Various studies confirmed that a steady growth was registered in the number of green

projects from 2004 to 2006, but the turning point came in 2007, when IGBC signed a

licensing agreement with USGBC for carrying out the certification for LEED NC and CS in

India, which included registration, certification and review process (IGBC 2014a). The

credits remained same with some minor amendments as per regional conditions. There

has been a constant rise in the projects being certified under the certification process

- 28 -


since then. China and India, two of the world’s fastest growing economies and rapid

adopters of sustainable building practices, took second and third place on the list,

respectively boasting 14.30 million and 11.64 million gross square meters (GSM) of

LEED-certified space (Kriss 2014).

IGBC LEED India is similar as LEED USGBC with exactly same categorization and credit

point scale. The only difference lies in the fact that LEED India provides an option of

following the equivalent local codes for some credits. The LEED India Green Building

assessment tool is a voluntary based, market driven building rating system. A detailed

description of categories of GRIHA is enclosed in the Appendix – VII.

2.3.1 Challenges in the Indian Construction Industry As the Indian construction Industry (ICI) is growing fast since the last 5-10 years, it

becomes very necessary to evaluate the basis on which the sustainability has been

incorporated. Almost 70 per cent of the building stock in India is yet to come up. The built-

up area is expected to swell almost five times from 21 billion Sqft in 2005 to approximately

104 billion Sqft by 2030 (CSE 2014). This immense growth has its fallouts like construction

and demolition (C&D) waste. In India nearly 50% of Construction & Demolition waste is

being re-used and recycled, while the remainder is mostly land filled. Estimated waste

generation during construction is 40-60 kg per Sqm as per TIFAC (Ghosh et al. 2012).

Then taking an average of 50 kg per sq m, India must have generated 50 MT of C&D

waste in 2013. Over the last eight years, it would have produced 287 MT of this waste

(CSE 2014).

Construction agencies like CPWD say that Indian laws permit the use of only naturally

sourced building material. The IS:323-1970 Indian standard specification related to

aggregates for concrete, laid down by the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), stipulates that

concrete can be made only with naturally accessed materials. Construction agencies cite

this rule to avoid using recycled C&D waste (CSE 2014).

At the current valuation, we are talking about the wastage to the tune of 40-50% more

money and resources to be used in construction industry in India (Sharma et al. 2012).

This is relatively simple, but a large and straight forward challenge that required attention

- 29 -


and must be tackled for sustainable and economic growth of the Country. The waste

management criteria is SAF’s have been implemented as reviewed in most of the certified

projects, but even post the assessment the C&D waste management is one of the core

problems in ICI (Thomas & Wilson 2013).

During the interviews the fact that less than “10% construction industry in India” is

pursuing the sustainability certification, brought forth the issue of very less adoption of the

sustainability assessment in India. The challenges faced for development of green

buildings in India are the extra investment in an unstable real estate market scenario and

difficulty in sourcing green building materials and sustainability consultants (Roy & Gupta

2012).

Shah (2001) in her report for Agenda 21 states “Considering the large volume of

investment in public and private construction; polluting and energy intensive methods of

building materials production and use; low levels of technology development; unorganized

and untrained nature of work force and potential for environmental damage by

unsustainable technologies, materials and practices, interest and awareness on

sustainable construction are limited, efforts are marginal and symbolic and impact is

negligible. Issues related to construction sector are many and complex. However,

sustainable construction, as things stand today, is not seen as a priority concern or issue.”

Despite the apparent consensus about the certification, there still seems the problem of

implementing the social aspect on a micro level. The researcher captured various ideas of

authors, which hereby said that the sustainability and LEED are followed majorly by

developers, commercial offices, private housing sectors, and corporate giants. The need

which the researcher felt is at the ground level, wherein aspects, for example Labor

protection in harsh conditions of site can be protected. This eventually will lead to the

evaluation of all the three aspects of sustainability (economic, environmental and social)

on an equal %age. The next chapter will help in analyzing the major philosophical change

in the LEED V4.

- 30 -


2.4 Lifecycle Assessment (LCA) of Sustainability frameworks

Sustainability as discussed in the first chapter can only be 100% achievable if there is a

balance between all the parameters of TBL. Various researchers have highlighted the

importance of environmental aspect in the major sustainability assessment frameworks at

a national and global level however it was evident that the LCA has not been incorporated

until quite recently. The theory of C2C emphasizes the importance of evaluation of

material assessment across its entire life span (Boer et al. 2011).

From the beginning of the 21st century, interest in LCA has been rapidly increasing, as

reflected in the Appendix – XI (Buyle et al. 2012). LCA is a tool to investigate

environmental burdens of a product or a process, considering the whole life cycle, from

cradle to grave (Buyle et al. 2012; ISO 2006). All aspects considering natural environment,

human health and resources are taken into account and together with the life cycle

perspective. LCA avoids problem-shifting between different life cycle stages, regions and

environmental problems.

Although ISO-standards describe the global framework of a LCA, the exact method to be

used is not defined (ISO 2006). Different methods applied to an identical case can

generate different results, i.e. a narrow scope carbon footprint study versus studies with a

set of more differentiated impact indicators (Buyle et al. 2012; Thormark 2000; Guinee et

al. 2011). They may assign a different importance to properties or impacts, which can

result in other suggestions of action to reduce the ecological burdens (Toller et al. 2011).

Appendix XI contains an overview of published academic studies of LCAs of whole

buildings and their main characteristics. A lot of these studies are simplified LCAs only

discussing energy, especially the early studies. They are also known as a Life Cycle

Energy Assessment (LCEA) and consider the energy consumption during the different

phases of the life cycle: embodied (production and construction), operational, demolition

and recycling energy (Scheuer & Keoleian 2002). ISO and European committee for

standardization (CEN) are working on the standardization of LCAs in the construction

sector in order to improve the comparability of such studies.

- 31 -


The purpose of CEN is mainly to document the environmental performance of a building

for use in e.g., declaring environmental performance, labeling and marketing. As stated by

CEN TC 350 in EN 15978:2011, “the purpose of this European Standard is to provide

calculation rules for the assessment of the environmental performance of new and existing

buildings” (EN 15978 2011). Various studies have tried to use LCA to document the

impacts of a whole building, considering all building materials and operation (Scheuer &

Keoleian 2002; ISO 1997; SAEFL 1998a; SAEFL 1998b). Several recent computer

programs incorporate LCA methods into tools for design and analysis of buildings such as

BEES (Consultants et al. 2008), Athena (Associates Ltd. 1990) and Envest (Mann & Spath

1997). However, because of data limitations, the large range of construction techniques,

material and system choices in buildings, none of these tools are currently capable of

modeling an entire building, or computing environmental impacts for all phases or

processes.

Overall, researchers seem to agree that the complexities of buildings require the specificity

and rigor of an LCA approach to provide meaningful assessment, but difficulties in

conducting an LCA as well as difficulties in interpreting and communicating the results

prevent them from being utilized more generally. Although the LCA method may reduce

total resource use, the method itself is resource and time intensive (Hardy & Owens 2013).

Calculating the environmental impact of single product using Tool for the Reduction and

Assessment of Chemical and other environmental Impacts (TRACI) or a similar

methodology may require hundreds of hours of research and thousands of dollars of

investment.

2.4.1 LCA in LEED: Assessment of New Features

In response to concerns about material durability, the USGBC has initiated a significant

program to incorporate LCA into the structure of LEED, so that the long-term performance

of building components is given greater consideration. On January 25, 2007, USGBC's

LCA working group formally published its first set of recommendations for incorporating

LCA as part of the LEED Green Building Rating System. In the long term, LCA will be

applied to integrated building systems by combining the environmental product declaration

(EPD) of each product incorporated in a project into a single overall environmental impact

assessment.

- 32 -


According to the USGBC, its “long term objective is to make LCA a credible component of

integrated design, thereby ensuring that the environmental performance of the whole

building takes into account the complete building life cycle” (USGBC Press Release,

January 26, 2007). However, the USGBC also recognizes it will take time for LCA to be so

fully integrated into the building design process. In an effort to move toward this goal as

quickly as possible, however, the USGBC has selected building structure and building

envelope as the two primary starting points for LCA (Hoff 2007).

This means that the task groups working on LCA will focus primarily on standards relating

to major structural and envelope materials, including roofing systems, wall systems, water

and air barriers, and thermal insulation (Hossaini & Hewage 2012). USGBC envisions that

these structural and envelope systems will be ranked according to their environmental

impact, with LEED credits awarded accordingly.

LEED has always encouraged use of “environmentally preferable” materials through

credits in the Materials and Resources (MR) category (Todd 2013). Throughout the last

decade, project teams have driven demand for more sustainable products and fostered

market-driven innovation in the building products industry. Under LEED V4, project teams

will find credits that support a life-cycle approach in their designs and building material

choices, deliver improved performance, and provide for the most resource-efficient

building overall and over time.

In addition to awarding credits for reuse of all or part of an existing building, LEED V4 now

allows project teams to use a whole building LCA to optimize decisions on structure and

envelope (Holmes 2013). Various strategies have been adopted in the latest version of

LEED V4, as Encouraging more reporting and Disclosure; Encourage optimization of

product choices, thereby providing an ample opportunity for the manufacturers to adopt

the guidelines.

The development of LCA in developing countries has not seen a very streamlined growth,

various authors even mentioned that to bring LCA in a limelight, various initiatives need to

be taken with immediate effect. Initiatives like (Ortiz et al. 2009) Increasing industry,

education and research, and Considering an Industry wide Initiative for Product

Declarations will provide the much needed way for its implementation.

- 33 -


In addition, all of these systems appear to go well beyond the material impact of products

by requiring eligible companies to profess “fair labor” practices and conduct third-party

assessments of “social responsibility” in addition to complying with environmental

standards. Although it is not the intent of this paper to judge the validity of these more

socially-oriented standards, it is likely these concepts are yet little-recognized by the

general public; and they may inject an unexpected political overtone to the entire agenda

of sustainable construction (Hoff 2007).

2.5 Summary

The overall literature review helped in achieving a very clear, rich and deep insight in the

following parameters:

Sustainability and SAF’s: A clear picture of its development with a critical review of the

categories in major SAF’s used globally. It also reflected the dominance of LEED and its

implementation.

LEED V4 plus C2C: The ideology and principles on which these assessments are based

on. The process of implementation and its level of acceptance globally, and also a

comparison between the categories helped in understanding the role of both the

certification.

LEED & GRIHA in India: Major differences between the two national certifications in

India. Also the comparison helped in clearing the air by showing the validity of both the

levels, even though LEED is leading the race. Also the aspect of C&D waste shows the

potential implementation of

LCA in LEED: A very broad and important change in V4, which has made its influence via

C2C certification. LCA and its actual definition were evaluated. The review of various

authors helped in clearing the importance of LCA, and the reason behind its

implementation in SAF’s.

This chapter has provided the researcher a very clear platform for conducting the

qualitative approach, which will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. The methods

will help in finding the best solution/answers for the practical and logical ways of LEED V4

+ C2C implementation in developing countries like India. Which of these initiatives will be

implemented and the subtle or major amendments, if required, will be analyzed in the

following chapters.

- 34 -

Methodology LEED V4 + C2C

3. Methodology As stated in the chapter 1: 1.4 – structure of the research object, the literature review has

assisted the author in identifying the feasible research tool.

The objective of this chapter is to discuss the methodology that has been applied in order

to achieve the aim of this research. The definition of the right philosophy, approach and

strategy is necessary in order to fulfill the research objectives. The author used ‘qualitative’

data specifically ‘Interviews’ and ‘case studies’ in order to critically analyze the problems

faced in the implementation of the LEED certification. At the same time the author

considered the perspective of holding the interviews with the LEED Accredited

Professional’s (APs), who are striving hard towards achieving sustainable developments

and buildings, ensuring the credibility based on ground facts.

In addition, Figure 3.1 illustrates the interrelationship between the different building blocks

of research (Grix 2002, p.180)

Figure 3.1: Interrelationship between different building blocks of research (Grix, 2002)

Ontology Methods Sources

What’s out there to know? What and how can

we know about it? How can we go about acquiring that knowledge?

Which precise procedures can we use to acquire it?

Which data can we collect?

Epistemology Methodology

- 35 -


3.1 Research Philosophy and Approach

In general, the research philosophy highlights the way in which we see the world

(Saunders et al. 2009). There are two major ways of our thinking towards the research

philosophy: ontology and epistemology.

Ontology is concerned with the “nature of reality” (Saunders et al. 2009). It refers to what

a researcher thinks can be achieved (Grix 2002). Epistemology is concerned with “what

constitutes acceptable knowledge in a field of study (Saunders et al. 2009, p.102). It

“focuses on the knowledge-gathering process and is concerned with developing new

models of theories,” (Grix 2002)

This research project is based on the researcher’s interest in the detailed analysis of

LEED V4 + C2C certification, which can be related to the concept of epistemology as

shown in the Figure 3.1. The researcher will gain knowledge by literature study in the

fields mentioned above and their implementation in a developing country like India. This

research will follow more likely an epistemological approach. The common philosophies

which refer to this approach are positivism and interpretivism (Saunders et al. 2009;

Bryman 2012).

Positivism recommends the application of methods of the natural sciences in order to

study the social world (Bryman 2012). Interpretivism is more receptive to principles and

theories, which cannot be directly measured (Love et al. 2002).

Table 3.1 below shows the difference between both the research philosophies.

- 36 -


Positivism Interpretivism Ontology: the researcher’s view of the nature of reality or being

External objective and independent of social actors

Socially constructed, subjective, may change, multiple.

Epistemology: the researcher’s view regarding what constitutes acceptable knowledge

Only observable phenomena can provide credible data, facts. Focus on causality and law like generalizations, reducing phenomena to simplest elements.

Subjective meanings and social phenomena. Focus upon the details of the situation, a reality behind these details, subjective meanings motivating action.

Axiology: the researcher’s view of the role of values in research

Research is undertaken in a value-free way, the researcher is independent of the data and maintains an objective stance

Research is value bound, the researcher is part of what is being researched, cannot be separated and so will be subjective

Data collection techniques used

Highly structures, large samples, measurement, quantitative, but can use qualitative

Small samples, in-depth investigations, qualitative

Table 3.1: Comparison of research philosophies in management research (Saunders et al., 2009)

With respect to this research project the researcher follows most closely an Interpretivism philosophy. The research objective is mainly to analyze and evaluate the new criteria’s of

LEED v4 and C2C in context with the Indian construction industry (ICI). This will enable in

finding the challenges and barriers which will be faced in the implementation of V4 plus

C2C.

3.2 Research Strategy and Methods

In general, there are three possible strategies (Saunders et al. 2009) which will define the

answer to the questions of how to acquire the required knowledge: quantitative,

qualitative, mixed method.

Quantitative research is used “as a synonym for any data collection technique

(questionnaire) or data analysis procedure (graphs or statistics) that generates or uses

numerical data” (Saunders et al. 2009, p.145)

Qualitative research is used “as a synonym for any data collection technique (interview)

or data analysis procedure (categorizing) that generates or use non-numerical data”

(Saunders et al. 2009, p.145). According to Bryman and Bell, (2011, p.386) qualitative

research is an appropriate approach for research in business and management

administration.

- 37 -


The third research strategy is quantitative and qualitative mixed research. Thereby,

methods from both approaches are used either simultaneously or one after the other

without combining them (Saunders et al. 2009). Table 3.2 below, shows a clear distinction

between the two above foresaid research approaches.

Quantitative Approach Qualitative Approach Extremely Reliable, rely on measurement Content or documentary analysis Ignores the fact that the world is interpreted by people

Based on people’s own experience on the problem

Deductive reasoning approach used The subjective reasoning approach used Narrow hypothesis Broad hypothesis Focused picture description Whole picture description Used late in the research Used early in the research

Table 3.2: Differences between quantitative and qualitative research approach (Saunders et al., 2009)

As described in the introduction chapter, the research question and the objectives are

focused on analyzing and finding a guiding way for implementing the LEED V4 + C2C

certification criteria’s. The researcher mainly analyzed the parameters which are set out

new in the certification, thereby assisting a creating known way ahead for their

implementation, especially the IP. This not only helps in re-assuring the results achieved

via interviews, but also provides a very clear insight into the parameters and their adoption

level. A Pragmatic result between choosing one or another philosophy, or using a mix of

the two (qualitative and quantitative) is even more appreciated by some writers like

(Teddlie & Tashakkori 1998).

The researcher started by understanding the nature of the problem, that’s why he

investigated deeply into LEED/IGBC certification process by using case studies, which

have been already certified, then undertaking the interviews. In this context, the approach

of this research is considered more as inductive approach (Saunders et al. 2009). The

deductive approach is used for re-assuring the credibility of interviews and the data

accessed (Saunders et al. 2009) by circulating a questionnaire. The difference between

the two approaches is clearly highlighted in the Table 3.3 below:

- 38 -


Inductive Approach Deductive Approach Gaining an understanding of the meaning humans attach to events

Scientific principles

Moving from theory to data A close understanding of the research context

The need to explain causal relationships between variables

The collection of qualitative data The collection of quantitative data A more flexible structure to permit changes of research emphasis as the research progresses

The application of controls to ensure validity of the data

A realization that the researcher is part of the research process

The operationalisation of concepts to ensure clarity of definition

A highly structured approach Less concern with the need to generalize

Researcher independence of what is being researched

The necessity to select samples of sufficient size in order to generalize conclusions

Table 3.3: Differences between inductive and deductive research approach (Saunders et al., 2009)

Therefore the concern for the adaptation of new LEED V4 + C2C will be helped with clear

guidelines based on challenges and barriers faced in implementing the earlier LEED

version currently in practice. This will help in realizing a more practical approach for the

implementation of new criteria’s. For this reason, the researcher has adopted a total

qualitative research approach.

- 39 -


Figure 3.2: Flow chart showing the methodology adopted (Author)

Resources Literature Review, USGBC Guidelines, C2C Philosophy & Built Environment Criteria

Case Studies 4 Office Buildings, India, Platinum Rated, LEED/IGBC 2009 NC Certified

Interpretivism Philosophy Small samples, In-depth investigation, qualitative

PROBLEM DEFINITION

AIM & OBJECTIVES

PHILOSOPHY & APPROACH

Epistemology Approach Knowledge gain via

Literature

Inductive & Deductive Inductive approach used STRATEGY &

METHODS

Quantitative & Qualitative Qualitative approach used

RESOURCES & WAYS

Analysis LEED/IGBC 2009 New Construction; LEED V4 + Cradle to Cradle

Assessment using Case Studies: finding the shortcomings/gaps; LEED V4 plus C2C: New criteria’s evaluation on the existing assessment tools

SAF’s evaluation a challenge in the developing countries like India LEED & GRIHA assessment based on current adoption level

- 40 -


3.2.1 Unit of Analysis One of the most important ideas in a research project is the unit of analysis. It is the ‘what’ or ‘who’ that is being studied (Crossman 2012). It is an integral part of social

science research. This is important, especially for a qualitative research because it helps

to bring the balance between breadth and the depth of the study. The unit of analysis may

be an individual, a group, an organization or a culture. The unit of analysis may help to

guide or determine the data collection methods, sample size and variables included in the

framework (Cavana et al. 2001).

The researcher intends to find the challenges and barriers in the implementation process

of the LEED rating in India. This reflects the author's interest in the ICI. This matter has

been further narrowed down by conducting interviews of LEED AP’s & C2C experts who

are considered to be an important pioneer in implementing the assessment criteria’s. The

detailed analysis of the process and its adoption is described in the next section. (Refer to

Appendix IV)

3.3 Strategy of Data Collection

3.3.1 Primary Data

The researcher used case studies as a strategy for his research. Using case studies the

researcher can attain gain a rich and deep understanding of the research (Morris & Wood

1991). Also, the aim of the research which is firstly to analyze the current LEED

certification processes regionally and globally, secondly to examine the new criteria’s

implementation process within the Indian construction industry and finally to derive the

recommendations to be used by the practitioners. This will lead to answering the questions

‘why?’ as well as ‘what?’ and ‘how?’ (Saunders et al. 2009). Another reason for using the

case study approach is that the researcher will be able to use multiple sources of data like

Interviews, observations, documentary review & analysis. The researcher believes that

these will help in finding an effective way out for the implementation of the new criteria’s.

The case studies chosen were named as P1, P2, P3, and P4, (Refer to Appendix V) due

to the confidentiality clauses of the company with their clients. This however had no effect

whatsoever on the result of the analysis and overall research work.

- 41 -


The most feasible method to understand the human being is through interviews (Denzin et

al. 2006). Semi-structured interviews include a list of topics and questions to be discussed

rather than standardized questions in structured interviews (Saunders et al. 2009). For this

research, the researcher has opted to use the semi-structured interviews, which has a

tendency to lead to more diverse discussion related the current trends in the particular

field.

For this research purpose, the researcher chose a selected group of people, based on the

kind of expertise which is required to answer the “qualitative interviews”. All the people

chosen for the interviews were LEED APs and C2C experts, with a decent experience of

the certification process. The selection of people helped the researcher to focus

specifically first on the case studies and then moving towards the new criteria’s based on

LEED V4 + C2C certification. The researcher held interviews with 7 people (Refer to

Appendix III) who were responsible for different activities during all the phases of

certification. Figure 3.2 above shows the process used for achieving the entire

methodological approach of the researcher.

