C:Old Hard DiskPhilipPGBC Sy - hkpgbc.org Booklet - Session 2.pdfThe Hong Kong Building...

44mposium on Green Building Labelling

Session 2

45Symposium on Green Building Labelling

HK-BEAM: MEASURING, IMPROVING AND LABELLINGTHE ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY OF BUILDINGS IN HONG KONG

Kevin EDMUNDSHK-BEAM Society, Hong Kong

ABSTRACT

The Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK-BEAM) is the private sector initiative toassist developers, designers, builders and managers providing more environmentally sustainable buildings.HK-BEAM sets out over 100 “best practice environmental criteria” for a range of issues - from energyefficiency and building materials, to construction pollution and indoor environmental quality - against whichbuilding performance can be measured, improved and recognised.

As of February 2004, almost 100 private and public sector premises covering 59 million ft2 of space (over30,000 residential units and 41 million ft2 non-domestic space) have been submitted for voluntary,independent HK-BEAM certification. This level of adoption makes HK-BEAM one of the most widely usedvoluntary green building labelling schemes in the world, particularly in terms of number of buildings,percentage of total stock assessed, and buildings per capita. In fact the floor area of HK-BEAM projectsin progress during 2002 was equivalent to more than 25% of commercial space and approximately 10 %of dwellings completed in Hong Kong during that year (and 80% of all Grade A office space completed).

This paper outlines HK-BEAM’s “whole-life” labelling framework, the environmental sustainability issuesaddressed, the benchmarks adopted, and the certification process. The paper also presents some of theachievements of HK-BEAM to date, and describes the work of the HK-BEAM Society.

Keywords: Environmental Sustainability, Building Performance Assessment, Green Building Labelling.

INTRODUCTION

HK-BEAM is the private sector initiative to promote environmental sustainability in the planning, design,construction, commissioning, management, operation, maintenance and deconstruction of buildings inHong Kong. The main aims of HK-BEAM are to:

• reduce the long-term impact that buildings have on the environment;

• raise awareness of the large contribution which buildings make to global warming, acid rain and depletionof the ozone layer;

• provide authoritative guidance to all stakeholders in the construction and real estate sectors on practicesthat reduce the adverse effects of buildings whilst providing good quality indoor environments;

• promote and encourage energy efficient buildings, systems and equipment;

• reduce the unsustainable use of scarce natural resources such as water and timber;

• minimise impacts on the local environment;

• improve waste management and to encourage recycling and reuse;

• improve indoor environmental the quality and hence occupant health and well-being;

• set targets and standards which are independently assessed and so help to minimise false claims ordistortions;

• provide recognition for buildings where the environmental impact has been reduced; and

• enable developers, operators and users to respond to demands for buildings that have less impact onsociety, and to help stimulate such a market.

HK-BEAM sets best practice criteria for environmental sustainability in buildings, against which performanceis verified through a voluntary and independent assessment. ‘Credits’ are awarded where these criteriaare satisfied, and guidance provided where performance can be improved. The assessment outcome iscommunicated through the voluntary HK-BEAM green building label as a rating of “Bronze”, “Silver”,“Gold” and “Platinum”.


THE HK-BEAM FRAMEWORK

HK-BEAM seeks to measure, improve and label the performance of buildings over their whole cyclethrough the definition of best practice criteria in two standards:

• HK-BEAM Version 4 for New Buildings Developments (for planning, design, construction andcommissioning, with design and specification provisions for deconstruction);

• HK-BEAM Version 5 for Existing Buildings Developments (for management, operation and maintenance,with some overlap on commissioning).

Over 100 best practice criteria, described in more detail in the following sections, are applied to theassessment of each building at each life stage, as illustrated in Figure 1.

All building types under single ownership can be assessed using HK-BEAM, including but not limited tooffices, retail, catering and service establishments, libraries, educational establishments, industrial, hotelsand residential. Within each building type, HK-BEAM caters for central air conditioning, mechanicalventilation, natural ventilation with supplementary cooling, or any combination of these.

The intention is that HK-BEAM for new buildings dovetails with that for existing buildings, such that abuilding rated under HK-BEAM ‘new’ and suitably operated and maintained would achieve a similar ratingunder HK-BEAM ‘existing’ some years later.