3.3.2 Interview Protocol & Procedure

Prior to conducting the interviews, the author informed the interviewees about the purpose

of his research, aims and intent behind the research. Also, the consent form was emailed

to them, to make a positive participation, if possible. After their approval, they received

consent for participation form, stating all the previous mentioned ethical aspects and an

option to receive the final results of the research, which was signed by the interviewees

before conducting the interview (Refer to Appendix II) For the communication, the author has opted for conferencing methods, as all the

interviewees are from different countries. Use of recorder helps the researcher to assess

the information, in order to draw clear and unambiguous conclusions (Sandelowski 1998).

This was well informed to all the interviewees prior to beginning of the interviews.

- 42 -


3.3.3 Secondary Data

The researcher used the information related the LEED / IGBC plus C2C certification

criteria’s issued by USGBC, IGBC & C2C Institute (USGBC 2013b; USGBC 2013c;

USGBC 2013a; Mulhall & Braungart 2010; C2CI 2013). The researcher found that the

certification’s need to be critically reviewed and possible amendments are possible, which

will make the implacability of the certification at regional level quite effective and higher

percentage of sustainability can be achieved. Especially the new criteria like “Integrative

Process” must be ensured to implement without fail.

3.4 Conclusion

Summing up, in order to answer the research question the researcher will follow a clear

inductive approach, interpretivism philosophy by conducting a complete qualitative

research strategy. Interviews and case studies (projects & literature) will be used to collect

the information required, for solving the research question.

- 43 -

Findings, Discussion & Analysis LEED V4 + C2C

4. Findings, Discussion & Analysis

As discussed and specified in the chapter 3, the analytical work was conducted first by

using four office buildings as case studies. The analysis work was assisted by conducting

7 in depth interviews (Refer to Appendix IV) with practitioners as LEED APs and C2C

experts. The interviews helped the researcher in critically evaluating the LEED 2009

version and thereby provided a baseline for comparison with LEED V4 new credits. The

results of the analysis work are thereby helping in achieving the Aim and Objectives of the

research. The following subsections will describe each objective with respect to findings

further followed by discussion and analysis. Important parameters which were found

during the analysis work are the cumbersome use of natural/recycle products, major

innovative work initiatives, operational assessment of rating, the importance of IP, and

problems in implementing LCA.

4.1 Analysis of the Case Studies Four office buildings were used for the analysis work. This has led to a deeper

understanding of the current practices in the certification assessment. It also helped in

finding the shortcomings/gaps in the implementation of LEED 2009 NC certification. The

case study analysis was procured by the assessment of final certified documents issued

by IGBC, and few interviews of the LEED APs associated with the respective projects. The

analysis assisted with the help of project documents helped in critical review of the credits

which are classified as Achieved (A), Not Attempted (NA), and Denied (D).

4.1.1 Description of the Case Studies The projects were chosen based on the highest rating achieved as per LEED 2009

certification. Type of projects chosen was based on the massive scale and growing

demand of construction happening in India, especially in Residential and Commercial

Offices (Kataria et al. 2013). The projects chosen have achieved the highest level of

certification, which is the Platinum rating. This assisted in analyzing the maximum credits

attempted and achieved under the certification. A broader perspective of the certification

can be achieved by the evaluation of the certified projects.

- 44 -


Due to the confidentiality clause with the clients of the projects, the project names will not

be disclosed. As mentioned in chapter 3, the projects were given codes of Project 1 (P1),

Project 2 (P2), Project 3 (P3), and Project 4 (P4) respectively. A brief description of the

projects is shown in the Table 4.1. As mentioned in chapter 3, the interviewees assisting

in the research analysis were named as A to G as shown in the Appendix – III.

Description Project 1 (P1)

Project 2 (P2) Project 3 (P3) Project 4 (P4)

Building Type Office Office Office Office Floor Area (Sqft)

600,000 264,560 65,000 130,000

Location Pune, India Thiruvanathapuram, India

Jalgaon, India Pune, India

LEED Rating Achieved

Platinum – NC GRIHA – 5 Star

Platinum – NC Platinum - NC Platinum - NC

Certified Year January 2010 March 2011 August 2014 November 2009

Climate Zone Warm-Humid Warm-Humid Warm-Humid Warm-Humid

Table 4.1: Brief Description of the Case Studies (Author, Appendix-IV)

The table above reflected the scale of projects, which was even assessed and confirmed

during the interviews. The scale of office projects certified by LEED APs which were

interviewed (relevant to case studies) ranged between 60,000 to 400,000 Sqft. The sheer

scale of projects revealed the presence of certification in the commercial sector of ICI,

which makes it very legitimate to analyze the certification system adopted. Besides, it

becomes necessary for the agencies implementing such assessment methods to ensure

the validity of the benefits which are given to projects achieving the ratings. This method

will ensure that the concept of sustainability has been followed and achieved with its real

time, meaning for the human and environmental development. This will be further

discussed and answers formulated based on the assessment methodology adopted for

this research.

- 45 -


4.1.2 Main Goal of Certifying the Projects The prime reason of certifying the projects was confirmed while interviewing. The main

parameters for identifying the reason behind certification can be related with 1) Financial

Profit, 2) Availing Local Incentives, 3) Marketing Purpose, 4) Corporate Social

Responsibility (CSR) Policy, and 5) Sustainability (as described by TBL). As per the scale

of its importance, these are highlighted in the Figure 4.1 below. These parameters were

re-assured while interviewing as well as the literature review about LEED certification in

developing countries like India.

Analysis of the projects defined these criteria’s with a very distinctive pattern especially

considering the aspects of Financial profits and Marketing purpose, as a main goal for

certifying the projects. These aspects were best scaled in all the 4 projects followed by the

remaining three parameters. In P1 & P2, the CSR was given a better rating as the

company’s being multinational follows such policies as a brand ambassador for their

products. The worst case scenario which was observed throughout this main goal of

certification was that sustainability was rated very poorly.

Figure 4.1: Major factors for certifying the projects (Author) Scale: 1 – Least Impact, 5 – Highest Impact

0

1

2

3

4

5

Financial Profit Availing Local Incentives

Marketing Purpose

CSR Policy Sustainability

Asse

ssm

ent S

cale

Factors for Achieving Sustainability

Rating

- 46 -


Considering the factors mentioned above, the researcher felt that,

A positive business case showcasing the benefits in terms of achieving a sustainable

building can be brought in place.

As the ICI is growing at a fast speed, bringing the basic parameters close to real time

sustainability should be the focus of the SC in India. The main purpose of achieving a

balanced TBL is quite far, and the ways for approaching the goal needs to be rectified.

The researcher provided a solution using IP, which he thinks can overturn the negative

impacts faced throughout the implementation process, (refer to the last section).

The factors stated above can lead to very dire consequences in the future for developing

countries like India, wherein the majority of the building stock will be constructed in the

next 15 years (Forum 2012).

4.1.3 Important Credits Considered for Certification In accordance with LEED certification, there are two categories of credits used for the

certification purpose. One is a prerequisite and the other is credits (USGBC 2014), the

major difference between the two is that the prerequisites are mandatory before even

attempting the other credits in a particular category. The Credits on the other side give a

possibility of combinations, wherein clients decide the adaptation based on the cost

implication of the same. Even before a project can be initiated for certification, a checklist

issued by LEED certification known as Minimum Program Requirements (MPR) has to be

fulfilled (USGBC 2011).

The Appendix – X enclosed provides a detailed description of the MPR. The MPR

ensures that the projects are following the regional environmental clauses plus additional

criteria’s, which will enable the project to be processed under the assessment method.

The project analysis led to various findings in terms of criteria’s considered for achieving

the definite rating. For all the specified projects, Table 4.2 below shows the Energy

Conservation Measures (ECMs) adopted.

- 47 -


Project 1 (P1) Project 2 (P2) Project 3 (P3) Project 4 (P4) 36.5% design - energy cost

40.3% design - energy cost



ASHRAE 90.1-2004

ASHRAE 90.1-2004 ASHRAE 90.1-2004 ASHRAE 90.1-2004

ECMs ECMs ECMs ECMs

Shading & overhangs

Shading & overhangs Improved building envelope

Insulated wall construction

High performance glazing

Efficient chiller Platinum – NC High performance double glazing

Efficient lighting design

Efficient lighting design

Reduced lighting power densities

Over deck roof insulation

Direct- indirect evaporative cooling

Primary & secondary chilled water pumping

Efficient HVAC system

High efficiency VRF volume AC system

Jet fans for parking ventilation

Heat recovery for ventilation air

Renewable energy Use of on-site renewable energy to meet 7.5% building load

Table 4.2: Energy conservation measures adopted in the Case Studies (Author) A detailed analysis of all the LEED categories and credits for the case studies achieved during the certification is shown in the Appendix - VI. It provides a clear picture of the credits categorized as stated earlier. Other parameters related to credits are described in the sections to follow.

4.1.4 Major Credits not feasible under LEED New Construction The analysis with the assistance of interviews helped in the understanding the most

unsuitable credits, which in turn can be a major recommendation for the elimination or

replacement of these credits with a more specific and regionally focused credits. Table 4.3

below reflects the credits which have not been majorly achieved throughout the

certification process.

- 48 -


Category P1 P2 P3 P4 Sustainable Sites (SS)

Development Density & Community Connectivity (CR2) 1 1 NA NA

Brownfield Development (CR3) NA NA NA NA

Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat (CR5.1)

NA NA 1 1

Materials & Resources (MR)

Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof (CR1.1)

NA NA NA NA

Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof (CR1.2)

NA NA NA NA

Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell+50% of Non-Shell (CR1.3)

NA NA NA NA

Resource reuse, 5% (CR3.1) NA NA NA 1

Resource reuse, 10% (CR3.2) NA NA NA NA

Table 4.3: Credits NA during the LEED Certification (Author)

As highlighted in the table above, the mentioned credits are mostly not even attempted for

the certification. In the SS category, CR2 is implemented in P1 & P2 and CR5.1 in P3 &

P4. In the MR category, only CR3.1 is implemented in P4. The analysis helped the

researcher in realizing that the adoption of the mentioned credits has not been quite

successful, also confirmed by interviewees A, B, D. (Appendix – IV) The specific reasons for negative acceptance of the above mentioned credits in ICI are:

The construction majorly takes place on Greenfield, and non-reclaimed areas in India.

There is no industrial area or re-developed areas for construction in urban cities.

These factors were even discussed with the interviewees and they even agreed that

wastage of one credit CR3 can be made useful in a different manner.

The credits CR2 & CR5.1 are based on the fact that use of previously developed sites

should be used to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, but looking at the urban

area development index of India, majority of the sites are virgin lands.

So the adaptation of these credits can be made more beneficial if changed to suit the local

prevailing conditions. Also, the developers consider a very minimal responsibility of

maintaining the green areas which are required as per the said criteria intent. This was

- 49 -


highlighted by the interviewees by giving examples of their other projects where green

areas turn into parking after a very close proximity of the operation.

In the MR category, as the researcher has chosen NC for his scope of research, which

made the credits CR1.1-1.3 & CR3.1-3.2 less meaningful. As the new construction does

not involve any sort of re-use, which is the intent behind said credits. The researcher

analyzed these credits with all the interviews and found that a better and more suitable

solution is needed for ICI. Even the projects achieving the platinum rating are unable to

make use of credits mentioned above. For example interviewee A stated,

“The use of natural materials like bamboo on a large scale in projects possibly in the

interiors or during the construction phase, can make this credit more beneficial for the

project. The use of bamboo leads to less energy consumption in manufacturing as well as

in the implementation stages”.

4.1.5 Barriers & Challenges Faced in the Implementation Process

During the projects mentioned above, various challenges and barriers were faced, and

were even discussed in detail with the interviewees related to the case studies. The ones

found important and persistent by the interviews are:

Streamlining - late decisions by clients for opting LEED certification

Consultants lack of technical knowledge of the LEED certification implementation

High capital cost is also considered to be an important barrier.

Urge to Innovate, Increased cost of construction, and longer design stage.

LEED APs from their organization have started providing training to consultants

individually, which somehow has made the consultants aware of the LEED certification

process. One such example, during the case study projects was highlighted by the

interviewee “subcontractor of façade had worked before and had a very good experience

of the certification. This was useful for the LEED APs in providing a life cycle costing

analysis for a major façade work with a very little time consumption and to nearly 85%

unchanged budget for facades at the project end”. To achieve the balance between all

three aspects of sustainability are not highly clarified and emphasized in the certification.

- 50 -


The change in the categories reflected in the V4 is being considered to bring the balance

towards higher side. As was reflected in the adoption level of credits during the projects

certification, choosing credits on the other was strictly based on Economic, then

Environmental and a small credibility towards Social aspects.

4.1.6 Major Shortcomings/Gaps of the Projects

The analysis of the case studies helped in finding the shortcomings based on the

implementation of credits as reflected in Appendix – IV & V. The interviewees provided a

very detailed feedback on the various shortcomings of the certification. This enabled the

researcher to relate them with the new revised credits in LEED V4 and find out major

changes (positive/negative) which V4 can bring with its implementation. Thereby, enabling

a change in the perspectives and approach, leading to a better implementation of the

certification, as stated by various interviewees:

Current Energy Performance is based on energy baselines set in the BEE standards

are not assisting positively towards the certification implementation.

Sharing knowledge with the consultants and providing trainings is quite challenging.

Implementing design related inputs for energy efficiency in a project by the SC during

the ongoing construction phase.

Energy & Water aspects due to its scarcity in various regions.

A better alternative for the benchmarking needs to be incorporated as most of the projects

does not comply with the maximum number of credits in this category. Also, a very

pessimistic approach for innovation is seen in LEED certification. One credit for the

innovation which involves a very rigorous attitude especially during the design process is

not a very progressive approach.

4.1.7 Lessons Learned and their implementation in Future Projects

An important tool for improvising the better outcomes of the future projects is efficient use

of lessons learned (Fong & Yip 2006). It includes the process of acquiring, handling and

verifying good or bad practices from projects in different stages, disseminating the verified

and approved lessons to related parties, and recording such practices in appropriate ways

for future reuse. The application of the tool was discussed and analyzed with the

interviewees related to the case studies, thereby leading to the findings discussed below.

- 51 -


Interviewees A, B, C: Providing training to consultants on an individual level is very

cumbersome and the results were not very positive. Our office has adopted the

collaborative training sessions which are provided to the project consultants altogether in

special rooms with a common name known as “Sustainability Development Rooms”.

The same was implied in P2, which helped in a very effective coordination between

various consultants working towards achieving the positive results for our client. The

above mentioned method, which we have initiated, is now with some additional changes a

part of LEED V4 known as Integrative Process.

Initiatives like waste management, greenhouse keeping practices, and car pooling have

been tried and carried forward in the upcoming projects. In few projects, the car pooling

turns into shuttle services as the projects are situated outside the cities. As interviewee F

stated:

“Implementing design related inputs for energy efficiency in a project where green building

consultants are on-board while the building is already in a construction phase.

4.2 Impact of New LEED V4 + C2C criteria’s on selected case studies Overall review of the LEED V4 new credits was held by conducting interviews. Also, the

case study analysis helped in finding the criteria’s which are considered important from the

LEED APs perspective and appropriate for the local conditions. Factors like building simulation in the concept design, natural materials use, client’s interest, and

resistance from the developers were analyzed as shown in the Figure 4.2 below

- 52 -


Figure 4.2: Analysis of factors on case studies (Author)

Scale: 1 – Least Impact, 5 – Highest Impact

The case studies analyzed had been effectively using the two major factors, which are

reflected in the figure above. One of the critical parameters which should be followed more

(use of natural materials), was not observed in the projects. The analysis also assisted in

knowing the major barriers which can be solved by using the new categories of V4. The

aforesaid factors and their importance is carried via analysis in the following sections. The

emphasis has been laid on how the LCA and the Integrative Process will be implemented

in the ICI, as these two categories are a major influential change in new version (Glass

2013). The researcher has attempted in providing a near possible way out for the effective

implementation of the challenges, barriers, and acceptance level in ICI. This will assist in

providing a ground level solution for the practitioners in adopting the new certification

process.

4.2.1 LCA Analysis & Implementation Assessment

As various literature studies reflected the importance of the LCA, which can change the

overall meaning and approach for achieving sustainability. The LEED certification started

the implementation in the year 2007, by primarily focusing on structural and envelope materials, including roofing systems, wall systems, water and air barriers, and thermal insulation (Hossaini & Hewage 2012). The researcher analyzed the LCA on the

selected case studies on the aforesaid factors. Most of the interviewees gave a negative

impression of the LCA being used in the projects. This can be related to the fact that:

0

1

2

3

4

5

P1 P2 P3 P4

Leve

l of I

mpa

ct

Projects

BS in Concept Design

Natural Materials Use

Client's Inclination

Developers Resistance

- 53 -


The LCA needs a massive manufacturing base in India, which at present is not available.

The LCA for every product in the construction sector will be a very costly affair, which will

hinder the adoption level.

The change in the regional regulations was stated as one of the prime factors of making

LCA possible in the industry.

Manufacturing industry like furniture can bring the LCA inside the buildings.

The case studies chosen showed very little signs of LCA being adopted, as they were

certified under LEED 2009. Figure 4.3 below reflects the use of the LCA type concept of

selected materials in the selected projects. It was highlighted during the interviews that the

LCA labeling is not available in India, but the clients ensure the use of products following

certain guidelines which are similar to the concept of LCA. An important perspective from

the LEED APs positive approach towards adopting the LCA will be a very positive

influence in making this process efficient and running in the ICI.

Figure 4.3: Representation of LCA assessment of the case studies (Author) Scale: 1 – Least Impact, 5 – Highest Impact

60% of the interviews were very positive towards the change which V4 has brought in as

few interviewees stated:

We have to try some alternative for adopting, especially the MR category. Few credits

were already incorporated, V4 makes placing them in the categories, thereby giving

added value service to these credits like water metering, energy metering.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Structural and Envelope Materials

Roofing Systems Wall Systems Water & Air Barriers

Thermal Insulation

LCA

Pres

ence

in a

Pro

ject

Basic Parameters Chosen as per LEED Certification

P1

P2

P3

P4

- 54 -


It will bring in the sustainability concept and involvement of all the stakeholders during

the pre-design stages, which will result in design optimization

As the ICI is very dynamic and complex, the process will streamline the proper use of

materials, thereby ensuring the waste which C&D normally brings in at the present

condition. However, the clients not being very open to accept the idea of V4 especially the

MR category, they are ensuring more projects are being registered under V3 certification.

This can be related to the factors like poor knowledge, lack of innovation in ICI, and

resistance to change which was highlighted by various interviewees (A, C, D, and G)

Evaluation of the projects and the interviews have also specified that the time consumed

for LCA is quite high, which in a fast growing and emerging economy like India, will face

many barriers for implementation. A few interviewees stressed the impact of time, which is

making the industry to re-think on such initiative. Even the fact that the ICI being

unorganized, there is a possibility of making the use of such labeling by the manufacturers

in a negative way as well. The interviewees reflected the reuse of materials as an

example of LCA, which can bring in the change which V4 is expecting at a broader scale.

The Figure 4.4 below shows the overall emphasis of the various factors which were

discussed above. It was observed that most of the factors were given the highest level of

impact, thereby ensuring the need to change the process.

Figure 4.4: Factors affecting the decision of clients, manufacturers and consultants for adopting LCA (Author)

Scale: 1 – Least Impact, 5 – Highest Impact

0

1

2

3

4

5

Cost Time Poor Knowledge

Lack of Innovation

Resistance to Change

Rang

e of

Impa

ct

Decisive Factors

Impact Level

- 55 -


4.2.2 Integrative Process

The integrative process (IP) being a new addition in LEED V4 can be very quickly

referenced with the presence of Integrated project delivery (IPD), where in the main

parties (client, architect & contractor) should join in at the very beginning to ensure the

best solution towards the quality, cost and schedule of the project (AIA National & Council

2007). The IP in LEED V4 has been developed in order to achieve the best solution in

relation to energy consumption, site conditions, massing & orientation, and basic envelope attributes during the schematic stage of the project. These factors (refer to

Table 4.4) assist in ensuring that the building will achieve maximum sustainable features

well before the execution has started.

Integrative Process Possible Things Involved Consider the owner’s goal for the project Goal setting session Research Site conditions, feasibility studies Picking a performance metric LEED or other tool Looking at cost and schedule Soft/Hard Construction Cost, Fees Associated Assemble the best team Experienced, Co-Learners

Table 4.4: Integrative Process adaptation (USGBC, 2014)

The current working system, in most of the selected case studies and from the practical

experience of working in India is described in the Figure 4.5 below. This shows the

disjointed system of working, which can be improved by using the IP.

- 56 -


Integrative process team will work in a closed circle with all teams as shown in the Figure 4.6 below. This represents a complete set of teams working under three different sections,

but all are working in tandem with each other. This process will not only help in ensuring

the efficient project working, but also the important factor considered in IC, which is Cost

parameter can be controlled, which eventually can be used for other renewable energy

production features for projects.

A wide discussion on this aspect was held with the interviewees, who provided a valuable

insight into this domain. In P1, similar sought of application was carried out, which ensured

that credits targeted alongside the cost analysis can be visualized at the beginning. In P1,

it was applied during the schematic design stage, which ensured the maximization of

credits better implication without additional cost burdens. Also highlighted in Table 4.5

above, that these parameters should be considered prior to implementing Integrative

Process.

Design Team

Architect Sub

Client/Owner Quality Legal Advisor

Contractor

Engineer

PMC

Sustainability Consultant (SC)

Marketing

Special SC

Inducted during SD, DD or CD stage Design changes leading to delayed project schedule Specification change in materials Additional cost for heating, lighting, and shading Renewable energy conservation adds cost burden Poor coordination throughout No cost analysis estimate possible during SD

Energy Modeling

Other Simulations

External Arbitration

Figure 4.5: Current state of working inducting SC and LEED 2009 (Author)

- 57 -


The category with the 1 credit point for assuring such credibility will not enhance the

participation of various groups for adopting the category. If the IP process will be made a

prerequisite in the certification, then the benefits which this entire process can produce will

be highly valuable and effective.

Figure 4.6: Integrative process team working (Author)

Client/Owner Quality Assurance

Legal Advisor

PMC Marketing

Design Team

Architect

Engineers

Sub Contractor

Contractor

Special SC

Sustainability Consultant (SC)

Energy Modeling Other Simulations

External Services

Starting from the early stage like contracts Across the table with

the client A clear road-line

developed Supply & Demand:

Make use of pilot projects for creating demand Clear track of goals

set in the beginning

Simulation of Energy & Water aspects at earliest Cost analysis of energy & water including

payback period Manufacturer’s cost savings plan Early stage integration

Integrative Process Stakeholders/Shareholders

- 58 -


4.3 The Adoption level of LEED V4 + C2C in the Indian Construction Industry

The assessment of case-studies helped the researcher in finding various factors like

shortcomings/gaps, reasons for credits adaptation, and lesson learned, which formulate a

baseline for assessing the LEED V4 + C2C in the ICI. Besides, the factors which were not

considered responsible for assisting in successful implementation of credits were also

identified. Also, the two major changes (LCA & IP) of LEED V4 were analyzed in the

earlier chapter, which provided a deeper insight of the changes these processed can bring

in and also the possible ways of implementing them in the ICI.

The interviews and in depth discussions, resulted in finding the impact of factors which can

change the position of LEED V4+C2C in the ICI. The Figure 4.6 below highlights the

factors which are considered very important, if the certification has to make major grounds

in the ICI. As seen in the figure below, manufacturing base and policy framework are

considered the most important parameters, followed by a change in mindset and the

knowledge level required in the field, to improve the adoption level of the certification.

Figure 4.7: Factors affecting the adoption of LEED V4+C2C in ICI (Author)

Scale: 0% - Least Important, 100% - Most Important

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Know

ledg

e Le

vel

Man

ufac

turin

g Ba

se

Priv

ate

Deve

lope

rs In

tere

st

Gove

rnm

ent F

unde

d Pr

ojec

ts

Polic

ies F

ram

ewor

k

Chan

ge in

Min

dset

Impact Level

- 59 -


The literature analysis resulted in knowing the fact that no single building in India has been

registered under V4, besides the fact that LEED implementation in India follows at No. 3

after USA & China (Atkins 2014). This represented a poor state of ICI where the

adaptation of such major changes will not be considered until and unless the regulations

are made mandatory or major incentives are being offered to the industry. However, the

researcher followed the interest in knowing the challenges and ways of implementing V4

plus C2C in ICI. The researcher used the ways which are discussed in more detail

alongside the results of assessing the implementation criteria’s.

Figure 4.8 below shows the way ICI has been working at present, and how the stated

factors above can be improved during the overall phases involved.

- 60 -




Present Problems

Present Users

Clients: Private Government Semi -Government

Consultants: Architect Engineers Contractors Others

Manufacturers: Building Products Infrastructure Others


Rating Tools LEED & GRIHA

Sustainable Assessment Methods Goals Achieved by LEED Less Energy Consumption Buildings Sustainable Environment Clients – Profitability Assessment Tool

Knowledge Level

Manufacturing Base

Private Developers

Government Funded

Policies Framework

Change in Mindset

Training programs for consultants; Induction in education;

Develop business cases with positive cost benefits; Initial processes with foreign companies

Marketing; CSR policies; Economic perspective; Improved social aspect

GRIHA followers; LEED induction required;

Assessment post operation mandatory; LCA methods;

Positive approach; Pilot projects; Positive economical case

Major Factors Possible Solutions

Figure 4.8: Working of LEED in ICI and possible solutions (Author)

- 61 -


4.3.1 First Impression of LEED V4 + C2C Most of the interviewees stated that the LEED V4 + C2C have not yet been implemented

in the ICI. It was emphasized by one of the interviewees by stating, “It is very stringent

considering the Indian market conditions, especially the MR credits as intent is completely

based on USA standards”. The interview analysis revealed that a product manufactured by

the company named weinerberger known as Porotherm, possibly a replacement of bricks

(Wienerberger 2014). The company is known for producing bricks and roof tiles, and with

this new type of bricks, which is marketed as highly recyclable. However the assessment

criteria of the material being used and its renewable potential are yet to be explored. This

however can turn to be a beginning of renewable products manufacturing on a large scale,

but using the natural and locally available systems. A few interviewees enforced the need

of such process as a very important and accurate step considering the regional context.

The implementation of C2C principles are highly visible in the Netherlands construction

industry, where the developers have insisted the manufacturers for developing C2C

products (Wille 2011b). The success story of using C2C products can be seen in the Park

20|20 master plan project (William McDonough + Partners 2014). Key features promoting

the C2C influence in the project has been achieved by using solar path diagram, wind rose

diagram, local and regional ecological network, polder water management, and Dutch

environmental policy (McDonough+Partners 2010). These parameters if carefully

analyzed, shows a basic way of approaching towards the design development process,

which in turn will lead to a brighter and sustainable buildings for the future.

An example from the regional context which the researcher referred to is a “Hero Motocorp Garden Factory and Global Parts Center”, Neemrana - India. This project

has been conceived by WM+P, and the first phase of the project was launched in October

2014 (McDonough+Partners 2014). The project has used the methods which ensured the

higher sustainability coefficient. The project even without certified has been hailed as a

sustainable building, especially when the typology of the building makes it difficult. The

researcher chose the project as a literary support in his analysis, as the intent of the

researcher can be given a profound and deep rooting to follow up for the practitioners. The

project features are listed in the Figure 4.9 below.

- 62 -


Figure 4.9: Hero Motocorp project features (WM+P, 2014)

Further analysis of the project revealed that the project was completed in a one year time

period, thereby ensuring the client’s aim of sustainability project achieved within a defined

time period. The project, designed by the C2C co-founder William McDonough, will act a

baseline for the forthcoming changes which will adopt not only the certification but the

realistic approach of sustainability.

Further interviews with the project executive architect, reinstated various facts like

sustainability in India needs to be perceived differently. Talking about LEED certification,

Efficient building envelope

Renewable energy: Photovoltaic panels will provide 5.5 MW for air conditioning

Air for space conditioning is provided ductless by two “Big Foot” air handlers

Waste heat recovery offsets the need for boilers or hot water heaters

Rooftop greenhouses and interior bio-walls will be irrigated by condensate from the AC system

Continuous linear skylights are shaded by the photovoltaic panels

Through skylights and eye-level windows,a significant factor in increased productivity

The landscape vegetation includes native, drought tolerant plants

Building materials have been considered for their impact on human and ecological health

The metal cladding on the front facade meets the criteria of the C2C Certification

Architecture & Planning Category

Materials Category

Energy Resources Category

- 63 -


the architects mentioned that projects need to be certified for making them sustainable,

which they are showcasing to the community by developing a 85,000 square meters

development. The parameters of making building sustainable should be conceived in the

design process, where he stated the role of architects and LEED APs will play a major

role. The various problems of an economic burden on the project from the client’s

perspective can be shredded and reduced to a very large number.

Indeed the change in reforms in ICI by the latest policy formation can see a new future for

the material industry, Interviewee A, C, D.

4.3.2 Recommendations for the implementation and adoption of LEED V4 + C2C in the ICI

It has been mentioned in the previous sections that how the industry has received the

previous certifications. The adoption level of less than 10% reinstates that even the urban

areas with such a fast paced growth has not seen the acceptance of the certification.

Three major factors of, 1) manufacturing base, 2) policy framework, 3) change in mindset,

and 4) knowledge level, were discussed and emphasized throughout the interviews. The

researcher has tried to provide a possible implementing solution, which even has been

literary supported by various authors.

Manufacturing Base Being the very important aspect of the CI, the sector needs a large scale change to bring

in the major amendments, which are mandatory as per the LEED V4 + C2C certification.

During the interviews, it was emphasized that the industry should adopt ways of producing

more renewable products, which thereby can reduce the harmful effects created by the

construction materials. As the C&D waste in India is increasing alarmingly fast and the

waste management was not very successful, the emphasis on renewable material

production is becoming very critical and necessary. The V4 has made the C&D waste

management planning mandatory, which will ensure that the practitioners will make it a

part of the design process, where in the planning of such parameters will be considered

and worked out in advance, with an approximate estimation of the quantity.

- 64 -


Various studies reflected that the proper waste management planning and reuse of C&D

waste will bring a cost savings of 15% in mid-sized commercial project (Thomas & Wilson

2013). Besides the economic aspect of a project, the harmful effects can be reduced to a

bare minimum. The C2C philosophy for innovative ideas implemented in the development

of products which are used in everyday life and construction has seen a rapid growth for

the last few years. It will not be very far when the industry in India will adopt such change

in the way of working.

As already showcased in a project based in India, C2C needs to be given a very wide

platform. The possible solution and adaptation is shown in the Figure 4.10. It was

emphasized by various interviews that the making of business case, especially by the

consultants (Architects, LEED APs), can help in making a progressive approach from the

Figure 4.10: Manufacturing base possible solution (Author)


Business Case Development

LEED V4 + C2C

C&D Waste Management

C2C Principles Renewable products

- Positive economic case, (Venlo City Hall) - Defined payback period - Environment & human friendly

C2C Products or Similar

- Waste turns to reusable material - Harmless products - Manufacturers profit case

Architects LEED APs

Clients Manufacturers

Role Models Prime Adaptors

- 65 -


manufacturers and the client side. The C2C principles will lead to a very innovative and

basic LCA, as reflected by a case study observation (Bhise & Kashikar 2014), thereby

leading to a very strong case for product development on three defined principles of C2C.

Policy Framework

The need of policy frameworks is quite valid and necessary to bring new changes, which

are changing the overall processes of certification. In the Netherlands, the adaptation of

policies has been phenomenal since many years, especially in the field of Energy, and

Water. As the guidelines for C2C BE were established since the 1990s through published

declarations such as the Hannover Principles (McDonough Architects 2000) and more

recently with the publication of the Floriade Venlo Principles and Almere Principles

(Douglas & Michael 2010). These emphasize the importance of policy frameworks, which

is at a very low level in the ICI (refer to Figure 4.11)

“Policy has a further role in providing the right signals for investment in resource efficiency

by eliminating environmentally harmful subsidies and switching taxation away from labor

towards pollution and resources.” (Groothuis 2014, p.141)

As most of the interviews reflected the dire need of policy implementation in India,

whereas the positive impact of certification is not commendable across the industry.

Already in place, few initiatives were implemented at a local level by selective urban area

municipalities in India. These initiatives are highlighted by 1) additional floor area ratio, 2)

subsidies in a renewable energy purchase, which the developer or owner receives as soon

as they register their projects under the certification.

Almere Principles Cultivate diversity Connect place and context Combine city and nature Anticipate change Continue innovation Design healthy systems Empower people to make the city

Venlo Principle Never seize to innovate Be native to place Appreciate and manage ‘food’ Enjoy mobility The sun is our income Create clean air, water and soil Design for the enjoyment of future generations

C2C Principles | 2002 Waste equals food Use current solar income Celebrate diversity

Figure 4.11: Policy Frameworks as a baseline (Author)

- 66 -


Change in Mindset Most of the detailed discussions have reflected the poor state of certification. Owners and

developers tend to focus more on the economic aspects with a least importance for the

social aspects. As few companies follow the CSR aspect, they only adopt the balance of

TBL from the outset.

The interviews revealed that this barrier tends to make the clients positive or negative

towards the certification plus adoption of credits based on the economic aspect only.

There are very necessary steps, which the sustainability consultants need to follow and

implement. As one of the interviewees stated that “their company ensures that they are

involved in a project from the very beginning (SD), enabling them to make a very profound

impact on the quality of the project and also the clients have seen the results during the

overall processes.”

Knowledge Level

As discussed with in detail with C2C experts during the interview, it is becoming necessary

to educate the masses about the principles on which it is based. Providing a LEED

certification is not necessarily helping in making buildings, sustainable, which should be

the overall aim of the goals. As of the interview stated that “during the certification process,

people forget the actual reason for which they are making the buildings, sustainable

instead the focus is on maximizing the number of credits.” This process might have helped

the developers in earning that extra, but the assessment of buildings is not proving to be

positive. As various researchers in the USA have been conducted on certified buildings,

and were found that the certified buildings are performing worse than the certified

buildings (Scofield 2009).

The perspective described above makes it very necessary to initiate the steps, wherein the

clients, manufacturers, and SC’s are given the necessary knowledge about the kind of

steps, they should follow for achieving a sustainable development. The project mentioned

above will assist in becoming a reference for ensuring the goals of the client being

implemented without being a certified building.

As reflected in the Figure 4.12 below the two important parameters of Education & Practitioners. As they play a very important role in making the sustainability implemented

- 67 -


from a grass root level. In the figure, the researcher has given a possible way out in

making these two players equipped prior to the implementation process. By making the

building certified is not guaranteeing that the sustainability quotient is very high. The

theory and principles illustrated need to be adopted and shared industry wide. An

important aspect, which needs to be given due importance is to provide training to the

contractors and SC’s as they are not equipped with the ways of implementing the

certification. This is making the implementation process very rigorous and challenging in

achieving high quality developments, as stated during by few interviewees.

Figure 4.12: Improving the knowledge management aspect (Author)


Lack of Practitioners Lack of Education

EDUCATION Sustainability Renewable Energy Water Resources Environment Pollution C2C principles

Universities education Sustainability induction courses Local knowledge area improvements

PRACTITIONERS Owners Municipalities Engineers Contractors Manufacturers

PROBLEMS @ PRESENT

Lack of resources Adverse &

uncontrolled growth Shareholders interest

not defined in LEED Sustainability not

important Assessment criteria

not available

Trainings at mass scale Induction of basic knowledge like of C2C

Establish a Positive Agenda Learn from Nature (Biomimicry) Work in transdisciplinary way

Champions trainings Sponsors trainings Advisors trainings

Problems like Technical motivation Knowledge management

- 68 -


4.4 LEED V4 + C2C implementation using Integrative Process

The in-depth discussions with the interviewees provided a perspective on how the

certification will enable a balanced TBL and its implementation. The practitioners gave a

wide range of views about the way it can be implemented. There are three general, inter-

related issues to be considered in understanding sustainable buildings (Kim et al. 2013) as

people (owners, occupants), products (materials, structure, equipment, controls, services),

processes (maintenance, performance, management). A detailed description of the

factors, challenges, and barriers which are responsible for the certifications were analyzed

and also were shown in the earlier sections. Besides the aspects described above the

major differences analyzed in the Materials & Resources category are listed in the

Figure 4.13 below.

Figure 4.13: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Author)

Storage & Collection of Recyclables (PR) Storage & Collection of Recyclables (PR)

Construction Waste Management Construction Waste Management (PR) Construction Waste Management Building Reuse Storage & Collection of Recyclables (PR)

Interior Reuse

Materials Reuse

Building Product Disclosure & Optimization (EPDs)

Recycled Content

Regional Materials

Rapidly Renewed Materials Sourcing of Raw Materials

Certified Wood

No Old Credit

Building Product Disclosure & Optimization

Materials Ingredients

LEED 2009 Credits LEED V4 - New

- 69 -


The researcher proposed an integrated activity model (IAM) of working on a broader way

for LEED V4 + C2. The model can increase the sustainability coefficient and ensure the

assessment criteria during and post operation of the development. The IAM will work on

the guidelines which are set out in C2C, as the researcher during the literature and

interview studies ensured that by adopting C2C principles, there will be bright changes in

realizing the basic parameters of sustainability. The researcher, incorporated the

parameters which were highlighted and given due negligence during the certification. The

factors considered very important and even discussed in the previous sections were

infused in the IAM. The step might help the practitioners in a smallest possible way to

consider the parameters not only for the certification but also the aim for the sustainable

future.

As reflected in the Figure 4.14, the researcher used two different phase adoption as used

globally and regionally (COA). The phases described by COA depicted the picture which

cannot help in attaining a sustainability coefficient with quality. As the contract stage is well

ahead post the detailed designed stage. This proves to be a major barrier in achieving the

set sustainability target (if any) in a project. Each phase represents the steps involved in

achieving the final goal set by the client in a project. The graph represents the

implementation of LEED V4 + C2C, in the earlier phases, which the researcher analyzed,

can bring the well needed change in the system. Each phase have been illustrated with

the possible items/requirements covered using the said base above.

The researcher used the graph also to reflect the role, responsibilities, and position of SC

and C2C expert’s throughout the project lifecycle. The graph represents a very poor state

of SC positioning in a project, which can be concluded as a major factor for not achieving

the sustainability coefficient. This emphasizes the dire/urgent need of integrated approach

towards the project implementation including the important aspect of sustainability

development. The IP has been proved to provide cost effective solutions, this however is a

vast subject to dealt with, but the researcher has provided few examples adopted. These

reflect the economic aspect of the project given a positive upbeat as the adoption of IP will

not be made more rigorous until proved economically viable and beneficial.

- 70 -


Integrated Activity Model using LEED V4 + C2C

Phases Initiation Planning Executing Monitoring & Controlling Closing

Procedure Principles Implementation

C2C

State your intentions Define Materials and Their Intended Use Pathways

Waste Equals Food

Prepare inventory Intentions as measurable goals

Assessment along set baseline Goals being re-traced within the intent set

Use period for buildings, products and materials Integrate Biological Nutrients Innovative finance Set goals, milestones &

roadmaps Controlled product quality Sustainability alongside diversity achieved

Establish milestones & Innovation incentives Enhance Air and Climate Quality Innovative partnerships

Renewable energy sources creation

Payback period Enhance Water Quality Integrate diverse C2C experienced contractor

Self dependence of building Advanced

Business Case Development Integrate Renewable Energy Use Current Solar Income Integrate systems & application tools

Client/Consultant/Manufacturer - Level of satisfaction achieved

Actively Support Biodiversity Celebrate Diversity

Integrate diverse use with features applying C2C

Celebrate Conceptual Diversity with Innovation

Integrate Natural Light with Innovative Artificial Light

Add Value and Enhance Quality for Stakeholders Stakeholder Value

Criteria

Protect occupants from environmental hazards

Sustainability Development Room Enhance Stakeholder Well-Being and

Enjoyment Aesthetic opinion of stakeholders

+ ROLE OF C2C EXPERIENCED TRAINER / INSPIRER

LEED V4

OPR, BOD Integrative Process

Environmental

Various Management plans Defined parameters Commissioning & Verification Overall sustainability coefficient - Satisfied

Integrative Process Location & transportation Reports for various simulations Clear design intent Controlled quality Assessment of systems yearly

Energy & Water simulations Sustainability sites Material / Products Selection Innovation designed

Approximate cost plans Water efficiency Renewable Energy sources Cost/Schedule Intact

Energy & atmosphere Pilot testing of RE features

Materials & resources Social

Indoor environmental quality

Economic

Innovation in design

Regional priority SOCIAL ASPECT STILL NOT SATISFIED

ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT

SHIFTING THE POSITION OF LEED V4 + C2C

Phases (COA) Concept Design Preliminary Design & Drawings Drawing for Client's /

Statutory Approvals Working Drawings & Tender Documents

Appointment of Contractors Construction Completion

Existing Approach LEED V3

Design brief One design option - working

Schematic stage Construction stage 50% Contract documents Construction stage 100% Commissioning & Verification

Sketches, Basic drawings Drawings, Design reports

Drawings, Final design reports Tender drawings, documents Project costs finalized Drawings Operation & Maintenance

Feasibility studies Preliminary cost estimate

Statutory drawings Site analysis

PRESENT SITUATION

REAL TIME BARRIERS FOR SC

Renderings

LEED CERTIFICATION IDEA! Feasibility studies like: Zero or very low understanding/ implementation of sustainability parameters

CERTIFIED PROJECT

Sustainable sites, Water efficiency Design changes Assessment post operation -

NA

Energy & Atmosphere, Materials & Resources Cost/Schedule changes Overall sustainability

coefficient - NS

Indoor Air Quality; ID

IMPORTANT PHASES OF THE PROJECT – SC Missing

ROLE OF SUSTAINABILITY CONSULTANT SC - No Role

Legend SC - Sustainability Consultant; COA - Council of Architecture; OPR - Owner Project Requirement; BOD - Basis of Design; NA - Not Applicable; NS - Not Satisfied Figure 4.14: Integrated Activity Model using LEED V4 + C2C (Author)

- 71 -


Boecker (2014) reinstated the economical aspect by using IP on a case study (Neptune

Township Community School) as shown in the Figure 4.15 below. The building was

designed while considering the following parameters:

Solar orientation, Site data, Initial energy performance targets (e.g. EPA), Simple box

energy modeling, Load distributions & Initial comparisons, and Day lighting Modeling. The

cost aspects alongside the environmental aspects will have a positive influence towards

the project lifecycle. The figure below reflects the design change in adopting high

performance windows over creating perimeter heating systems, thereby leading to better

economic benefits.