Both versions of HK-BEAM aim to reduce the impacts of buildings using the best available techniquesand within reasonable cost. It is not expected that a building will meet all of the requirements. By meetingsome of the criteria, however, the building will have less impact than one in which the requirements havenot been met.

In addition to assessing actual performance, HK-BEAM also gives guidance on potential performance,that is, the best performance that can be obtained from the building with given its levels of occupancy anduse. Actual performance determines operating costs, use of resources and by-products, and is the startingpoint for determining various improvement measures.

Figure 1 The HK-BEAM Whole-Life Assessment Framework


THE HK-BEAM COVERAGE OF ISSUES

Despite its name, HK-BEAM extends beyond the environment. Since its inception and over time HK-BEAM has covered an increasing number of building related socio-economic issues such as, for example,land utilisation, site amenity and accessibility, pedestrian comfort, environmental health and hygiene,aesthetics, occupant health and well-being, etc. As such, HK-BEAM continues to evolve as an“environmental sustainability” assessment method and, as parameters become better understood anddefined, ultimately towards a “building sustainability” assessment method.

The best practice criteria put forward by HK-BEAM are grouped within a general framework similar toother schemes in use worldwide, namely:

• Site Aspects - including the land use, site layout optimisation, transportation, accessibility, ecology,amenity, site / neighbourhood interfaces, site emissions and management, etc;

• Materials Aspects - including material optimisation in design and operation, building flexibility anddurability, the avoidance of environment-damaging materials, waste minimisation, etc;

• Energy Aspects - including passive / low-energy design, microclimate, plant/equipment efficiency,renewable energy, annual energy consumption reduction, etc;

• Water Aspects - including potable water quality, water economy and recycling, and effluent management,etc;

• Indoor Environmental Quality Aspects - including thermal comfort, ventilation effectiveness, indoor airquality (both internal and external pollutants), natural and artificial lighting, acoustics and vibration, etc;and

• Innovative Techniques - encouraging innovative techniques and performance enhancements beyondthose stipulated in the HK-BEAM criteria indicated above.

The issues addressed within each category are identified in Appendix 1 to this paper. For the sake ofbrevity, specific assessment criteria and methods for these issues are excluded. However these are setout in the assessment standards for new and existing building developments that can be downloadedfrom the HK-BEAM Society website (www.hk-beam.org).

ESTABLISHING THE HK-BEAM PERFORMANCE CRITERIA

Notwithstanding its environmental labelling of buildings, the success of HK-BEAM should no doubt bemeasured in the extent to which it actually improves their performance. Several key factors are taken intoaccount when defining criteria with a view to encouraging and facilitating such improvement:

(1) Validity of issues, practicality of assessment - only those issues for which there is good evidence ofthe problems they cause, and for which effective performance criteria can be defined, are embraced.Certain aspects attributable to buildings and their use have yet to be included, either because theirimpacts are not well defined, or because performance criteria have not been established (these maybe included in future updates when information becomes available to enable their objective assessment).

(2) Transparency and clarity - all criteria and assessment methods need to be transparent, allowing anunderstanding of the benchmarks (baselines), data, assumptions and issues taken into account inthe assessments and consequent rating. This is particularly the case when taking a holistic view ofbuilding performance, with an emphasis on life-cycle impacts, with priorities established and weightedfor global, local and indoor aspects.

(3) Setting the baselines - legal requirements and industry norms constitute the baseline for (zero) creditin HK-BEAM (in certain cases, legal compliance is a prerequisite). First level credits are achieved forgood practice in line with international and local guidelines, and further credits achieved commensuratewith building size, complexity and age. Criteria are updated periodically as new information becomesavailable and legal requirements evolve (issues becoming subject to legislation no longer count forthe award of credits, being deleted or amended in subsequent revisions of the scheme).


(4) Adopting recognised standards - where available HK-BEAM embraces codes of practice, technicalcirculars, and practice notes issued by authorities and institutions in Hong Kong, with a view to buildingupon existing approaches increasing familiarity with these. Where such local standards are notavailable, international standards are used (with relevant tailoring to the Hong Kong context). As alast resort, where such standards are not in existence new criteria are developed by the Society andits researchers, as is the case, for example, for the Overall Thermal Transfer Value of residentialbuildings.