Figure 4.15: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Boecker, 2014)

The above example has its potential use in the buildings which have not been considered

for certification in India, the percentage of those is quite large presently. The use of

potential solutions like the one shown above can resolve the additional cost which the

client bears in mind while opting for these basic but effective options.

The project showcased other perspective of IP which was the use of energy efficient

measures (EEMs) as shown in the Table 4.5 below. EEMs opted for the case shown are

solar orientation, R27 wall w/ blown cellulose, R30 roof insulation, triple pane windows, LPD = 0.92 W/Sqft, solar shading, light shelves, daylight dimming, ground source heat pumps, under floor supply air, demand controlled ventilation, and energy recovery units. The use of EEMs enabled the project achieving a payback period

for day-lighting & roof insulation in 3.5 years respectively in comparison with 5 and 8 years

respectively using a conventional method of designing without considering any measures.

- 72 -


The payback period achieved in both the cases by using EEMs is highlighted. The

effective adoption of IP using various techniques as reflected in this case is very ominous

and represents a baseline case for various projects following the similar criteria’s in their

future projects. The interest factor not considered in the table can be pointing towards the

additional cost which the clients bear every year as the RECs are getting more costly. The

IP can integrate these factors with much cohesive and positive result as shown in the table

below. This gives a strong base for opting similar practice in the ICI, with a strong surety of

positive results seen during the planning stage itself.

- 73 -


Energy Modeling Parametric Runs – Individual EEMs Individual EEM Design

Runs ASHRAE Budget

Building Daylighting (1W/Sqft)

Wood Frame Triple Pane

R27 Metal Frame Walls

R30 Roof Insulation

Estimated Operating Costs

Electric $124,184 $106,134 $115,969 $116,462 $119,786 Gas $25,882 $27,350 $24,981 $24,366 $25,095 Total $150,067 $133,483 $140,950 $140,827 $144,881 Cost/Sqft $1.03 $0.92 $0.97 $0.97 $0.99 Building Energy Use (Mbtus) Electric (Mbtu) 3,930.60 3,389.80 3,653.60 3,646.70 3,770.90 Gas (Mbtu) 3,451.00 3,464.60 3,330.80 3,248.80 3,346.00 Total (Mbtu) 7,381.50 7,036.50 6,984.40 6,895.50 7,116.80 HVAC System Size Heating (Kbtu/h) 1,383.00 1,394.80 1,160.30 1,177.80 1,283.80 Cooling (Tons) 150 130 135 138 143 EEM Economics EEM Savings NA $16,584 $9,117 $9,240 $5,186 EEM Costs NA $90,350 $69,896 $46,302 $41,789

Payback NA 5.45 7.67 5.01 8.0 Energy Modeling Parametric Runs – Combination Runs

EEM Combination Design Runs

ASHRAE Budget Building

ASHRAE plus EEMs

ASHRAE EEMs w/ Daylighting

GSHP Plus EEMs

GSHP EEMs w/Daylighting

Estimated Operating Costs

Electric $124,184 $90,764 $87,624 $72,547 $69,901

Gas $25,882 $25,347 $25,531 $0 $0

Total $150,067 $116,111 $113,155 $72,547 $69,901

Cost/Sqft $1.03 $0.80 $0.78 $0.50 $0.48

Building Energy Use (Mbtus) Electric (Mbtu) 3,930.60 2,884.20 2,802.70 2,315.90 2,252.90

Gas (Mbtu) 3,451.00 3,379.50 3,404.20 0 0

Total (Mbtu) 7,381.50 6,263.70 6,206.90 2,315.90 2,252.90

HVAC System Size Heating (Kbtu/h) 1,383.00 911 911 911 911

Cooling (Tons) 150 96 92 96 91

EEM Economics EEM Savings/Year NA $33,956 $36,912 $77,520 $80,166

EEM Costs NA $34,100 $124,450 $365,900 -$275,550

Payback NA 1 3.37 0 0 Legend: Mbtus – Million British Thermal Units per hour ; Kbtu/h – Kilowatt British Thermal Unit per hour

Table 4.5: Analysis of Material & Resource Category Differences (Boecker, 2014)

- 74 -


The researcher in the process of analysis and even during his own working experience

has observed such kind of problems being put across the table to a client at a very later

stage leading to increased project cost and schedule. This never has ensured the

credibility of the consultants working on the project neither the development of the project

with its highest achievable quality. As reflected in the figures above, the researcher also

emphasizes the effective adoption of the IP, for not only the success of the project, but

also in achieving a sustainable development in its real meaning, as discussed in the

introduction of this research.

The researcher, aimed at using the IP using the LEED V4 + C2C principles, by developing

a graphical representation of working with IP, especially for the sustainability consultants.

The Figure 4.15 below reflects the stages of working for using the IP strategies.

The researcher divided the working stages for sustainability consultants, Integrative

process strategy, planning strategy, and implementing strategy.

Each stage reflects the detailed process flow, which the SC should try and

implement before starting the project.

The phase completion leads to another phase, which otherwise needs to be re-

worked from the beginning.

It depends on the level of knowledge possessed, working experience and the zest for

innovation acquired by the project handling team from the client, consultants,

contractors, and the manufacturer’s.

The use of steps described below, will help in achieving a better result for sustainable

development during the initial stages, which can trigger a positive approach in the

developing countries like India. The research aimed to provide a progressive featured

framework, which can help the practitioners in considering the IP plus C2C for their future

prospective. The new approach will help the practitioners to start forehead for the project,

thereby reducing the menace of problems created during the lifecycle of the projects.

- 75 -


Sustainability Consultant

Integrative Process Strategy Planning Strategy Implementing Strategy

INTEGRATIVE PROCESS USING LEED V4 + C2C FOR PROJECTS: POSSIBLE SOLUTION

YES

Without Change

YES

Without Change

YES

Without Change

Establish milestones & Innovation incentives; Prepare Inventory

Involve project teams based on best practicing knowledge and value adding towards sustainability

Procure Materials based on maximum RC; Manufacturing companies with transparent model

Develop monitoring & controlling procedure for the planning, implementation & operation phases

Organize training for promoting Innovative product, and materials process development

Push manufacturer's to create products using natural materials; Use period for buildings, products and materials.

Define Roles & Responsibilities for all participants

Develop Eco Charrette involving Sustainability Consultant for all phases. SC from the starting phase

Clarify major aspects of Project Development, highlighting sustainability as a core issue

Identify technical capabilities of Involved Participants, Willingness to produce higher renewable products.

Define the necessary processes required and Trainings

Define the methods, standards for Implementation

STATE YOUR INTENTIONS

Chose a Team of people responsible for carrying out early project Energy, Water Simulations, & LCA analysis

Use the analyses to develop OPR, BOD, design documents, and construction documents

Develop Business Case highlighting: Economic Benefits; Innovative Ideas; Project Teams Involvements

Effective Use of Lessons Learned, Sharing the processes via Publishing’s

LEED V4+C2C champion: Carry risk assessment for credits implementation

Educate Client, Consultants about LEED V4 + C2

Involvement of experienced LEED+C2C Champion

Set Benchmarks, Feasibility Studies prior to Implementation

Identify consultants, Contractors, Manufacturers willing to adopt V4+C2C

Carry out Technical Audit of Involved Teams. Provide necessary trainings & resources (if needed)

REVIEW OF EACH STAGE LEADING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE ADOPTION OF EACH STEP AND OVERALL IMPLEMENTATION

Figure 4.16: Integrative Process Using LEED V4 + C2C for Projects (Author)

- 76 -


Unique Features of LEED V4 + C2C

The researcher during the whole analysis process figured various features which in one

way are very basic parameters for design process but on the other hand are not dealt with

the curiosity and innovative thinking even during the planning process. Uniqueness of the

features and there practical implementation was reflected by interviewees D, E and also

throughout this research. The benefits perceived by using these features were highly

appraised by the clients (McDonough+Partners 2010), which provides a very impactful and

precise way ahead for the practitioners.

Site Orientation: The features being basic in nature can lead to longevity of building

operations and also a positive economic aspect. As the project stated above showcased

the use of this feature, it becomes a very critical aspect for the designing phase.

Bio Diversity: Using site surveys for mere structural purpose of the building cannot help

in creating a bio-diverse environment. As the Park 20|20 project showcases the use of this

perspective by creating a built environment suitable for a harmonized living of humans and

other species.

Use Period of Building Products: Products used in buildings has been analyzed

merely for its use period but not beyond its end. This perspective of C2C has enabled the

developer’s of Project Venlo to create and use maximum C2C certified products, thereby

providing a chance for changing the C2G into C2C. Interviewee E stated the example of

Project Venlo, wherein working with manufacturers for taking the end product back after

the lifecycle has been contracted. An example of the same is “furniture manufacturers will

take products back after 10 years life and in return the owner of the building gets 18%

material cost back. The emphasis on such parameters will lead a low menace of C&D

waste post the life cycle of products involved. This aspect can lead the manufacturers to

take the first step towards the new paradigm, even making them the front-runners.

Business Case: For clients to opt for the whole new process has to come up with its

unique approach. One such approach is providing a strong business case reflecting all the

three important aspects catered very equally. As the clients can be made aware of the

- 77 -


positive intent and results acquired by adopting the criteria’s, there are higher chances of

the implementation possible.

The Figure 4.17 showcases the complete analytical approach opted by the researcher.

On the left side of the graph, the content analyzed represents the problems in the ICI and

the SAFs used for solving those. Also the literature analysis helped in knowing the

potential of SAFs at a global level. LEED V4 + C2C with its basic principles are highlighted

to ensure the desired needs of new modified tool and its possible implementation.

The graph on the right side depicted the picture of parameters analyzed throughout the

whole research process like IP, C2C principles, LCA, and LEED – SS, M&R categories.

The case studies analyzed resulted in knowing factors important for sustainability

assessment, non-relevant credits and tough credits for implementation. The impact of the

V4 + C2C on the case studies helped in knowing the Factors important for the Client, and

Factors affecting the case-studies from a ground level perspective. The adoption level in

ICI reflected the dire need of parameters like Knowledge base, Manufacturing Sector,

Policy Development, and openness towards adopting the overall certification principles.

The practitioner’s perspective reflected the urgent adoption of IP leading to highly

innovative, cost effective and sustainable design solutions from the very beginning of the

project. The process has proven to be beneficial for the clients, manufacturers,

consultants, society, and the government.

The triangular formation of the Client, Manufacturer’s, and Project managers/SC leads the

reader towards the important concept of integration. These smaller problems leading to a

bigger problem during the various phases can be given a breather if IP is implemented

and followed by a clear guided layout. The representation in the Figure 4.16 showcases

such guidelines. Use of the aspects critically analyzed, illustrated, and described in the

earlier sections have been summed in a graphical representation in Figure 4.17.

- 78 -


Figure 4.1: Overall analysis using LEED V4 + C2C (Author)

LITE

RATU

RE R

EVIE

W

INTR

ODU

CTIO

N &

PRO

BLEM

DEF

INIT

ION

FINDINGS & DISCUSSION ANALYSIS USING PARAMETERS INTRODUCTION & PROBLEM DEFINITION



Present Problems

Present SAF’s


Rating Tools LEED & GRIHA LEED – NC (highlighted)

Sustainable Assessment Frameworks

GOALS ACHIEVED BY LEED Less Energy Consumption Buildings Sustainable Environment Clients – Profitability Assessment Tool

LEED V4 - Promote Triple Bottom Line - Establish Leadership - Reconcile Humanity with Nature - Foster Social Equity - Maintain Integrity - Be Inclusive - Exhibit Transparency C2C - Waste Equals Food - Use Current Solar Income - Social Diversity

BREEAM, 1990; DGNB, 2007; SBTool 2007; LEED USGBC, 1998

LEED IGBC, 2001 - Global Recognition - Clarity in Certification

Requirements - Supporting Services

GLOBAL & REGIONAL SAFs

GRIHA, 2005 - Regional Presence Only - Stringent Certification Process - More suitable to local climate - National Rating System adopted by

GOI

- Major Force for Knowledge Improvement

- Manufacturing Sector needs Baseline Case

- Business Cases for Private Developers

- Positive Framework Approach towards GOI

- Policy Development Requirement is High

- Openness towards certification

INTEGRATIVE PROCESS USING LEED V4 + C2C FOR PROJECTS: POSSIBLE SOLUTION (Figure 4.16)

Factors Important for SA

- Financial Profit

- Marketing Purpose

- Availing Local Incentives

- CSR Policy

- Sustainability

Non-Relevant Credits

- Brownfield Development (CR3)

- Development Density (CR2)

- Materials & Resources: CR1.1 –

1.2, CR 3.1 – 3.2

Factors Important for Client

- Resistance to Change

- Lack of Innovation

- Cost

- Time

- Improving the knowledge base

Factors Affecting Case Studies

- Client’s Inclination

- Development Resistance

- Building Simulation in Concept

Design

- Natural Material’s Use

INNOVATION USING LEED V4 + C2C

MANUFACTURER’S OWNER / CLIENT

PROJECT MANAGER/SC

CASE STUDIES – OFF BUILDINGS

ADOPTION LEVEL IN ICI

PRACTITIONERS PERSPECTIVE

IMPACT ON CASE STUDIES

INTEGRATIVE PROCESS

C2C PRINCIPLES

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

SUSTAINABILITY SITES

MATERIALS & RESOURCES

- 79 -

Conclusion & Recommendations LEED V4 + C2C

5. Conclusion & Recommendations The objective of this chapter is to sum up the ideas which the researcher analyzed in the

entire process of this research project. Besides, the researcher will propose the future

possibilities of research on this subject, which he felt are very critical and viable.

For obtaining the answer to the stated research question, the objectives framed were

critically analyzed using various tools and methods.

The first objective of this research project provided an insight in the existing process of

certification. It was achieved by using four case studies, which were chosen based on the

best rating achieved, growing demand of offices, and data access availability.

The overall analysis revealed various parameters which need to be modified,

retrofitted, and replaced in the regional context.

The main goal of certification, revealed the following factors considered for

sustainability assessment (SA) are

- Financial profit

- Marketing purpose

- Availing local benefits

- CSR policy, and

- Sustainability.

Credits considered important, but are very difficult to implement for the certification are

- Reduction of the design energy cost

- ECMs adoption

- Threshold for renewable energy, and

- Baseline as water cooled chiller in water scarce areas.

Major credits not feasible under LEED certification included CR - 2, 3, 5.1, 1.1-1.3, and

CR 3.1-3.2. This gives an opportunity for the LEED USGBC/IGBC to modify the credits

to their regional context availability.

Barriers and challenges faced in the implementation process highlighted the need of

- Improvement in technical knowledge of the consultants

- Client’s involvement in the earlier phases (streamlining)

- Urge towards innovation

- High capital cost, and

- Achieving a balanced triple bottom line.

- 80 -


Lessons learned during the analysis included provision of sustainability development

rooms, waste management initiatives, greenhouse keeping practices, and car pooling

activities.

A major change that can make a positive influence on this process is publishing the

steps involved and the processes used for achieving these parameters like in the

LEED or C2C certified websites.

Publishing of lessons learned will not only help the SC’s in a better implementation, but

it can lead to awareness from the buyer’s and user’s perspective as well. The user’s

can contribute by sharing their green practices in a particular certified website, thereby

leading to positive repercussions.

One of the major findings during the analysis revealed that the non-assessment of

buildings post certification is not in place. The absence of this parameter is not helping

in realizing the potential of certification, which thereby can act as a baseline

representation of best sustainable buildings for future project developments.

The second objective helped in reviewing the situation of LEED V4 + C2C on the

selected case studies. Thereby helping in knowing the possible way out for adopting the

new selective criteria’s in the certification.

Analysis of the four factors as

- BS in the concept design

- Natural materials use

- Client’s inclination, and

- Developer’s resistance,

revealed that no. 3 is rated highest and no. 2 the lowest. Factors 1 and 4 were given a fair

percentage for the implementation. Use of higher percentage of natural materials can

make a way ahead for a better sustainable development.

Credits like local transportation are given a valuable importance, bringing out more

innovative ideas in the planning approach. Not only at the project can level, but also at

a city level, where this parametric change brings positive effects.

The IP adoption approach was quite different prior to the NC and a mere 10%

implementation. The influence which IP can bring is quite immense and was given a

high rating for adoption in the list of new credits of LEED V4.

- 81 -


The use of IP will provide better outcomes in terms of energy consumption, site

conditions, massing & orientation, and basic envelope attributes during the concept

and schematic stages of the project.

The IP will bring closer the involvement of SC’s and stakeholders in the early stages of

project development, which is a very positive influence for the overall credibility of the

certification, as also described in the Figure 4.6.

LCA adoption revealed majorly a negative expression because of various reasons

stated earlier as observed on the basic parameters described in LEED 2009 of

structural and envelope materials, including roofing systems, wall systems, water and

air barriers, and thermal insulation.

Reasons for poor LCA adoption is due to poor manufacturing base, overall cost

aspect, and the time consumption.

A positive influence in LCA adoption can be the change in regional regulations

towards the manufacturing. Also, defining use period of building products like furniture

can bring forth the implementation of this criterion in a fast and viable manner.

Factors affecting the decision of client and manufacturer’s towards the LCA

implementation are

- Mainly resistance to change

- Lack of innovation

- Poor knowledge

- Time barrier, and

- Cost aspect.

A composite drive of focusing on these parameters can bring forth the positive

implementation of the LCA aspect.

C2C principles being different from LCA will help in creating footprints with a

continuous loop as compared to end cycle in the LCA. Forecasting rather than back-

casting will induce the positive change and thereby the results.

The third objective provided the detailed analysis of the adoption level of the LEED V4

+ C2C in the ICI.

The first impression of the certification reflected the signs of quite stringent and difficult

to implement, especially the MR credits due to its labeling criteria’s.

Labeling criteria of LCA and C2C will enact like USP’s for manufacturers in the near

future, this will be a prime reason for opting the labeling.

- 82 -


The main factors affecting the implementation of the certification are

- Manufacturing base

- Policies framework

- Change in mindset

- Knowledge level

- Private developer’s interest, and

- Government funded projects.

As reflected in the Figure 4.7, a possible solution for the above said factors will help in

resolving the problems.

Material named Porotherm produced by a company named weinerberger is the only

product in the C2C lab available in India. This is seen to mark a new beginning

towards the production of such materials and their implementation. Thereby,

enhancing the use of recycled products like the use of clay in the ICI.

Figure 4.9 reflected the latest project conceived by Ar. William McDonough in India.

The project showcases the use of features by adopting C2C principles in its basic

design parameters.

The project will act as one of the best baseline cases for adopting the latest principles

showcased by C2C. Even the trend set by the clients will make more people to follow

such principles with a strong positive intent.

A building of 85,000 Sqm will enact in itself a major development towards sustainability

using C2C. The building type being factory even portrays the difficult level of

implementation as it is considered to be service and operation oriented.

C2C implementation can be made realistic by following the steps like

- Initiation from the beginning like in contracts

- Involvement of stakeholders in developing and defining their mission for the

present and for minimum 5 years

- Developing a road line for the building towards reaching the set goals, and

- Creating supply and demand chain – increase in the requirement of C2C inspired

products in a building.

Manufacturing base aspect can be improved by providing a strong business case as

the manufacturer’s primary aspect always is to assure the best economic output

involved in the development of such products.

The improvement in the knowledge level of client, consultants can be seen by data

publishing of such astounding and trend setting projects. The base case for such

- 83 -


positive influence can be highlighted by the ways adopted in the Netherlands towards

this principle.

Figure 4.10 reflected the analysis using C2C products and the development of the

business case scenario. The aspects together are connected towards reducing the

problems of C&D waste generated at a massive level.

The emphasis of LEED V4 on making C&D waste management planning a prerequisite

showcases the importance of solving the menace at a global and regional level.

Policy frameworks, development formulate a very important aspect of adopting any

new principle to a smaller or larger scale. The Netherlands showcases such policy

development (Almere & Venlo principles, Figure 4.11) towards adopting these

principles. These policies can enact as a solid foundation for ensuring the use of C2C

in the industry at a grass root level.

Changing mindset towards adopting sustainability and the certifications cannot come

very easily in developing countries like India. Initiatives like

- Adopting certification and its associated principles from the initial stages

- Knowledge sharing across the projects via certification websites, and

- Major investment in the innovation and education sector,

will be helpful in resolving the problems at grass root level.

Knowledge base of certification and its implementation is a big challenge in the ICI.

Providing knowledge of the major users of education and practitioner sectors can

improve the potential of sustainability coefficient.

Figure 4.12 reflected the approach and the level of trainings needed at various levels.

Two major areas of development for resolving the problems stated, is showcased in

the figure.

The fourth objective was focused on finding the ways to implement the IP in the

industry.

Earlier analysis led to the major finding and dire need for using the certification and the

principles from the early stages. The IP provided a possible way out for the

implementation of the certification with a higher percentage of positive results. As the

Figure 4.15 & Table 4.5 highlighted the potential of IP used in earlier stages, it proves

to be more detrimental at least from the SC’s perspective to take a step ahead with this

initiative.

- 84 -


Integrated activity model (IAM) shows the position of SC in the present scenario and

then by shifting its position to the earlier stages along all the phases of construction.

The overall result of IAM reflected the potential of using the certification in detail with

an emphasis on using from the very beginning stages.

The cost aspect during the implementation of IP has been covered by providing case

studies, which emphasized the earlier adoption of the process. Use of EEMs in a

project which resulted in a positive economic aspect as reflected by better payback

period identifies and highlights the need of IP.

Figure 4.16 reflect the overall strategy developed by the researcher for using IP for the

projects. The strategy involves following a four phase development process which will

help the practitioners in considering the important criteria’s before embarking on the

project.

Various guidelines laid down by C2C are a part of this strategy. Each strategy shows a

series of steps being followed before lunging ahead for the next step.

Unique features of the C2C, which the researcher analyzed and found to be very

critical, include site orientation, biodiversity, use period of building products and

business case solution. Each feature with its practical application and adaptation in

different countries reflects the potential implementation in ICI, thereby assisting in

achieving a sustainable development.

Figure 4.17 sums up the entire process of working for the research. It highlights the

major findings of the overall research by using LEED V4 + C2C selected criteria’s. The

figure also emphasized the triangle of owner, manufacturers and project manager/SC,

which reflects the potential of SC in the overall industry at a global and regional level.

“The ideas leading from the principles of C2C bringing in IP will lead to a futuristic and

sustainable development”.

Since the underlying objectives of the research project have been achieved satisfactorily,

the main research question can be answered. The following points will summarize the new

additional criteria’s of the LEED V4 + C2C implemented realistically and profoundly in a

developing country like India:

Case studies bring forth the present situation and assisted in knowing the present

scenarios and also the impact of new certification.

- 85 -


The increasing domination of sustainability using SAF’s will reflect the potential

development for new criteria’s being adopted in the near future.

The problems solving capacity of C2C principles at a very grass root level ignites the

development policies for such process.

The powerful use of IP can bring the necessary positive change in the adoption and

the implementation processes. The problems of non-assessment criteria post

certification can also become an integral part of the development of IP framework.

Concluding, in respect to the reached outcome and the possible solution, this research

project has successfully achieved the aim and its underlying objectives. Figure 5.1 below

provides the perspectives which can be considered by the client’s, project managers/SC,

and the manufacturers in a project towards achieving the sustainable development and

construction.

- 86 -


PERSPECTIVE |WHY ?

- Economic profitability

- USP of the business


- CSR Policy

- Pioneers

- Marketing Purpose

- Collaboration with Experts

ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENTAL

SOCIAL

INNOVATION USING LEED V4 + C2C

MANUFACTURER’S CLIENT / DEVELOPERS

PROJECT MANAGER / SC

SUSTAINABILITY

PERSPECTIVE |WHY ?

- USP of the business

- C2C – a brand new philosophy

- Knowledge sharing portals

- Collaboration with Experts

- Pioneers

- People oriented approach

- Ensure User/Buyer for

continuing the concept during

operations

MAJOR DRIVING FACTORS

- Basic Principles reviving

- Marketing via Education, Trainings – Consultants, Clients, and Manufacturer’s

- Economic Boost via Strong Business Cases

- C2C Institute’s Initiatives for Developing Countries

- Approaching Local Municipalities for Fast Initiation

PERSPECTIVE |WHY ?

- Economic profitability

- Marketing Purpose


- CSR Policy

- Pioneers in bringing the

change

Figure 5.1: Perspectives & Driver for the Client, SC, & Manufacturer's (Author)

- 87 -


Further Research Potential

The economic aspect of C2C, IP, LCA in the certification is still not implemented at a

sufficient regional level, so further research projects focusing on the development of

the economic aspect for each of these criteria’s will be very critical and beneficial.

As this research project is based on LEED 2009 certified projects, the impact of

LEED V4 certified buildings using the criteria’s analyzed in this research will be

interesting. This could possibly provide a strong base case for implementation of the

certification at global and regional level.

Policy development using the base-cases in the Netherlands can be a very

interesting subject. As the researcher in his analysis highlighted the importance of

policies and their positive impacts on a large scale, it becomes essential to develop a

research towards forming a guideline for developing countries.

Research on C2C working towards complete chain on product development, can be

one of the important topics. This also can provide a practical implication versus LCA

theories, as it is based on C2G ideology.

The concept of smart cities has been launched in the year 2014 in India, a study of

C2C implementation on this type of development will be very beneficial.

To close this research project the final statement can be summarized as follows:

“Using IP, LCA and C2C guidelines will ensure the implementation of LEED V4 + C2C in a realistic and profound manner in a developing country like India”

(Researcher)

- 88 -


- 89 -

Word Count LEED V4 + C2C

6. Word Count

Sections Words Percentage

Introduction 1979 10%

Literature Review 5159 26%

Methodology 2032 10%

Findings, Discussions & Analysis 8583 43%

Conclusion & Recommendations 2434 12%

Total 20187

Note: The text in the pictures, graphs and figures is not included.

- 90 -

References LEED V4 + C2C

7. References

A

AIA National & Council, A.C., 2007. Integrated Project Delivery : A Guide, California. Available at: www.aia.org/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiab083423.pdf.

Ali, H.H. & Nsairat, S.F. Al, 2009. Developing a Green Building Assessment Tool for Developing Countries – Case of Jordan. Building and Environment, 44(5), pp.1053–1064.

Alyami, S.H. & Rezgui, Y., 2012. Sustainable Building Assessment Tool Development Approach. Sustainable Cities and Society, 5(n.d.), pp.52–62.

Arup, 2014. International Sustainability Systems Comparison, New York. Available at: http://www.arup.com/~/media/Publications/Files/Publications/I/International_Sustainability_Systems_Report.ashx.

Associates Ltd., F., 1990. Comparative Energy Evaluation of Plastic Products and Their Alternatives for the Building and Construction and Transportation Industries., Prairie Village. Available at: www.qni.com/franklin/publishings.

Atkins, S., 2014. Green Building Facts. USGBC: LEED, pp.1–4. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/green-building-facts [Accessed November 12, 2014].

Atlee, J. & Roberts, T., 2014. Cradle to Cradle Certification : A Peek Inside MBDC ’ s The C2C Standard. BuildingGreen, 16(2), pp.1–10.

B

Baum, M., 2006. Green Building Research Funding : An Assessment of Current Activity in the United States, California.

Berardi, U., 2013. Clarifying the New Interpretations of the Concept of Sustainable Building. Sustainable Cities and Society, 8(n.d.), pp.72–78.

Bhandare, R.N. et al., 2013. Economical Aspects of Green Building. Paripex- Indian Journal of Reasearch, 2(3), pp.88–90.

- 91 -


Bhise, V.Y. & Kashikar, A., 2014. The Cradle to Cradle Life Cycle Assessment: A Case Study. International Journal of Technical Research and Applications, 2(4), pp.84–89.

Bjørn, A. & Strandesen, M., 2008. The Cradle to Cradle concept - Is it always sustainable? GreenBiz, pp.1–10. Available at: http://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/the-cradle-to-cradle-concept--is-it-always-sustainable.html.

Boecker, J., 2014. Building as an Organism: Understanding the Integrative Process Credit in LEED v4 Projects, California. Available at: http://www2.buildinggreen.com/integrative-process-webcast.

Boer, P. et al., 2011. Inspired by Cradle to Cradle: C2C Practice in Education 1st ed. D. M. Hiteq, ed., Hilversum: Hiteq,DHO,Agentschap NL & Michael Braungart. Available at: http://www.c2c-centre.com/library-item/inspired-cradle-cradle%C2%AE.

Braungart, M., McDonough, W. & Bollinger, A., 2007. Cradle to Cradle Design: Creating Healthy Emissions - A Strategy for Eco-Effective Product and System Design. Journal of Cleaner Production, 15(13-14), pp.1337–1348.

Bryman, A., 2012. Social Research Methods 4th ed., New York: Oxford Univesity Press.

Bryman, A. & Bell, E., 2011. Business Research Methods 3e 3rd ed., New York: Oxford Univesity Press.

Buyle, M., Braet, J. & Audenaert, A., 2012. Review on LCA in the Construction Industry: Case Studies. International Journal of Energy and Environment, 6(4), pp.98–104.

C

C2CI, 2014a. Benefits of the Cradle to Cradle Product Program, Eindhoven. Available at: http://www.c2ccertified.org/education.

C2CI, 2013. C2C Version 3 Achievement Level Summary, San Francisco. Available at: http://assets.c2ccertified.org/pdf/v3_Achievement_Levels.pdf.

C2CI, 2014b. Impacts of the Cradle to Cradle Certified Products Program: Technical Report, San Francisco. Available at: http://www.c2c-centre.com/library-item/impact-study-technical-report.

Cavana, R., Delahaye, B. & Sekaran, U., 2001. Applied Business Research: Qualitative and Quantitative Methods 3rd ed., Australia: John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

- 92 -


Chandratilake, S.R. & Dias, W.P.S., 2013. Sustainability Rating Systems for Buildings: Comparisons and Correlations. Energy, 59(n.d.), pp.22–28.

Chang, K.-F., Chiang, C.-M. & Chou, P.-C., 2007. Adapting aspects of GBTool 2005 - Searching for Suitability in Taiwan. Building and Environment, 42(1), pp.310–316.

Cole, R.J., 2006. Shared markets: Coexisting Building Environmental Assessment Methods. Building Research & amp; Information, 34(4), pp.357–371.

Consultants, Pr. et al., 2008. SimaPro 7 Database Manual, Netherland. Available at: http://www.pre-sustainability.com/download/manuals/DatabaseManualMethods.pdf [Accessed November 8, 2014].

Cooper, I., 1999. Which Focus for Building Assessment Methods - Environmental Performance or Sustainability? Building Research & amp; Information, 27(4-5), pp.321–331.

Crawley, D. & Aho, I., 1999. Building Environmental Assessment Methods: Applications and Development Trends. Building Research & amp; Information, 27(4-5), pp.300–308.

Crossman, A., 2012. Units of Analysis. About Education, p.2. Available at: http://sociology.about.com/od/Research/a/Units-Of-Analysis.htm [Accessed November 14, 2014].

CSE, 2014. Construction and Demolition Waste. Center for Science and Environment, pp.1–5. Available at: http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/Construction-and20-demolition-waste.pdf.

D

Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. & Giardina, M.D., 2006. Disciplining qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 19(6), pp.769–782.

Ding, G.K.C., 2008. Sustainable Construction -The Role of Environmental Assessment Tools. Journal of environmental management, 86(3), pp.451–64.

Douglas, M. & Michael, B., 2010. Cradle to Cradle for the Built Environment 1st ed. H. Katja, ed., Nunspeet: Duurzaam Gebouwd / CEO Media BV. Available at: http://www.epeaparis.fr/FICHIERS/C2C-Inspired/C2C20Criteria20eBook.pdf.

E

Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks. The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business Oxford, ed., Capstone.

- 93 -


EN 15978, 2011. Sustainability of Construction Works- Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings- Calculation Method. , pp.1–64.

Essig, N., 2010. Instrument for Assessing the Sustainability Performance of Buildings in Europe, Prague. Available at: http://cesb.cz/cesb10/papers/5_assessment/019.pdf [Accessed October 31, 2014].

F

Falkenbach, H., Lindholm, A.-L. & Schleich, H., 2010. Environmental Sustainability: Drivers for the Real Estate Investor. Journal of Real Estate Literature, 18(2), pp.201–223.

Fong, P.S.W. & Yip, J.C.H., 2006. An Investigative Study of the Application of Lessons Learned Systems in Construction Projects. Journal for Education in the Built Environment, 1(2), pp.27–38.

Forum, W.E., 2012. New Energy Architecture India, Geneva, Switzerland. Available at: http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_NewEnergyArchitecture_ExecutiveSummary_India.pdf.

G

Ghosh, S., Ghosh, S. & Aich, A., 2012. Rebuilding C&D Waste Recycling Efforts in India. Waste Management World, pp.1–3. Available at: http://www.waste-management-world.com/articles/print/volume-12/issue-5/features/rebuilding-c-d-waste-recycling-efforts-in-india.html [Accessed November 10, 2014].

Glass, S., 2013. LEED v4 Includes Credits. Cradle to Cradle products Innovation Institute, pp.1–4.

Gottfried, D.A. & Simon, L.N., 2000. Sustainable Building Technical Manual, USA. Available at: http://smartenergy.illinois.edu/pdf/Archive/SustainableBuildingTechManual.pdf [Accessed October 28, 2014].

GRIHA, 2013. About GRIHA. Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment, p.3. Available at: http://www.grihaindia.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=73 [Accessed November 13, 2014].

Grix, J., 2002. Introducing Students to the Generic Terminology of Social Research. Politics, 22(3), pp.175–186.

- 94 -


Groothuis, F., 2014. New Era. New Plan. Fiscal Reforms For An Inclusive, Circular Economy. Case Study the Netherlands, Austerlitz. Available at: http://www.ex-tax.com/files/4314/1693/7138/The_Extax_Project_New_Era_New_Plan_report.pdf.

Guinee, J.B. et al., 2011. Life Cycle Assessment : Past , Present, and Future. Environmental Science & Technology, 45(1), pp.90–96.

H

Haapio, A. & Viitaniemi, P., 2008a. A Critical Review of Building Environmental Assessment Tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(7), pp.469–482.

Haapio, A. & Viitaniemi, P., 2008b. Environmental Effect of Structural Solutions and Building Materials to a Building. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 28(8), pp.587–600.

Hardy, J. & Owens, V., 2013. Life Cycle Analysis and Environmental Product Declarations: North American Market Analysis. Light House Sustainable Building Centre Society, pp.1–5. Available at: http://www.sustainablebuildingcentre.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Dec-2013_LCA-EPD-white-paper.pdf [Accessed November 20, 2014].

Hoff, J.L., 2007. Life Cycle Assessment and the LEED. In Roof Consultants Institute 23rd International Convention. Pheonix, pp. 1–14. Available at: http://www.roofingcenter.org/syncshow/uploaded_media/LCA and LEED%281%29.pdf.

Holmes, S., 2013. Leed V4: Built to Perform. ED+C Magazine, pp.1–4. Available at: http://www.edcmag.com/articles/94991-leed-v4-built-to-perform [Accessed October 7, 2014].

Hoseini, G. et al., 2013. Sustainable Energy Performances of Green Buildings: A Review of Current Theories, Implementations and Challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 25(n.d.), pp.1–17.

Hossaini, N. & Hewage, K., 2012. Sustainable Materials Selection for Canadian Construction Industry: An Energy-Based Life-Cycle Analysis (Em-LCA) of Conventional and LEED Suggested Construction Materials. Journal of Sustainable Development, 5(1), pp.1–12.

- 95 -


I

IBEF, 2014. Infrastructure Sector in India. India Brand Equity Forum, pp.1–8. Available at: http://www.ibef.org/industry/infrastructure-sector-india.aspx [Accessed December 17, 2014].

IGBC, 2014a. IGBC Green New Buildings. Indian Green Building Council, pp.1–4. Available at: https://igbc.in/igbc/redirectHtml.htm?redVal=showGreenNewBuildingsnosign [Accessed November 2, 2014].

IGBC, 2014b. IGBC: Present Situation. Indian Green Building Council, pp.1–3. Available at: https://igbc.in/igbc/ [Accessed November 7, 2014].

IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007, Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, Newyork. Available at: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-frontmatter.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2014].

ISO, I. 14040, 2006. Environmental management - Life Cycle Assessment - Principles and Framework. , pp.1–20.

ISO, I. 14041, 1997. Environmental management - Life cycle Assessment - Goal and Scope Definition and Inventory Analysis. , pp.1–20.

J

Joelsson, A. & Gustavsson, L., 2009. District Heating and Energy Efficiency in Detached Houses of Differing Size and Construction. Applied Energy, 86(2), pp.126–134.

Johnson, S., 1993. Greener buildings - The Environmental Impact of Buldings, Basingstoke Hampshire: The Macmillan Press Ltd.

K

Kataria, B.M., Pathak, V.B. & Shah, J.., 2013. Sustainable development A Rethinking of Construction Industry in India. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 2(10), pp.5182–5186.

Kibert, C.J., 2012. Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery 3rd ed., Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kim, M.J., Oh, M.W. & Kim, J.T., 2013. A method for Evaluating the Performance of Green Buildings with a Focus on User Experience. Energy and Buildings, 66(n.d.), pp.203–210.

- 96 -


Kriss, J., 2014. U.S. Green Building Council Releases Ranking of Top 10 Countries for LEED Outside the U.S. USGBC, pp.1–3. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/us-green-building-council-releases-ranking-top-10-countries-leed-outside-us [Accessed November 5, 2014].

L

Lipu, M.S.H., Jamal, T. & Karim, T.F., 2013. An Approach Towards Sustainable Energy Performance by Green Building: A Review of Current Features, Benefits and Barriers. International Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy, 2(4), pp.180–190.

Love, P.E.D., Holt, G.D. & Li, H., 2002. Triangulation in Construction Management Research. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management, 9(4), pp.294–303.

Luong, S., Liu, K. & Robey, J., 2012. Sustainability Assessment Framework for Renewable Energy Technology. In U. Capgemini, ed. Technologies for Sustainable Built Environment Centre. Reading: Informatics Research Centre, pp. 1–8. Available at: https://www.reading.ac.uk/web/FILES/tsbe/Luong_TSBE_Conference_Paper_2012.pdf [Accessed December 17, 2014].

Lützkendorf, T. et al., 2012. New Trends in Sustainability Assessment Systems – Based on Top-Down Approach and Stakeholders Needs. International Journal of Sustainable Building Technology and Urban Development, 3(4), pp.256–269.

M

Magdoff, F., 2013. Global Resource Depletion: Is Population the Problem? Monthly Review, 64(8), pp.1–5.

Mann, M.K. & Spath, P.L., 1997. Life Cycle Assessment of a Biomass Gasification Combined - Cycle System, Colorado. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/23076.pdf [Accessed November 8, 2014].

Markelj, J., Kuzman, M.K. & Zbašnik-Senegačnik, M., 2013. A Review of Building Sustainability Assessment Methods. Architecture Research, 1(n.d.), pp.22–31.

Matthews, E.C., Sattler, M. & Friedland, C.J., 2014. A Critical Analysis of Hazard Resilience Measures within Sustainability Assessment Frameworks. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 49(n.d), pp.59–69.

- 97 -


MBDC, 2013. Beyond Sustainability: Cradle to Cradle. Science, Innovation + Leadership, pp.1–2. Available at: http://www.mcdonough.com/speaking-writing/the-upcycle/#.

McDonough Architects, W., 2000. The Hannover Principles, Charlottesville. Available at: http://www.mcdonough.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Hannover-Principles-1992.pdf.

McDonough, W. et al., 2003. Applying the Principles of GREEN Engineering to Cradle-to-Cradle Design. Environmental Science & Technology, 37(23), pp.434–441. Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es0326322 [Accessed October 8, 2014].

McDonough, W. & Braungart, M., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make Things 1st ed. S. and G. Farrar, ed., Charlottesville: North Point Press.

McDonough+Partners, W., 2014. Hero MotoCorp Garden Factory and Global Parts Center, Neemrana - India. WM+P, pp.1–2. Available at: http://mcdonoughpartners.com/projects/hero-motocorp-garden-factory-and-global-parts-center/ [Accessed November 25, 2014].

McDonough+Partners, W., 2010. Park 20/20: A Cradle to Cradle Inspired Master Plan. 2010 ASLA Professional Awards, pp.1–3. Available at: http://www.asla.org/2010awards/612.html [Accessed November 22, 2014].

Morris, T. & Wood, S., 1991. Testing the Survey Method: Continuity and Change in British Industrial Relations. Work, Employment & Society, 5(2), pp.259–282.

Mulhall, D. & Braungart, M., 2010. Cradle To Cradle ® criteria for the built environment. Ekonomiaz, 75(n.d.), pp.122–132.

N

Nelson, A.J., Oliver, R. & Philipp, D., 2010. Nachhaltige Gebaude - Von der Nische zum Standard, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Available at: http://www.greenimmo.de/app/download/2956872111/Deutsche+Bank+Research+Nachhaltige+Immobilien.pdf?t=1410247360.

- 98 -


O

Ortiz, O., Castells, F. & Sonnemann, G., 2009. Sustainability in the Construction Industry: A review of Recent Developments Based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials, 23(1), pp.28–39.