(5) Prescriptive versus performance based - HK-BEAM is as far as possible performance based. This isbecause prescriptive assessments can preclude buildings that donÕ t have the features prescribedfrom obtaining a good assessment result (regardless of actual performance), and tend to encouragefeature-based design, construction and operating practices. Prescriptive measures put forward byHK-BEAM are only done so with requirements for their effective implementation to thereby improveperformance (clients can also demonstrate their achievement of the same goal using a differentapproach to obtain credit).

(6) Self-assessment methods - where appropriate, assessments to demonstrate compliance with theprescribed criteria in HK-BEAM are undertaken by suitably qualified persons acting on behalf of theClient, submitting evidence in the form of documents, data and reports. This has been found to beeffective in terms of self-learning, enabling the practices and processes recommended by HK-BEAMto be adopted more effectively by clients, designers, contractors and managers. In other cases,issues are assessed based on evidence collected by the assessor in the interest of efficiency.

(7) Flexible assessment methods - as mentioned above, HK-BEAM does not seek to be overly prescriptivein setting criteria and compliance methods, instead encouraging building owners and operators toconsider alternative approaches that meet the same objectives. Client representatives are invited tosubmit a ‘method statement’ if a credit is sought using an alternative approach, stating the proposedalternative criteria and assessment method.

(8) Raising the performance bar - as a voluntary scheme without financial or other incentives, the extentto which performance can be enhanced is determined by market acceptance of the assessmentcriteria, the cost of undertaking assessments, the relative weighting of the credits counting towardsthe overall assessment, and the perceived benefits to clients. The criteria included in HK-BEAM areconsidered to be realistic and attainable in practice.

(9) Flexibility for change - since collective knowledge on the environmental sustainability of buildingscontinues to increase, the HK-BEAM framework is designed to respond, resulting in a dynamic systemsubject to incremental change and update. With wider implementation it is also expected that thescheme will be subject to further scrutiny by an increasing number of stakeholders.

All of the above considerations allow HK-BEAM to evolve over time as new practices and techniques areintroduced by industry, enabling standards for environmentally sustainable buildings to increase on anincremental basis as illustrate below.

Figure 2 Incremental Improvements in Building Performance


THE HK-BEAM CERTIFICATION PROCESS

The HK-BEAM assessment process is illustrated below. Clients are provided with a questionnaire andsupporting checklists that details the information required. The assessor subsequently undertakes aprovisional assessment based on the information gathered from the questionnaire, discussions withdesign team and management representatives, and produce a provisional report. This report identifiesexactly which credits have been achieved, and outlines any enhancements necessary to further improveperformance. At this stage the client may wish to make changes to the building or installed equipment,with the assessor empowered to check that no changes are made which affect the award of credits andthe overall assessment.

When a building development is registered for assessment the credits and assessment criteria current atthe time of registration will be used in the assessment process, unless the Client wishes to comply withcredits and criteria introduced after registration. The assessment process should be initiated at an earlystage, since the issues raised requires a substantial review of management, operation and maintenancepractices, as well as building and system performance data, covering at least the core building and insome cases tenant areas. Such information is not always readily available and may require somepreparation.

The most important aspect of the assessment process is that it includes the provision of information andguidance from assessors (originating from ongoing research and previous assessments) that clients canuse in their own projects. This two-way process is often cited as the most beneficial element of theassessment process by those that have been involved.

Figure 3 The HK-BEAM Certification Process

Client: Approaches HK-BEAM assessors with their selected building for evaluation, receives easy-to-use information checklists with which to collect data from the designers / builders / managers.

Assessor: Appraises the project against the HK-BEAM criteria. The Provisional AssessmentReport identifies those credits that have been achieved and exactly performance could be improved.

Client: Pursues additional credits through refinements in building design, specification andmanagement. Details submitted for reassessment, advise provided on an ongoing basis.

Assessor: Evaluates the proposed improvements, undertakes construction site / building visits forverification. The Final Assessment Report and HK-BEAM certificate issued on building completion.


Table 1 Projects Submitted for HK-BEAM Assessment (Alphabetical Order, Feb 2004)Key: Version 1/96 & 1/99 (New Air-Conditioned Office Premises); Version 2/96 & 2/99 (Existing Air-Conditioned Office Premises);Version 3/99 (New Residential Buildings); Version 4/03 (New Building Developments); Version 5/03 (Existing Building Developments)


HK-BEAM ACHIEVEMENTS TO DATE

Initiated in 1996, HK-BEAM has become Hong Kong’s most widely recognised industry benchmark tomeasure, improve and label the environmental sustainability of buildings. Over 90 developments, coveringsome 59 million ft2 space (residential, office, commercial, educational, health and mixed use) have so farbeen submitted for voluntary certification to HK-BEAM. Table 1 gives the latest listing.

This level of adoption makes HK-BEAM one of the most widely adopted voluntary green building labellingschemes in the world, particularly in terms of number of buildings, percentage of total stock assessed,and buildings per capita. The floor area of HK-BEAM projects in 2002 was equivalent to more than 25%of all commercial space, and approximately 10 % of dwellings, completed in Hong Kong during that year(in fact two projects accounted for 80% of all Grade A office space completed). With the introduction ofthe latest standards it is envisaged that more premises will subscribe.

The benefits of HK-BEAM to its users have been many and varied. In addition to gaining third partyrecognition for their achievements, most clients cite improvements in building performance, economicgains, increased knowledge and integration amongst their design, construction and management teams.Examples of financial benefits, for example, include:

• annual cost savings of $0.7 million for a new office premises, through enhanced envelope specificationto achieve a particular HK-BEAM rating, achieving a payback of less than 1.5 years on the additionalcapital investment (HK$1million);

• the reward of additional saleable space, through Government’s GFA exemption scheme, for sky andpodium gardens, prefabricated construction, solar shading and other features (all encouraged by HK-BEAM) at a residential development; and

• annual electricity cost savings of HK$1 million, with a pay back period of less than 3 years, for theowner of a large existing office building through a series of energy improvement measures identifiedand recommended by HK-BEAM.

In addition to the environmental, social and financial gains recognised by the assessed buildings describedthroughout this paper, HK-BEAM has also done much to stimulate partnership between stakeholders,and introduce of innovative technologies and techniques that may not otherwise be adopted by clients.

HK-BEAM OWNERSHIP, DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION

HK-BEAM is owned and implemented by the HK-BEAM Society, a not-for profit and member-basedassociation comprising individual and corporate member categories (both free of charge). Individualmembers, more than 130 in number, originate from all industry disciplines - designers, contractors,suppliers, consultants, clients, users and managers - in the private and public sectors. Corporate membersinclude architectural and engineering practices, developers, product and service providers, constructioncompanies, and various trade and professional associations.

The mission of the Society is to improve the life cycle environmental sustainability of buildings whilstproviding healthier and more comfortable living and working conditions. This is pursued chiefly bydeveloping, with wide industry input, practical yet rigorous HK-BEAM standards against which buildingsof all types can be assessed. The first two such standards were introduced in 1996 for new and existingoffice premises(1). In 1999 the HK-BEAM office versions were re-issued with revisions and updatedreferences, together with an entirely new method for new high-rise residential buildings(2).

At present the Society is working on the finalisation of the latest standards for New Building Developments(HK-BEAM version 4) and Existing Building Developments (HK-BEAM version 5), both currently underbeta testing through pilot assessments. These standards represent significant upgrades to the previousHK-BEAM documents, broadening the types of buildings that can be assessed and taking into accountrecent developments, both local and international, in ‘green building’ techniques and practices.

1 “HK-BEAM 1/96 An Environmental Assessment Method for New Air-conditioned Office Premises”; “HK-BEAM 2/96 An Environmental Assessment Method for Existing Air-conditioned Office Premises”

2 “HK-BEAM 1/96R An Environmental Assessment Method for New Air-conditioned Office Premises”; “HK-BEAM 2/96R An Environmental Assessment Method for Existing Air-conditioned Office Premises”; “HK-BEAM 3/99 An Environmental Assessment Method for New Residential Buildings”


The development of HK-BEAM has so far been sponsored by The Real Estate Developers Associationand managed by the Business Environmental Council, with research undertaken principally by the HongKong Polytechnic University Department of Building Services Engineering and University of Hong KongDepartment of Architecture. Research has made ongoing reference to overseas initiatives such as theUK Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, and involved widespreadconsultation (through peer review, various working groups, and knowledge sharing seminars, etc) withbuilding professionals from all disciplines. The final outcome therefore represents general consensus,although unanimous agreement from all stakeholders on all issues has not necessarily been reached.