P

Potbhare, V., Syal, M. & Korkmaz, S., 2009. Adoption of Green Building Guidelines in Developing Countries Based on U.S. and India Experiences. Journal of Green Building, 4(2), pp.158–174.

R

Reed, R. et al., 2011. A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools – An Update. In The 17th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference. Gold Coast, pp. 1–16. Available at: http://www.prres.net/Proceedings/..%5CPapers%5CReed_International_Rating_Tools.pdf [Accessed October 30, 2014].

Reeder, L., 2010. Guide to Green Building Rating Systems, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Rees, W.E., 1999. The Built Environment and the Ecosphere: A Global Perspective. Building Research & amp; Information, 27(4-5), pp.206–220.

RICS, 2008. Sustainable Property Investment & Management, London, UK. Available at: http://www.joinricsineurope.eu/uploads/files/Sustainable Property Investment and management RICS sept 08.pdf [Accessed October 28, 2014].

Roy, T. & Gupta, A.K., 2012. Greenomics: Cost Efficiency of Green Buildings in India, Pune. Available at: http://www.joneslanglasalle.com/ResearchLevel1/research_greenomics_cost_efficiency_of_green_buildings_in_india.pdf.

Roychowdhury, A., Kishan, S. & Dasgupta, S.C., 2012. Green-Building Rating: Overrated. Center for Science and Environment, pp.1–16. Available at: http://www.cseindia.org/userfiles/04 Green Building.pdf.

- 99 -


S

SAEFL, 1998a. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, Volume I, Berne, Switzerland.

SAEFL, 1998b. Life Cycle Inventories for Packagings, Volume II, Berne, Swit zerland.

Sandelowski, M., 1998. Writing a Good Read: Strategies for Re-presenting Qualitative Data. Research in Nursing & Health, 21(4), pp.375–382.

Saunders, M., Lewis, P. & Thornhill, A., 2009. Research Methods for Business Students 5th ed. Pearson Education Limited, ed., Harlow: Prentice Hall.

Scheuer, C.W. & Keoleian, G.A., 2002. Evaluation of LEED TM Using Life Cycle Assessment Methods, Ann Arbor, MI. Available at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build02/PDF/b02170.pdf.

Scofield, J.H., 2009. Do LEED-Certified Buildings Save Energy? Not really... Energy and Buildings, 41(n.d.), pp.1386–1390.

Seo, S. et al., 2006. Technical Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Rating Tools, Highett. Available at: http://www.fwpa.com.au/images/marketaccess/PN05.1019.pdf [Accessed October 31, 2014].

Shah, K., 2001. Agenda 21 for Sustainable Construction in Developing Countries – The Indian Case. KSA Design Planning Services, pp.1–26. Available at: http://www.humanitarianlibrary.org/sites/default/files/2014/02/CIB_Agenda21ForSustainableConstructionInDevelopingCountries.pdf.

Sharma, A., Sharma, A. & Gupta, N.K., 2012. Adoption of Green Building Practices in Mass Housing Construction Projects - LEED India, Rating System Revision in Indian Scenario. International Journal Of Advanced Engineering Technology, 3(4), pp.64–66.

Syal, M.. M., 2007. Impact of LEED-NC Projects on Constructors, Michigan. Available at: http://www.egr.msu.edu/~syalm/report.pdf.

T

Teddlie, C. & Tashakkori, A., 1998. Mixed Methodology: Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches., California: Sage Publications.

Thomas, J. & Wilson, P.M., 2013. Construction Waste Management in India. American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER), 2(n.d.), pp.9–12.

- 100 -


Thormark, C., 2000. Environmental Analysis of a Building with Reused Building Materials. The International Journal of Low Energy and Sustainable Buildings, 1(n.d.), pp.1–18.

Todd, J.A. et al., 2001. Comparative Assessment of Environmental Performance Tools and the Role of the Green Building Challenge. Building Research & Information, 29(5), pp.324–335.

Todd, J.A., 2013. Life Cycle and LEED. ED+C Magazine, pp.1–7. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/life-cycle-leed-out-now-edcs-january-issue.

Toller, S. et al., 2011. Energy Use and Environmental Impacts of the Swedish Building and Real Estate Management Sector. Journal of Industrial Ecology, 15(3), pp.394–404.

U

USEIA, 2010. International Energy Outlook, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf [Accessed October 27, 2014].

USGBC, 2014. Good to know: Minimum program requirements for LEED. LEED, pp.1–2. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/articles/good-know-minimum-program-requirements-leed [Accessed October 19, 2014].

USGBC, 2011. Supplemental Guidance to the Minimum Program Requirements , Revision 2, Philadelphia. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs6473.pdf.

USGBC, 2013a. Taking and Integrative Approach to Design and Construction. LEED v4: Building Design + Construction Guide, pp.1–6. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/guide/bdc [Accessed October 7, 2014].

USGBC, 2013b. USGBC History. USGBC: LEED, pp.1–4. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/about/history [Accessed November 1, 2014].

USGBC, 2013c. USGBC: Strategic Plan 2013-2015, Washington, DC. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/resources/usgbc-strategic-plan-2013-2015 [Accessed November 1, 2014].

- 101 -


W

WBCSD, 2009. Energy Efficiency in Building: Transforming the market, Geneva. Available at: http://www.wbcsd.org/transformingthemarketeeb.aspx [Accessed October 27, 2014].

WCED, 1987. Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future, Geneva. Available at: http://www.apambiente.pt/_cms/view/page_doc.php?id=530. [Accessed October 27, 2014].

Wienerberger, 2014. Wienerberger - POROTHERM Clay Building Bricks. Building Materail Solutions, pp.1–2. Available at: http://www.wienerberger.in/porotherm-clay-bricks-60-light-weight-than-solid-concrete-blocks/product-catalogue [Accessed December 10, 2014].

Wille, D., 2011a. C2C in the building sector: Frequently Asked Questions, Mechelen. Available at: http://www.c2cn.eu/sites/default/files/Build-Material-C2C-EN-FAQ.pdf.

Wille, D., 2011b. Sustainable building, materials use and Cradle to Cradle. A survey of current project practices., Mechelen. Available at: http://www.c2cn.eu/sites/default/files/Build-Materials-C2C_EN_Full report.pdf.

William McDonough + Partners, 2014. Park 20|20 Master Plan. Architecture and Community Design, pp.1–2. Available at: http://mcdonoughpartners.com/projects/park-2020-master-plan/ [Accessed November 22, 2014].

Z

Zuo, J. & Zhao, Z.-Y., 2014. Green Building Research - Current Status and Future Agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 30(n.d.), pp.271–281.

- 102 -

Appendix LEED V4 + C2C

8. Appendices

Appendix – I: List of Definitions

Brownfield Development: In urban planning, it is a land previously used for industrial purposes or some commercial uses. Greenfield Sites: Are those that are not previously developed or graded and remain in a natural state. Native or adapted plants: Are plants indigenous to a locality or cultivars of native plants that are adapted to the local climate and are not considered invasive species or noxious weeds. Previously developed Areas: Are those that previously contained buildings, roadways, parking lots or were graded or altered by direct human activities Sustainable Development: It is a development that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Sustainable Construction: It aims at reducing the environmental impact of a building over its entire lifetime, while optimizing its economic viability and the comfort and safety of its occupants. Sustainable Building: It should be the one which meets people’s needs – as a home or a workplace for example – in ways which enhance its positive impacts and minimize its negative impacts, environmentally and socially, both locally and globally over time”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_planning�

- 103 -


Appendix – II: Letter of Consent Letter of Consent for the Interview Stuttgart, 04.11.2014 This letter is an invitation for considering the participation in an essential part for my Master Thesis for the International Project Management Master’s Degree at the University of Applied Sciences, Stuttgart. Below you will find the information about the project and your level of involvement. The objective of this interview is to collect data in the field of Project Management “LEED Version 4 plus Cradle to Cradle”. The study is aiming to achieve a greater understanding about LEED Version 4 and Cradle to Cradle: Barriers and Challenges faced in the Indian Construction Industry. Interviews will be carried out for discussing existing practices in LEED/IGBC certification system. Also, the focus will shift towards a new version of LEED, which has added many new facets. A way forward in finding the challenges, barriers and best suitable way will be attempted. The interview will be based on the personal experience and sharing information about your experiences in the ongoing projects based on LEED 2009 and V4, will be highly appreciated. Furthermore, the participant is free to withdraw at any time from the study or to decline answering certain questions without any explanation. The interview should take approximately 30-45 minutes. The gained knowledge will be treated confidential and will be used strictly for academic purposes only. The researcher will be the only one who has direct access to it. Furthermore, the possibility is provided to receive information regarding the outcome of the research by request. By accepting to participate, you will be helping me to complete my Master Thesis, and will be a very important role by sharing your knowledge related Sustainability and LEED certification. If you have any questions regarding this study, please don’t hesitate to contact me under the contact information. Thank you in advance for your assistance and knowledge sharing in the research. Best regards, Naveed Zargar B.Arch, COA, PMI

- 104 -


Appendix – III: List of Interviewees

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

Date Organization Responsibility Position Interviewees Email Time

1 05.11.14 EDS, India LEED AP Sr. Project Manager | Sustainability Mr. Ashutosh Gupta A [email protected]

1.15

2 12.11.14 EDS, India LEED AP Project Manager | Architect Mr. Gopal NP B [email protected]

1.15

3 23.11.14 EDS, India Policy Analyst Senior Policy Analyst Mr. Mansi Jain C [email protected] 1.00

4 25.11.14 PhD Student, Erasmus University

PhD Student PhD Researcher, Database Creator for C2C - Case Study Book V1,

Ms. Marleen Lodder D [email protected]

0.45

5 28.11.14 C2C Expo

Lab C2C Certified Specialty Advisor Built Environment Mr. Bas van de Westerlo E [email protected]

0.45

6 29.11.14 AECOM, India LEED AP Sustainability Consultant III Mr. Akshay Gupta F [email protected] 0.45

7 29.11.14 EDS, India LEED AP Director Mr. Gurneet Singh G [email protected]

1.00

mailto:[email protected]�




- 105 -


Appendix – IV: Questionnaire Master Thesis Research Questionnaire for the Interviews (Author)

1.0 Interviewee Background 1.1 What is your position in the organization? A Senior Project Manager | Sustainability B Project Manager | Architect C Senior Policy Analyst, Low Energy Buildings D PhD Researcher, Database Creator for C2C - Case Study Book V1 E Specialty Advisor Built Environment, C2C Certified Consultant @ C2C Expo Lab, Building Engineer F Sustainability Consultant III G Director 1.2 How many years of Experience do you have? A 6 B 5 C 6 D 3 E 5.5 F 6 G 10 1.3 How long have you been working in this position? A 1 B 2.5 C 1.5 D 3 E 5.5 F 2 G 5 1.4 What are your responsibilities in the organization? A Project Management, LEED Certification, Energy Auditing, Building Completion, Energy waste & water

management B Administration, Delivery, Invoicing, Train People, LEED EB - O&M C Entails: Project proposals and business development, Strategic reports for macro level sustainability including

low energy buildings, implementation programs, market transformation and assessment reports, country level strategic policies

D PhD Research, C2C Chair, Website development, Management Tasks; C2C Skills of Area Development, Few Office Buildings in the Neighborhood; DRIFT research Institute

E Involved in diverse projects inspired by the C2C Principles; Project Manager/Leader of BE projects, Closely with Governments to embed C2C policies, Tenders & Procurements, Sessions/Presentations/ Workshops on C2C, Columns/Articles/Blogs

F Project Manager, Green Certification of buildings G Overall Office Management and Ensuring Project Delivery 2.0 Project Information 2.1 How many employees work in a single project? A 3 Verticals in EDS - LEED/GRIHA Certification; Trainings to developers/corporate; Policy Enrollments - Bilateral &

Multilateral agencies for developing policies e.g. working with Ministry of Power for revising ECBC, New version expected in 2017 (V2): 4 NO

B 4 EB, 3 NC C 3 - 4 No. D 5 No. E 5 No. + Specialist Consultant like business case developments F 4 No.

- 106 -


G 2 – 3 No. 2.2 What is the area of projects especially Office Type? A Projects completed globally in Urban & Semi-Urban areas; 200,000 Sqft for offices B 250,000 - 60,000 (Average - 150,000) Sqft C Urban Level, Macro Level of Projects D Urban Area Development covering mixed use of buildings, Rural Areas, Area defined by Dutch Government -

5400HA E 40-50 House Area, Primary School 2-3K Sqm, Offices 13K Sqm, Area Developments_20-5000HA: C2C Inspired

Buildings F 5,00,000 Sqm G 100,000 -500,000 Sqft 2.3 What are the types of projects certified by your firm? A Software developments, Corporate Offices (ITC/HCL), Commercial Sectors, MNC B Hotels, Offices C Urban Areas, Making Energy efficient as an important D Smaller Neighborhood Development, Park 20|20 type E Assist Project teams in BE to apply C2C Inspired projects. So called as C2C Inspired Buildings F Commercial, residential, institutional, mixed-use, retail etc G Offices, Hospital, Interiors, Institutional 2.4 Which certification is mostly preferred for Office Buildings? A It is only decided post feasibility study, and after that Clients acceptance of the certification; Mostly we have

practiced like LEED NC - 70%. LEED Interiors - 25%, 5% - Existing Buildings B Client Requirements; We try to avoid capital cost for example buying REC’s. C Policies for how market transformation for zero energy should take place. Removing barriers in the industry for

making energy efficiency as an important aspect D No Specific Idea E No Specific Idea F LEED Core & Shell G LEED/IGBC 3.0 LEED/IGBC in India 3.1 How you think LEED/IGBC certification system has ensured the sustainability perspective in the construction

sector? A Software Giants, Developers, MNC's who follow CSR & Other Norms pursue for Sustainability and be the

leaders. LEED ensures the clients that all the perspective at a minimum level is addressed Including the Local Regulations. Other reasons like Marketability for Developers & Non Developers (International companies prefer to be involved in LEED Certified Projects like HCL, Infosys). Construction Industry in India has implemented at maximum 10%.

B Locally available incentives are increasing the builders/developers interests towards the certification; Even the demand of clients towards green rating has increased since the last 5-10 years. There has been quite a sharp increase in Trend- Office, Hotels. Upward trend towards the certification

C It has brought discipline and has ensured proper implementation by documenting and providing supporting documents

D It has brought discipline and has ensured proper implementation by documenting and providing supporting documents

E This kind of certification can go hand in hand with C2C but these are two different things. LEED etc kind of checklist to bring sustainability on the agenda of project teams. It is kind of scoring mechanism. C2C is about the way we make things, to make buildings with positive impact - eco effectiveness. Rating tools are eco-efficient based. If you want a C2C inspired buildings, the rating tools cannot describe how much the project is C2C inspired. For instance the real time measurement of RE used and produced, which is different from the LEED.

F The rating systems (LEED/IGBC) help the projects to use holistic approach sustainability. This aspect is very important for making a sustainable development in a fast growing country

G It has brought discipline and has ensured proper implementation by documenting and providing supporting

- 107 -


documents 3.2 What are the major parameters in a project which are influenced by LEED/IGBC Certification system? For

example Cost, Schedule, Environment Quality, Strategy, Risk Assessment A Ascending Order: Cost, Schedule, Environmental Quality, Strategy, Risk Assessment. Important point to notice

is there is no specific mention of Schedule in LEED V3 but LEED V4 has ensured the same. By adopting LEED people consider EQ has been taken care of but aspects points like Pollution Control, Noise Pollution are not covered in the LEED 2009 Certification. On our own we do not recommend client even if there are chances of adopting the local context, due to time & cost constraints. We strictly follow LEED requirements as the projects normally follow local environmental clauses. Depends on Contract and its level of Detailing! (Right Material - Best Output) LEED NC is valid for Lifetime but still the need of assessment in operation is very important as 60% LEED buildings are not performing good (Reports). Chances of LEED de-certification is on the cards but not coming very soon.

B Existing Building Scenario is Quick delivery of Projects so Schedule or Cost are the priority. Even it changes as per the certification level required as per Client. Example for Platinum EQ is most important. Followed by Schedule, Cost. For a general certification Cost is the priority, Schedule & EQ are follow the next. Feasibility studies are always involved in our strategies but at the end is the client's call to decide on parameters as per his perspective. RA also varies as per the cost involved in each credit for example RECS money can diverted towards water harvesting, solar panels etc. Our main focus is to achieve the sustainability rather than a best rating.

C Cost, Environmental Quality, Schedule D Cost and Environment Quality E Cost, Environmental Quality, Schedule F Cost, Environmental Quality, Schedule, Strategy & Risk Assessment (Energy & Water Efficiency) G Cost and Environment Quality 3.3 As per Triple bottom line of sustainability (Environmental, Social & Economic Aspects), which aspects do you

think are considered important in Indian Construction Industry? A Economic , Environmental & Social (Unorganized Society) Aspects B Economical; Social & Environmental. Social comes into perspective because few companies follow their CSR

policies to reflect they are producing good products. No company wants to be Certified as it involves cost, but for their CSR values they opt at least for a minimum certification. E.g. ITC - Tobacco manufacturing company. In most of reputed clients, social factors like labor protection, living & health standards are followed. It might not be the same with not well reputed developers as their prime concern is to profit from every aspect. Certain laws implementing agencies should enforce these policies.

C Economic, Environmental, and Social aspects D Economic, Environmental, and Social aspects E Economic, Environmental, and Social aspects F Economic, Environmental, and Social aspects G Environmental and Economic Aspects 3.4 What Urges you for the implementation of LEED certification? A Personal inclination towards sustainable development B I started as an architect worked on platinum rated building. Mostly worked on construction details etc but

never looked into O&M part. So working towards making sustainable, for me O&M is very important part, which actually shows the end results of LEED certification. This only pursues me to guide clients for certification

C Personal inclination towards sustainable development D Personal inclination towards sustainable development E Personal inclination towards sustainable development F The global recognition of LEED certification of buildings and environmental benefits. G Design Optimization, Integrated Design Approach and Innovation H 3.5 What makes LEED more dominating than GRIHA in the construction industry? A GRIHA equivalent products as in LEED B GRIHA is not supportive and very stringent to adopt and even qualify. LEED on the other side is very supportive

and very clear. As far i know, there are only 7 buildings as GRIHA certified. LEED manual is very clear, distinctive and also support for the LEED APs queries is very prompt. Plus LEED being US based, the brand value makes it more known to the various types of clients. IGBC on the other hand is also very simple (Installing a meter gives

- 108 -


you 4 points) but not very effective compared to LEED. So clients prefer to stay with LEED. We don’t recommend IGBC to our clients. It is mostly LEED USGBC.

C Not adverse with the certifications D Not adverse with the certifications E A normal visitor does not understand that you have a basic or platinum rating. So he sees it in one way, what

this building is producing or consuming at a particular moment in terms of energy, water. The real use at the moment and in the future, the rating tools will be more focused towards the design perspective and will optimize their systems.

F Global recognition and clarity in certification requirements G International Presence, Supporting Services, Clear Guidelines 4.0 LEED/IGBC in India 4.1 What is the main goal for certifying the project? A Developers - Branding & Marketing; Big Known Clients - CSR Policies (eg. ITC Hotels like Marriot Hotel in USA) -

Sustainability; Local Municipality Incentives B Work for Hotels & Offices. HCL - Client from USA, so owners decided go for LEED certification in addition of

other benefits which they achieve post certification. C Marketing, Clients Need D Sustainable development E Inspire a new generation for sustainable development and products F Environmental sustainability & Economical benefits are the major reasons for opting the certification G Capital and Operating cost Savings for owner owned buildings; Capital savings and Marketing for developers 4.2 How is the applicability/Credibility of each criterion with respect to the projects. Which credits you feel are

still out of position considering the regional context? A SS: CR3, CR5.1; MR: CR1.1-1.3; Community Travelling - not enhanced or given preference in India, also because

of Extreme Climate, makes it difficult to implement. However, we recommend it to most of our clients. Most of the times client approaches us post the concept design. Various options then become impossible to attain. But options like Bus service by the companies (TCS) are given importance.

B Not practical: Renewable Energy Certifications(REC) - buying them earns you 6 points but instead we can invest the money in other better resources (Costly); Difficult to Implement the Storm Water Management(EB); MR is very important and achievable; C02 Censors (EQ) - cost factor; BMS - cost factor; MERB Filters. We provide a checklist to the clients with a payback period for the products which are relatively more costly, defining the range of costs for the products reflecting the amount of money to be invested.

C Not very well adverse with the credits in detail. D Not very well adverse with the credits in detail. E Not very well adverse with the credits in detail. F Use of FSC certified wood is out of position in Indian context. The MR category has various credits which

specifically ask for material re-use. As most of the buildings in India are NC, so these categories can be replaced by well suited credits

G Threshold for Onsite Renewable credit is difficult to achieve; The baseline as water cooled chiller in some states is not applicable due to shortage of water. In LEED V4 the Indian market will need some time to meet the requirements of material credits

4.3 How is the applicability/Credibility of each criteria with respect to the projects. Which credits you feel are

still out of position considering the regional context? A SS: CR3, CR5.1; EQ: RECS: MR: CR1.1-1.3, 3.1-3.2: Only 20-25% Clients opt for RECS; Most of the sites in India

are Greenfield, CR5.1 under SS becomes very difficult to attempt. B Water & Waste Management Related. These points even help in achieving more points. Segregation of waste

especially a very important aspect. C More closely worked for regional context is very critical for major credits. D E F Water Efficiency and Enhanced Energy Performance for their direct and tangible benefits in Indian context.