Day-to-day implementation of HK-BEAM is undertaken by an elected Executive Committee on behalf ofthe HK-BEAM Society. Assessments are conducted by specialists at the Business Environment Council,itself a not-for-profit and membership-based business association. Further information on the Societyand implementation of HK-BEAM is available at www.hk-beam.org, including downloadable HK-BEAMstandards, supporting guidelines, and membership application forms. Enquiries can also be made to theHK-BEAM Society secretariat at the Business Environment Council:

HK-BEAM Society Enquiries:Mr. Kevin EdmundsHK-BEAM Society Secretaryemail: [email protected]: +852 2784 3910

HK-BEAM Assessment Enquiries:Mr. Peter ChanLead HK-BEAM Assessoremail: [email protected]: +852 2784 3932


COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT SCHEME

Dr HUI Ming FongBuildings Department of the HKSAR

ABSTRACT

In line with the government policy directive, the Buildings Department has undertaken a number of measuresto promote and facilitate the construction of green and innovative buildings. One of the initiatives was thecommissioning of a consultancy study to derive a Comprehensive Environmental Performance AssessmentScheme (CEPAS) to gauge the performance of buildings. The ultimate objective of the scheme is toupgrade the environmental performance of buildings in Hong Kong. This study is characterised by thewidespread consultation and involvement of various sectors of the stakeholders from an early stage. Themain features of the preliminary framework proposed by the Consultant are sustainability, holistic lifecycle approach, modular structure and flexible application. The scheme will be developed for all types ofnew and existing buildings. Assessment and labelling may be obtained for individual components andentire building development at a certain stage of the life cycle or the whole life cycle.

Keywords: environmental assessment, building performance, green building labelling

INTRODUCTION

Building a greener and more sustainable environment has become a worldwide movement. In HongKong, we have made some progress in this direction as a result of the concerted efforts of various sectorsof the community. The Buildings Department took part by initiating a green building movement a fewyears ago. Our measures include setting up of two dedicated task forces, provision of incentives, provisionof technical guidance, and compilation of a building assessment scheme.

The green building movement is bearing fruit. Since the issue of the 1st Joint Practice Notes in 2001 andthe 2nd Joint Practice Notes in 2002 to provide incentives in the form of gross floor area and site coverageexemption for specific green features, we have approved 131 projects with one or more of these features.It is very encouraging to see that developers, designers and contractors have taken up the green conceptbeyond the scope of the Joint Practice Notes. Features that do not attract gross floor area concessionssuch as structural precast elements, system formwork and solar panels had been adopted in a number ofbuildings.

So far, the Joint Practice Notes have kick started the 'green building movement', it is essential to take aholistic approach in order to make further progress. To this end, we have commissioned Ove Arup andPartners Hong Kong Limited in 2002 to conduct a consultancy study to derive a comprehensiveenvironmental performance assessment scheme.

OBJECTIVES

The CEPAS study was initiated under the 2001 Government Policy Objectives to set up a green labellingscheme. It is also in line with the recommendation given in the report titled "Construct for Excellence",which was issued by the Construction Industry Review Committee.

The main aim of the consultancy study is to prepare a user-friendly environmental performance assessmentscheme, which will be tailor made for Hong Kong taking into consideration the local characteristics suchas high urban density, and hot and humid climate. Apart from compiling an assessment scheme, theConsultant is required to recommend the implementation strategy, propose qualifications and trainingrequirements of assessors, and conduct a post implementation review. The ultimate objective of thescheme is to entice the industry and building owners to upgrade the environmental performance of buildingsin Hong Kong. We hope that the scheme serves the purpose of providing guidelines to the professionalsand practitioners in achieving more sustainable buildings as well as being an assessment tool.


LOCAL AND OVERSEAS EXPERIENCE

Since building environmental performance assessment is a fast moving field, we consider it essential toobtain understanding of the various schemes that were developed locally and overseas. It is paramountthat we draw on the experience of these schemes to ensure that CEPAS would encapsulate the forefrontenvironmental assessment principles.