These parameters help in achieving large scale results which are very easy for the clients also to accept and follow.

G Energy & Atmosphere; Indoor Environmental Quality Categories

- 109 -


4.4 What were the major barriers & challenges in implementing a Sustainable Project? A One is Streamlining - late decisions by clients for opting LEED certification; 2nd - Consultants (MEP) not aware

of the LEED Certification; LEED APS - have started given training to individual consultants towards the certification but still the services design is part of their services where we cannot enforce our solutions. Always working with known user improves the process of implementing the sustainability. Involving LEED APs at the beginning, the cost of sustainable approach will be quite less than what is at the present.

B High capital cost is an important barrier. A balance between EQ and Economic aspects. In EB, things can be changed to a lot of extent. Benchmarking in EB is quite different than NC. Inputting the data into a standard data base and achieve a score of at least 69 points under star rating. Most buildings fall in 80-85 points for which they get 14 Credits. Above 69 is even a good point to achieve for most of the clients

C Cost, Lack of Technical Knowledge and Urge to Innovate D Cost, Lack of Technical Knowledge and Urge to Innovate E Cost, Lack of Technical Knowledge and Urge to Innovate F Increased cost of construction and longer design stage. G Cost, Lack of Technical Knowledge and Urge to Innovate 4.5 What are the major shortcomings/gaps in a project you faced in the Implementation Process? A Sharing knowledge with the consultants B (Water Related, Install STP, Car Pooling Programs, Lighting System, Installation of Mats - Recommendations

from our side); Current Energy Performance which is based on energy baselines set in the standards is not helping the certification to a greater extent. A better alternative for the benchmarking needs to be incorporated as most of the projects does not comply with the maximum number of credits in this category. Also, a very pessimistic approach for innovation is seen in LEED certification. One credit for the innovation, which takes a very huge amount of time during the design process.

C Educating the consultants about the whole implementation process is quite challenging D E Providing business case solutions with vide range of solution, is not very easy to achieve. F Implementing design related inputs for energy efficiency in a project where green building consultants are

onboard while the building is already in a construction phase G As mentioned in the previous question, Energy & Water aspects are sometimes very hard to implement

especially in areas where the scarcity of these things are obvious. 4.6 What & How are the lessons learned in one project used effectively in another one? A Always a problem of meeting individual consultants, we have tried to make it more collaborative thereby

reducing the chances of cost increase and more sustainable buildings overall. This aspect is quite clearly specified in LEED V4 Integrative Process.

B Lot of emphasis on Waste Management, Green & Housekeeping Practices, Car Pooling are carried forward into other projects and even helps other clients to use the same with minor modifications as per the project scale or clients need. E.g. Use Of Plastic Bottles (Mussorie) in making a composite Pit. Smaller things are really appreciated and are never thought of by the client before. Survey conducted for car pooling and it was an effective step for people working and even helps in saving C02 content

C D E F Level of design changes possible at different stages of construction and design strategies related to daylight in

building, energy efficiency etc. G Every lesson learned is being carried ahead into a new project. Best way to avoid the problems, and plan more

cautiously. Also varies from client to client, as the need of certification is very unique. Gives us also varied aspects to handle in different projects.

5.0 LEED V4 on Selected Buildings 5.1 What is the first impression of LEED V4 New Criteria's? A It is very Stringent considering the Indian market conditions especially the MR credits as most of the intent is

based from USA standards. It might improve with some manufacturer's planning to take a first step in India or even with the latest FDI policies of India with USA

B Local Transportation has been added, which makes it very impactful for the EB. As far as EB is concerned, not many changes. Addition of more Policies will help in documenting and making it more streamlined for projects.

C Stringent & Good

- 110 -


D Looks good from the outset E Looks good from the outset F The requirements have become much more stringent and challenging especially in Indian construction industry G Stringent & Good 5.2 How is the construction industry receiving the changes in the version 4? A Most clients are opting for V3 as quick as possible because of knowing the fact of V4 being stringent. B Hearing from the colleagues is that it is very difficult; LCA/C2C-is creating a sense of fear in the clients mind for

opting the stringent criteria's. Deadline has been extended for NC! C No specific idea D No specific idea E No specific idea F Very stringent & Challenging G At present I have little idea on the same. 5.3 Your recommendations/suggestions/feedback on the new added criteria's in LEED V4 A Few Credits already being considered like Integrative Process; MR should be redefined as per regional context B Looking forward for the application process C Changes are on the cards D Not Involved so far E Not Involved so far F The evolution is good but construction industry in India will take time to catch up to the level. G We have will have to try some alternative for adopting especially the MR category. Few credits were also been

incorporated, V4 makes them as credits, thereby giving add value service to these credits like water metering, energy metering.

5.4 Integrative Process: Implementation Feasibility 5.4a Have you been a part of project during pre-design stages, so far? A Yes in few big scale projects B It might be difficult to do simulation based on a box kind of building without major inputs of the design. But

might add some refinement criteria's in the further process. Not involved much in NC projects, so cannot comment more on these criteria.

C Not used so far D Not used so far E Totally agree with the credit and its use will bring the foreseen change. Will resolve the problems faced in the

industry to a large extent F Yes, on several projects G Yes, in 10% of the projects 5.4b How is your approach towards ceritification process, prior to this new addition in LEED? A It was a tough job while attending consultants on an individual level, but doing it together using Eco-Charrette

is bringing a relief B We have always pushed to work as an integrated but always certain problem from one or two consultants has

arisen. C Not very integrative D Not used so far E We adopt the similar strategies, but maybe on a different lines as described in this credit. F The approach has always been towards integrated design development G We used to follow the integrated design approach in every project prior to LEED v4 5.4c What is your perspective on this new Category? A Already being adopted by our company but in a different way than described in V4 B Very important initiative for a better output. C Lack of Integrated process in the industry is very challenging and complex in the ICI, so the LEED V4 can make

this process more efficient by incorporating such step. But only making it worth 1 credit will not be considered very important. Even the clients and consultants will skip such step, if it is not mandatory or they find a need of more time or cost at the beginning.

- 111 -


D Integrative process is required for all the process now-a-days. E Using this kind of approach will bring the better outcomes in terms of economic, environmental and social

aspects. F This new category mainly involves documentation of integration in design and its process. G Good, it has been introduced. It will bring in the sustainability concept and involvement of all the stakeholders

during the pre-design stages, which will result in design optimization. 6.0 Lifecycle Analysis: The New Paradigm 6.1 Was LCA considered from the very beginning of the project in your assessment? A No B I do have an idea about the LCA but not yet used in any project. C Not worked in this domain yet. D E F Very selectively in projects where it was client driven G Yes 6.2 What is your perspective on the LCA analysis? A It should be brought into main focus, but as of now no initiation has taken place. No industry has even started

the LCA or EPD certification. B I don’t think industry is so patient for going for certifications like LCA, EPD. It will only be possible if there is no

other alternative left or some changes from the reforms which are made by the government. This has to be linked with the policies otherwise chances of implementation are very impossible.

C It is very important component of building design, which should be considered at the very beginning. This will ensure the sustainability prospective in ICI, thereby helping to achieve a better sustainable development

D LCA is quite different from the C2C Perspective; LCA in Credibility and C2C perspective. LCA is finished product and how it can work without any harm, while C2C is more focused on innovation part.

E LCA is all about cradle to grave. Way to measure the effect of materials in a cradle to grave way and its effect on the environment etc. C2C is about creating footprints that impact in a C2C way of continuous loop. Quality Innovation for the future. Forecasting rather than back casting.

F It brings best value for money Energy efficiency measures implemented in projects G We evaluate various design options taking into consideration initial cost and operating cost savings over the

project life. In our normal practice we don’t take into account the manufacturing process and disposal process/cost

6.3 What be the consequences of its implementation in the Indian Construction Industry? A Sustainability will achieve quite different heights in its actual meaning B There will be positive impact for sure but things need to be thought out from a very different perspective.

Example Use of Mud taken from foundation in making some blocks. This can be termed as LCA C Implementation process is very difficult as the innovation in industry is at a lower level. This does not provide

chances for adapting new criteria’s very easily. D C2C is all about innovation, creating added value, create things which have not been used before. LCA cannot

help in this perspective, it only helps to improve the less harmful approach of the products E A positive influence as we are observing the same in the Netherlands F Most projects will employ green consultant in the early design stages of the project and not during construction

stages. G It will be good for Indian Construction Industry to start looking into the whole process of manufacturing and

streamlining the same towards sustainability 6.4 What changes you think, will be required, to make this assessment more feasible at a Regional Level? A Change in Manufacturer's approach; Very Tough to implement B No specific idea C There should be very strong business case developed around LCA, which ensures the TBL balance and also the

cost benefits are quite clear to the client. Value chains of people especially the consultants who play a special role in convince the client. They can ensure the need of LCA to clients very efficiently.

D Time consuming process but very important from the perspective of C2C E Very important to implement considering the perspective of the manufacturers.

- 112 -


F Awareness in the construction industry about the benefits of LCA and green buildings. G LCA is a very detailed exercise involving purchasing, owning, operating, maintaining and, finally, disposing of a

material. So it is a huge scope, my suggestion would be to design a scope so that it is not too large and not too small.

6.5 What do you think, how Manufacturers, Investors & related Consultants will make their moves in adapting

the new criteria? A No Client & Manufacture yet ready to accept the new change. If the regulations of the industry will change then

only adoption of LCA for materials will be implemented. Industry is not prepared for such major changes for labeling and if importing the C02 emissions will increase plus the costs as well.

B Not much idea how industry will react to this. Maybe in the next few months we will have a fair idea how things are shaping up.

C Products using LCA will be treated as USP by the manufactures, thereby enhancing the probability the use of LCA. It is also important for the manufacturers to ensure the cost benefit of adopting such process. Before they implement, ensuring the cost benefit analysis is quite important.

D Research laboratories are not available which can ensure the LCA, EPD type labeling, thereby leaving a big gap between the processes of adaptation

E Project Venlo: Four Goals - Energy - Production & Consumption; Indoor Air Quality; Water - Catch rain water and reuse it and also filter and reuse it again; Materials - Appropriate for Biological and Technological aspects. Tried to use maximum materials (20-30 C2C products). Working with producers to take the end product after the lifecycle for example furniture manufacturers will take products back after 10 years life and in return 18% Cost will be given in return.

F Increasing demand of green materials & technologies will only make them deliver better services and products for environmental sustainability

G Will start looking into alternate environment friendly products that they can use in manufacturing process. 7.0 Cradle to Cradle: The Philosophy 7.1 Are you familiar with the concept of Cradle to Cradle? A Yes B Principles are very important and challenging but unless made mandatory it is very difficult to implement. C Yes D Yes E Yes, working in the field for last 5 years F Yes G Yes I am aware of the philosophy 7.2 What is your perspective on this certification? A No certification tried so far in India. As per my observations, it will change the perspectives of sustainability.

Chances of Clients skipping it during the certification will be very once V4 starts getting implemented. Increasing of costs due to certain points will not give a good chance of implementing those in the certification

B C&D Waste can be tackled in a very definite way. No such thinking even in the alignment of waste is in place. So the new measures if made compulsory or tuned into the current policies, the impact will be seen quite fast especially in such a fast growing industry

C D Very innovative perspective considering the development of environment especially in the developing

countries. Buildings being complex, it makes it difficult to certify them. But C2C can bring a different perspective, which covers the future innovation which can help in making the development more sustainable. At the moment, importance of sharing the knowledge about the principles. Most important perspective is, making more products C2C certified

E It is very unique compared to the rating tools available F The concept has potentially more sustainable approach than any other certifications prevalent in the industry G It is good and if given a serious thought can change the perspective of sustainability, which I believe is very

much needed in Indian construction industry. 7.3 How you think, the principle on which C2C is based, will be implemented in Indian Construction Industry? A Not in the near future B People need to think out of box rather than just sticking to invest money in not very good results at the end.

The change in the lifecycle process of material manufacturing will help to a greater extent.

- 113 -


C It will be implemented if a policy change can be done quickly. D William McDonough project in India. Inducting knowledge in Education, Sharing the experience. Some

materials are not certified as C2C but few some of them are quite natural, for example Clay, which can be used more are a live example of C2C. These products are not harmed with industrial harmful waste, so using them makes the use of biological cycle of C2C.

E 1. If we want to start C2C - then it has to start at the beginning like contracts, governance, Local governance. Induce in the market. 2. In a building (office) - around the table with stakeholders and define their mission/dream. Expectations now and within 5 years, for example building which creates RE, or purifies air, continuous cycle (Define the Goals) 3. Make a road line for how building will grow towards the goal. 4. Materials: Supply & Demand - Inspire the companies for C2C certification, like doing pilot projects, and then more companies will follow. Will be very different in India (Hero Motocorp - Baseline; Added value in comparison with traditional buildings). Even buildings are getting labeled as LEED but to realize the goal of the client at the end of the project. How it has and will be effective towards making the environment cleaner, better and healthier.

F The concept if integrated with the already available certification systems like LEED, IGBC, and GRIHA etc will make an immediate impact.

G Unless and until there is demand for C2C certification I think it will be difficult to implement the same in Indian Construction Industry. Providing a base case solution might prove helpful as people always tend to look for something as an example to begin with. The example can lead a better prospective from the cost, operation and sustainability aspects.

7.4 Changing the cycle of manufacturing, will this option be tried, if at all? A Not in the near future B Yes I think it will be tried very soon as problems are surfacing more. So the new steps need to be taken quite

fast. C Yes I think it will be tested in the industry very soon. D Construction methods which were used in Western countries cannot be copied in the developing countries. For

example, Mega Cities in China, but they are empty. The investors want to build and attract people from rural area to live in these areas, without considering the future perspective. We in Western countries built high-rise in 70s, 80s and now people do not like the living near concrete structures very longer. This perspective cannot be replicated in the developing countries, thereby leading to same problem which are faced in the western countries.

E Business Case development - especially for municipalities. C2C is a very good business case. In Venlo, the project costs 3.4 Mi on top of 40Mi (Total Cost). People objected and said we can go with traditional way. We provided a business case, 16Mi in 40 Years. Also proved in cash flow, the O&M cost was 10k, and by installing the idea, the cost is reducing from the year One. So money is being saved even after 1 year. The goals were converted into a calculated manner so that the goals alongside the BC are seen, observed. BC is for municipalities. So if they apply it and try to challenge other companies towards the C2C products. Also they call the manufacturers to take their product back post their lifecycle. This provides an opportunity for the manufacturers to come up with innovative and more healthy products.

F Not just manufacturing cycle but also change in the way design and specification is done, together can be implemented

G I don’t think so. The industry in India is not that open to innovation, I believe this should come from the organizations which are leading such parametric implementation at a mass level. If tried and tested in small scale, the impact will be visible but will take a longer time for the certification/principles to come along.

7.5 How these additional criteria you think will make a change in making a complete sustainable and

environment friendly building? A Changing the manufacturing process will make it easier to opt for new materials complaint with the

certification and labels. Thereby LEED AP's can make the steps more defined and concrete B As specified earlier, there are chances of implementing but unless the materials are being manufactured in such

manner, it seems very difficult to see any positive changes. C Goal of C2C is not to make buildings certified but pushing client’s shareholders towards making buildings

sustainability. So making it measurable will help in achieving more C2C inspired buildings. D Using local knowledge can provide the solutions by using basic principles of TBL. Then making a building will

make it more sustainable. E Traditional buildings are about reducing the negative impacts and C2C is about creating positive effect. F C2C is truly a sustainable approach and possibly a solution to problems/crisis the world is facing. Adopting such

- 114 -


theories can change the way materials, products are designed. It can change the waste generation of the construction industry and make it more sustainable.

G These additional criteria will definitely help in complete sustainable and environment building as materials are an important part of any building. It will also shift the focus from operating cost to material manufacturing and disposal

Research AIM Which processes and parameters should be emphasized for implementing the (LEED V4 + C2C) in a more realistic, and effective way in India? A Few Credits as mentioned are already being implemented; LEED V4 will help in making them documented. Also

the Fundamental Commissioning being mandatory will showcase the output of LEED Building, as there are reports suggesting LEED buildings are performing poor than the conventional building. Effectiveness can be achieved once the material availability is made possible. Providing Incentives will make a new fury in manufacturer's to adopt these LCA & C2C certifications very quickly. At National Level there are no bodies which are pushing for major reforms

B Options like Natural Materials Usage (Not sure of the extent); Innovative ideas (Biomimcry) can lead to achieving the LEED V4 criteria's in a more realistic way. Being innovative for the manufacturers has to lead the way and for him to create such materials, there need to be a demand for such materials. The process will take some time to implement but it is very much needed in Indian construction industry. Better than doing nothing some basic ideas as listed above can achieve sustainability in more efficient manner.

C Certifications are very important to measure the sustainability aspect of buildings. But considering the Industry is dynamic and complex, ensuring the actual value of such certificates becomes very important issue. As clients have different expectations for using the certification, so it becomes very important post occupancy of the buildings to ensure the result of the buildings which are LEED certified. So, the aspect of post operation in the certification should be made mandatory, and then only the use of certification gives a value of sustainable development. User behavior which leads to a major impact post the operation of a building becomes very important and is one of the prime aspects which should be evaluated in the certification, even made mandatory in the certification.

D Possible use of local available materials, without creating much harm to environmental. Local use of knowledge for material production. Possible balance of TBL.

E C2C comes back to the materials and products and also buildings. For instance Parameters of calculating material health (safe & healthy) up to 100PPM. How about material re-utilization, not only re-use but how it can fit in the continuous cycle post their usage lifespan. How RE can be produced and consumed during the O&M. How water can be produced and consumed throughout but also the material production also. How social aspects can have a positive influence on the people and users. How labor productivity can be enhanced. Making a positive BC; Example in Venlo Sick Leaves - Baseline study of amount of sick days which was 6.1% per year, and average in Holland is 4%. By using C2C inspired buildings, If we can decrease it to 5%, we already know the no. of employees working, so we could save 550K E per year. This is not a measurable aspect but we can make this social aspect measurable as in this case. Only it is possible, if we have C2C type thinking of reducing the footprint by considering the aspects as mentioned earlier. Started sharing the knowledge in South America, Giving Practical examples and inspire the people to do better. We approach the overall organizations like state authorities. It can go from Top Down as well as Bottom Up.

F G Benefits of Integrated design approach and LCA. These processes if given more priority will change the way

construction industry is working.

- 115 -


Appendix – V: Analysis of the Case Studies Detailed Analysis of Case Studies (Author)

ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDIES | OFFICE BUILDINGS | LEED NC – PLATINUM RATED P1

Sustainable Sites CR A D Water Efficiency CR A

Energy & Atmosphere

CR A

Materials & Resources CR A

Indoor Environmental Quality CR A

Innovation in Design CR A D

Erosion & Sedimentation Control R Y

Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation 1 1

Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning R Y

Storage & Collection of Recyclables R Y Minimum IAQ Performance R Y

Innovation in Design (Green Education) 1 1

Site Selection 1 1


Minimum Energy Performance R Y

Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 NA

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control R Y

Innovation in Design (Green Housekeeping) 1 1

Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 1

Water Efficiency in Air-conditioning System, 50% Reduce 1 1

CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment R Y

Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof 1 NA Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 1

Innovation in Design (100% renewable energy for construction) 1

1

Brownfield Redevelopment: 1 NA

Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 1

Optimize Energy Performance 10 8

Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell+50% of Non-Shell 1 NA

Increased Ventilation, 30% above ASHRAE 62.1 requirements 1 1

Innovation in Design (Zero Waste) 1 1

Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 1

Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 1 Renewable Energy, 2.5% 1 1

Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal 1 1

Construction IAQ Management Plan , (During Construction) 1 1

LEED - India Accredited Professional 1 1

Alternative Transportation, Low Emission & Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations 1 1

Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

1 1

Renewable Energy, 5%

1 1


Construction IAQ Management Plan, After Construction/Before Occupancy 1 1

Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity 1 1

Renewable Energy, 7.5% 1 NA Resource Reuse, 5% 1 NA

Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesive & Sealants 1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 NA

Additional Commissioning 1 1 Resource Reuse, 10% 1 NA Low Emitting Materials, Paints 1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1

1

Ozone Depletion 1 1

Recycled Content, 5% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 1 Low – Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 1

Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1 1

Measurement & Verification - Base Design 1 1

Recycled Content, 10% (post -consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 1

Low Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber products 1 1


Measurement & Verification - Tenant Sub-Metering 1

Regional Materials, 20% Manufactured Regionally 1 1

Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 1

Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1 1

Green Power, 50% 1 1

Regional Materials, 50% Extracted Regionally 1 1

Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 1

Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 1

Rapidly Renewable Materials, 5% of Building Materials 1 1

Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 1

Light Pollution Reduction 1 1

Certified Wood, 50% of wood based materials 1 NA Thermal Comfort, Design 1 1

Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 1

Daylight, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 1

Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1 1

- 116 -


P2

Sustainable Sites CR A D Water Efficiency CR A Energy &

Atmosphere CR A Materials &

Resources CR A Indoor Environmental

Quality CR A D Innovation in

Design CR A D

Erosion & Sedimentation Control

R Y Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation

1 1 Fundamental Building Systems Commissioning

R Y Storage & Collection of Recyclables

R Y Minimum IAQ Performance R Y Innovation in Design (Green Education)

1 1

Site Selection 1 1 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Water Use or No Irrigation

1 1 Minimum Energy Performance

R Y Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof

1 NA Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control

R Y Innovation in Design (Green Housekeeping)

1 1

Development Density & Community Connectivity

1 1 Water Efficiency in Air-conditioning System, 50% Reduce

1 1 CFC Reduction in HVAC&R Equipment

R Y Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors and Roof

1 NA Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring

1 1 Innovation in Design (100% renewable energy for construction)

1 1

Brownfield Redevelopment:

1 NA Innovative Wastewater Technologies

1 1 Optimize Energy Performance

10 9 Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Shell+50% of Non-Shell

1 NA Increased Ventilation, 30% above ASHRAE 62.1 requirements

1 1 Innovation in Design (Zero Waste)

1 1

Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access

1 1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction

1 1 Renewable Energy, 2.5%

1 1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal

1 1 Construction IAQ Management Plan , (During Construction)

1 1 LEED - India Accredited Professional

1 1

Alternative Transportation, Low Emission & Alternative Fuel Refueling Stations

1 1 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction

1 1 Renewable Energy, 5%

1 1 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal

1 1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, After Construction/Before Occupancy

1 1

Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity

1 1 Renewable Energy, 7.5%

1 1 Resource Reuse, 5% 1 NA Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesive & Sealants

1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat

1 NA Additional Commissioning

1 1 Resource Reuse, 10% 1 NA Low Emitting Materials, Paints

1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint

1 1 Ozone Depletion 1 1 Recycled Content, 5% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial)

1 1 Low – Emitting Materials, Carpet

1 1

Stormwater Design, Quality Control

1 1 Measurement & Verification - Base Design

1 1 Recycled Content, 10% (post -consumer + ½ post-industrial)

1 1 Low Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber products

1 1

Stormwater Design, Quality Control

1 1 Measurement & Verification - Tenant Sub-Metering

1 Regional Materials, 20% Manufactured Regionally

1 1 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control

1 1

Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof

1 1 Green Power, 50% 1 NA Regional Materials, 50% Extracted Regionally

1 1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting

1 NA

Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 1 Rapidly Renewable Materials, 5% of Building Materials

1 1 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort

1 NA

Light Pollution Reduction

1 1 Certified Wood, 50% of wood based materials

1 1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 1

Thermal Comfort, Verification

1 1

Daylight, Daylight 75% of Spaces

1 1

Views, Views for 90% of Spaces

1 1

- 117 -


P3


Energy & Atmosphere CR A


Indoor Environmental Quality CR A D







Site Selection 1 1






Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 NA

Water Efficiency in Air-conditioning System, 50% Reduce 1 NA



Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 1

Innovation in Design (100% renewable energy for construction) 1 1








Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 1

Renewable Energy, 2.5% 1 1






1 1


1 1




Renewable Energy, 7.5% 1 1 Resource Reuse, 5% 1 NA


Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 1

Additional Commissioning 1 1 Resource Reuse, 10% 1 NA

Low Emitting Materials, Paints 1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1 1

Ozone Depletion 1 1

Recycled Content, 5% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 1

Low – Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 NA

Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1 NA


Recycled Content, 10% (post -consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 NA


Stormwater Design, Quality Control 1

1



Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 NA


Green Power, 50% 1 NA



Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 NA

Rapidly Renewable Materials, 5% of Building Materials 1 NA

Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 NA


Certified Wood, 50% of wood based materials 1 1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1 1

Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 1



- 118 -


P4


Energy & Atmosphere CR A


Indoor Environmental Quality CR A D







Site Selection 1 1






Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 NA

Water Efficiency in Air-conditioning System, 50% Reduce 1 NA



Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 1

Innovation in Design (100% renewable energy for construction) 1 1








Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 1

Renewable Energy, 2.5% 1 1






1 1


1 NA




Renewable Energy, 7.5% 1 NA Resource Reuse, 5% 1 1


Reduced Site Disturbance, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 1

Additional Commissioning 1 1 Resource Reuse, 10% 1 NA

Low Emitting Materials, Paints 1 1

Reduced Site Disturbance, Development Footprint 1 1

Ozone Depletion 1 1

Recycled Content, 5% (post-consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 1

Low – Emitting Materials, Carpet 1 1



Recycled Content, 10% (post -consumer + ½ post-industrial) 1 1





Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 1


Green Power, 50% 1 NA



Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 1

Rapidly Renewable Materials, 5% of Building Materials 1 NA

Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 1


Certified Wood, 50% of wood based materials 1 1 Thermal Comfort, Design 1

1

Thermal Comfort, Verification 1

1


Legend: CR - Credit Requirement; R - Required; Y- Yes; NA- Not Applicable; A- Achieved; D- Denied


- 119 -


Appendix – VI: LEED V4 Certification LEED V4 Certification Categories (USGBC. 2014)

LEED Version 4.0 - BD+C: New Construction & Renovation

Categories

Integrative Process 1 Point CR Integrative Process 1

Location and Transportation (LT) 16 Points CR LEED for neighborhood development location 16

CR Sensitive land protection 1

CR High Priority Site 2

CR Surrounding Density and Diverse Uses 5

CR Access to Quality Transit 5

CR Bicycle Facilities 1

CR Reduced Parking Footprint 1

CR Green Vehicles 1

Sustainable Sites 10 Points PR Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required

CR Site Assessment 1

CR Site Development - Protect or Restore Habitat 2

CR Open Space 1

CR Rainwater Management 3

CR Heat Island Reduction 2

CR Light Pollution Reduction 1

Water Efficiency 11 Points PR Outdoor Water Use Reduction Required PR Indoor Water Use Reduction Required PR Building Level Water Metering Required CR Outdoor Water Use Reduction 2

CR Indoor Water Use Reduction 6

CR Cooling Tower Water Use 2

CR Water Metering 1

Energy & Atmosphere 33 Points PR Fundamental Commissioning & Verification Required

PR Minimum Energy Performance Required

PR Building Level Energy Metering Required

PR Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required

- 120 -


CR Enhanced Commissioning 6

CR Optimize Energy Performance 18

CR Advanced Energy Metering 1

CR Demand Response 2

CR Renewable Energy Production 3

CR Enhanced Refrigerant Management 1

CR Green Power and Carbon Offsets 2

Materials & Resources 13 Points PR Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required

PR Construction & Demolition Waste Management Planning Required

CR Building Life-Cycle Impact Reduction 5

CR Building Product Disclosure & Optimization - Environmental Product Declarations

2

CR Building Product Disclosure & Optimization - Sourcing of Raw Materials 2

CR Building Product Disclosure & Optimization - Material Ingredients 2

CR Construction & Demolition Waste Management 2

Indoor Environmental Quality 18 Points PR Minimum Indoor Air Quality Performance Required

PR Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required

CR Enhanced Indoor Air Quality Strategies 2

CR Low Emitting Materials 3

CR Construction Indoor Air Quality Management Plan 1

CR Indoor Air Quality Assessment 2

CR Thermal Comfort 1

CR Interior Lighting 2

CR Daylight 3

CR Quality Views 1

CR Acoustic Performance 1

Innovation in Design 6 Points Credit Innovation 5

Credit LEED Accredited Professional 1

Regional Priority 4 Points Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1

Credit Regional Priority: Specific Credit 1



Project Total 110 Points Certified: 40 to 49 points, Silver: 50 to 59 points, Gold: 60 to 79 points, Platinum: 80 to 110 Legend: PR - Prerequisite; CR - Credit Note: Highlighted Colors are the one's which are added new in LEED v4

- 121 -


Appendix – VII: GRIHA Certification GRIHA Certification Categories (GRIHA, 2014)

GRIHA Version 3

Categories

Criterion Appraisal Points LEED 2009

CR1 Site Selection 1

Sustainable Sites

CR2 Preserve and protect landscape during construction/compensatory depository forestation.

4

CR3 Soil conservation (post construction) 2

CR4 Design to include existing site features 4

CR5 Reduce hard paving on site 2

CR6 Enhance outdoor lighting system efficiency 1

CR7 Plan utilities efficiently and optimize on-site circulation efficiency

3

CR8 Provide minimum level of sanitation/safety facilities for construction workers

2

CR9 Reduce air pollution during construction 2

CR10 Reduce landscape water demand 3

Water Efficiency CR11 Reduce building water use 2

CR12 Efficient water use during construction 1

CR13 Optimize building design to reduce conventional energy demand

8

Energy & Atmosphere

CR14 Optimize energy performance of building within specified comfort limits

16

CR15 Utilization of fly-ash or equivalent industrial/agricultural waste as recommended by BIS in building structures

6

CR16 Reduce embodied energy of construction is reduced by adopting material efficient technologies and/or low-energy materials

4

CR17 Use low-energy materials in Interiors 4

CR18 Renewable energy utilization 8

CR19 Renewable energy based hot water system 3

CR20 Waste water treatment 2

CR21 Water recycle and reuse (including rainwater) 5

CR22 Reduction in waste during construction 1 Materials & Resources CR23 Efficient Waste segregation 1

CR24 Storage and disposal of wastes 1

- 122 -


CR25 Resource recovery from waste 2

CR26 Use of low-VOC paints/adhesives/sealants 3

CR27 Minimize ozone depleting substances 1

CR28 Ensure water quality 2

Indoor & Outdoor Environmental

Quality

CR29 Acceptable outdoor and indoor noise levels 2

CR30 Tobacco and smoke control 1

CR31 Provide at least the minimum level of accessibility for persons with disabilities

1

CR32 Energy audit and validation 0

CR33 Operation and Maintenance 2

Project Total 100

CR34 Innovation Points 0

1Star: 50-60 points, 2Star: 61-70 points, 3Star: 71-80 points, 4 Star: 81-90 points, 5 Star: 91-100 points

- 123 -


Appendix – VIII: LEED V4 Categories Intent Nine Main LEED V4 NC Categories & their Intent (USGBC, 2013) No Category Intent / Goals 1 Integrative Process Involvement of LEED APs from the beginning, analyzing

the project goal towards sustainability early 2 Location & Transportation Reduce need for automobiles; enhancement of energy

friendly machines like bicycles; 3 Sustainable Sites Protect and/or restore sites; reuse existing buildings

and/or sites; and protect natural and agricultural areas. 4 Water Efficiency Water use reduction; reduce the quantity of water

needed; and reduce municipal water supply and treatment burden.

5 Energy & Atmosphere Optimize energy efficiency and system performance; encourage renewable and alternative energy sources; and support ozone protection protocols.

6 Materials & Resources Reduce the amount of materials needed; use materials with less environmental impact; and reduce and manage waste.

7 Indoor Environmental Quality Establish good indoor environmental quality; eliminate, reduce and manage the sources of indoor pollutants; ensure thermal comfort and system controllability; and provide for occupant connection to the outdoor environment.

8 Innovation in Design Cost-effective adoption of green design and construction strategies; emphasizing human health; construction and operational strategies.

9 Regional Priority Enhance the ability of LEED project teams to address critical environmental issues regionally and globally.

- 124 -


Appendix – IX: Relationship Between LEED V4 & C2C Relationship between C2C Built Environment and LEED V4 Categories (Douglas & Michael 2010; USGBC 2013, Author) 1 The Principle Criteria LEED V4 CC

1.1 State Your Intentions

Integrative Process

Intent

Design is the first signal of human intention. State your intentions for the building by describing your Goals and Milestones in relation to the three basic C2C principles, i.e. where you want to be by a given date.

Criteria based on the defining C2C principles C2C Principe: Everything is a Nutrient for Something Else.

1.2 Define Materials and Their Intended Use Pathways

Materials & Resources

Intent

A Use materials whose quality and contents are measurably defined in technical or biological pathways from manufacturing through use and recovery.

b Use materials whose impacts are measurably beneficial for human health and the environment

1.3 Integrate Biological Nutrients

Sustainable Sites

Intent

Measurably recycle biological nutrients and water by integrating biomass production into buildings, landscaping, and spatial plans to generate more biomass, soil and clean water than before the development of the site.

1.4 Enhance Air and Climate Quality

Indoor Environmental

Quality

Intent

a Measurably improve interior air quality for biological metabolisms so the air is cleaner than before it entered the building, and provides a comfortable climate for occupants.

b Contribute to enhancing outdoor climate by contributing air that is healthier for biological metabolisms than before it enters a building, and using climate change gases as resources through carbon management.

1.5 Enhance Water Quality Water

Efficiency Intent

Measurably improve water quality so the water is healthier for biological metabolisms than before it entered the building.

C2C Principe: Use Current Solar Income

- 125 -


1.6 Integrate Renewable Energy

Energy &

Atmosphere

Intent

Integrate renewable energy (current solar and gravitational income) into buildings and area plans so the building and site generate more energy than they use. Use energy as a way to guide energy effectiveness.

C2C Principle: Celebrate Diversity 1.7 Actively Support Biodiversity

Regional Priority

Intent

Integrate measurable species diversity so the area supports more diversity than before the development.

1.8 Celebrate Conceptual Diversity with Innovation Regional Priority

Intent

Conceptual diversity can be demonstrated measurably by focusing on special beneficial features of a building and integrating innovative components that are beneficial for the well-being of occupants and the environment.

Stakeholder Value Criteria 1.9 Add Value and Enhance Quality for Stakeholders

Additional Feature

Intent

Describe what the C2C features of a building do practically for the users.

1.10 Enhance Stakeholder Well-Being and Enjoyment

Additional Feature

Intent

Enjoyment is part of the C2C building because an ugly unenjoyable world is not part of the C2C. By implementing each of the basic criteria, a C2C building enhances enjoyment by enhancing well-being. Spatial and aesthetic features that are less quantifiable can also enhance enjoyment and support diversity by demonstrating how well a building serves diverse stakeholders.

- 126 -


Appendix – X: Minimum Program Requirements, LEED 2011 Minimum Program Requirements as described by LEED 2011

Minimum Program Requirements USGBC: LEED 2011 MPR 1 MUST COMPLY WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS.

Intent

The purpose of this MPR is to highlight the importance of environmental laws and regulations that apply to LEED projects. Such legislation establishes a baseline standard for sustainability. SPECIFIC ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS:

Short- term lapses in compliance are acceptable

USGBC will recognize exemptions granted by authorities

USGBC will recognize settlements granted by authorities on a case-by-case basis

Special considerations for LEED for Commercial Interiors projects

Special consideration for projects with unfinished spaces

MPR 2 MUST BE A COMPLETE, PERMANENT BUILDING OR SPACE

Intent

The LEED rating systems were designed to evaluate complete buildings and spaces in fixed locations. Partial buildings or spaces are unsuitable for LEED certification because when analyzed under the requirements of LEED prerequisites and credits, they create results inconsistent with those of whole buildings or spaces. Also, partial certification can easily appear to encompass an entire building or space, sending a false message to the occupants. SPECIFIC ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS:

Attached Buildings

MPR 3 MUST USE A REASONABLE SITE BOUNDARY

Intent

In order to ensure fair and consistent evaluation for all projects - particularly under the Sustainable Sites credit category - it is necessary to have guidelines for an acceptable LEED project boundary. All site conditions and impacts related to a building must be considered and addressed in the certification process to ensure a complete and thorough examination of the environmental impacts of a building SPECIFIC ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS:

Land assigned to previous projects may be re-assigned to LEED-EB: O&M projects

When non-contiguous parcels may be included in the LEED project boundary

When land included in submittals may be excluded from the LEED project boundary

When facilities included in submittals may be excluded from the LEED project boundary

Real property no longer attributed to a certified building

When land not owned by the LEED project owner may be included

Project boundaries that include other buildings

MPR 4 MUST COMPLY WITH MINIMUM FLOOR AREA REQUIREMENTS.

Intent

The thresholds and calculations that make up the system of evaluation in LEED begin to break down and lose meaning once the building or space being evaluated reaches relatively diminutive proportions.

- 127 -


MPR 5 MUST COMPLY WITH MINIMUM OCCUPANCY RATES

Intent

Many prerequisites and credits throughout the LEED rating systems evaluate the impact of the LEED project building on the building users, particularly those prerequisites and credits in the IEQ credit category. It is therefore appropriate and necessary to require that a minimum number of people benefit from the strategies implemented in a LEED project building in order to earn any credits. SPECIFIC ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS

Unexpected and temporary decline in occupancy

Determining compliance with fluctuating occupancy rates

MPR 6 MUST COMMIT TO SHARING WHOLE-BUILDING ENERGY AND WATER USAGE DATA

Intent

The goal of decreased energy and water use consumption is a major component of LEED certification. Tracking actual building consumption and comparing it to the usage proposed in design cases, or tracked during a performance period, is essential to the individual success of each LEED certified building and the ongoing evaluation and development of the LEED program. SPECIFIC ALLOWED EXCEPTIONS:

When whole project meters are cost-prohibitive or physically impractical to install

Complying with this MPR when there is a transfer of ownership

MPR 7 MUST COMPLY WITH A MINIMUM BUILDING AREA TO SITE AREA RATIO

Intent

Because LEED is a rating system for buildings, it is appropriate to restrict the amount of land associated with a LEED certified project.

- 128 -


Appendix – XI: LCA Analysis Recent case studies on Life cycle analysis (Buyle et al. 2012)

Author Year Country Cases

Building

Type Lifetime

Production

Use EoL Sensitivity

Transport

Adalberth et al

1997 Sweden 3 R LCEA 50 X X X - X

Arena and Rosa

2003 Argentina 2 S Scr. LCA

50 X X - - X

Asif et al. 2007 Scotland 1 R LCEA ? X - - - -

Audenaert et al.

2012 Belgium 1 R Scr. LCA

? X X X - -

Blanchard and Reppe

1998 USA 2 R LCEA 50 X X X X X

Blengini and Di Carlo

2010 Italy 2 R LCA 70 X X X - X

Blengini 2009 Italy 1 R LCA 40 X X X X X

Chen et al. 2001 China 2 R LCEA 40 X - X - X

Citherlet and Defaux

2007 Switzerland

3 R LCA ? X X X X -

Cole and Kernan

1996 Canada 12 O LCEA 50 X X X X

De Meester et al.

2009 Belgium 65 R LCEA 75 X X X - X

Dewulf et al. 2009 Belgium 1 R LCEA 50 - - - X X

Erlandsson and Levin

2005 Sweden 1 R LCA 35 X X - - -

Fay et al. 2000 Australia 2 R LCEA 100 X X X X X

Gerilla et al. 2007 Japan 2 R LCA 35 X X - X X

Huberman and Pearlmutter

2008 Israel 1 R LCEA 50 X X X - X

Junnila 2004 Finland 1 O LCA 50 X X X - X

Kofoworola and Gheewala

2008 Thailand 1 O LCA 50 X X X - X

Marceau and VanGeem

2006 USA 2 R LCA 100 X X - X X

Mithraratne and Vale

2004 New Zealand

3 R LCEA 100 X X X - X

Ortiz et al. 2009 Spain 1 R LCA 50 X X - X X

- 129 -


Peuportier 2001 France 3 R LCA 80 X X X X X

Reddy and Jagadish

2003 India 3 R LCEA ? X - - - X

Scheuer et al. 2003 USA 1 S LCA 75 X X X - X

Suzuki and Oka

1998 Japan 10 O LCEA 40 X X - - -

Thormark 2000 Sweden 2 R LCA ? X - X X X

Thormark 2002 Sweden 1 R LCEA 50 X X X X X

Winther and Hestnes

1999 Norway 5 R LCEA 50 X X - - X

Xing et al. 2008 China 2 O LCA 50 X X - - -

Zimmermann et al.

2005 Switzerland

- A11 LCA ? X X - - X

R = Residential; O= Office; S= School; X= Included; - = Excluded

- 130 -


9. About the Author

The researcher had worked for 7 years as an architect

in the Architectural Practices in India working at National

and International level. The researcher during his

working career worked on few project where in

sustainability has been a core issue.

The author realized that the topic of Sustainability

Assessment Frameworks like LEED V4 & C2C are one

of the most discussed topics nowadays in the

construction industry. This has been enforced by various

environmentalist agencies working towards the sustainable development in all sectors of

our lives.

The reasons stated above and for the researcher’s willingness to see the practical

implementation of the same, the researcher decided to dig deep and find the possible

solution of implementing V4 + C2C in the Indian construction Industry. By using his earlier

experience gained through the practical experience plus the knowledge attained in this

course, the researcher has tried to add value from his little step towards making the world

more beautiful and sustainable.

Furthermore, the author is intending to work on a PhD subject focusing on the C2C

perspectives, and figure out ways of implementing it in the developing countries like India.

The researcher will work towards the development of this particular philosophy in his near

career.