Therefore, a detailed research was carried out on eleven existing local and overseas assessment schemesto establish the strength and weaknesses, practicality, and the applicability to Hong Kong. The schemesare from four continents, namely Asia, Australia, Europe and North America. They include Building ResearchEstablishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), the Leadership in Energy and EnvironmentalDesign (LEED), and two Hong Kong schemes i.e. Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method(HK-Beam) and the Intelligent Building Index (IBI). Besides, the consultant also studied a number ofschemes initiated by the Hong Kong Government, they include the Hong Kong Energy EfficiencyRegistration Scheme for Buildings by the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department and the IndoorAir Quality Certification Scheme for Offices and Public Places introduced by the Environmental ProtectionDepartment.

Moreover, it is important that we consider the local conditions, potentials and constraints in order todevelop a practical assessments tool. Therefore, the Consultant was tasked to carry out studies on thelocal characteristics such as high urban density, hot and humid climate, rapid population growth, andconstruction practices.

FRAMEWORK

The consultancy study is divided into four main stages, namely the inception, research, development andCEPAS stage. The study is now at the development stage. The Consultant has derived a preliminaryframework proposal based on the research findings of various existing schemes and local parameters, aswell as the results of extensive consultation with the stakeholders. The Buildings Department has anopen mind on the development of the framework and CEPAS scheme including the implementationmeasures.

The preliminary framework proposal covers the basic structure of the scheme and the assessmentcategories. It is characterised by four main features, they are sustainability, holistic life cycle approach,modular structure and flexible application.

Sustainability became a fundamental feature of the framework because there is a general consensusamongst industry stakeholders and building user groups to embrace sustainability in the scheme. Theenvironmental, social and economic elements of sustainability will be considered at the building level,with a focus on the environmental aspects.

The preliminary framework adopts a holistic life cycle approach by taking into consideration the majorstages of the life cycle of building developments including the pre-design, design, construction anddemolition, and operation stage.

The proposed framework is laid out in a modular format to allow easy consideration, visualisation andinterpretation of each stage of the life cycle. The modular structure of the framework provides a flexiblelayout to encompass essential issues at each stage and allows easy incorporation of new assessmentcriteria. The aspects covered in the CEPAS scheme are grouped under eight categories, namely, resourcesuse, loadings, site impacts, neighbourhood impacts, indoor environmental quality, building amenities, siteamenities, neighbourhood amenities (Figure. 1). For each category, relevant assessment criteria will bederived for each stage of the life cycle (Figure 2).

The modular framework also offers flexibility in application. Although holistic life cycle approach is a mainfeature of the framework, it is essential to have in-built flexibility to allow assessment of the entiredevelopment at all stages or only at certain stage of the life cycle. Moreover, components of a developmentmay be assessed individually. With this framework, assessment may be conducted and thus scoresconsidered at each stage. Alternatively, credits for all categories at all stages may be accumulated to forman overall score. Besides, the score for a category may be considered individually or combined to formthe score for individual indices, for example, indoor environmental quality index, healthy building indexetc.

In addition, we recognise the importance of both new and existing buildings, therefore, the scheme wouldbe developed for all types of new and existing buildings.


LIFE CYCLE APPROACH

The holistic life cycle approach is a major underlying principle of the scheme. The basis of consideration,in the Consultant's proposal, for various stages of the preliminary framework is highlighted below.

Pre-design stage

The pre-design stage is a crucial stage of a building development project, as the decisions and commitmentsmade determine the major direction of the project. It also paves the way for the incorporation of sustainabilityin the design and construction stages. Therefore, the pre-design stage may have fundamental influenceon the overall performance of a development.

To establish the environmental potentials and limitations of a project, site appraisal needs to be conducted.This would enable the principles of sustainability to be addressed at the initial stage. The overallsustainability commitment in the design, construction, operation and maintenance and final demolitionstage should then be reflected in the project brief and policy on sustainability.

Although formal labelling of assessment may not be given solely for this stage, documents including siteappraisal report, project brief and environmental policy may contribute to the score of the overall labelling.

Design stage

For the design stage, the main focus is to encourage the design professionals to develop the sustainabilitystrategies set out in the pre-design stage into design proposals. This stage dictates a whole range of keyparameters such as choice of materials, buildabilty, overall quality etc. Assessment may be carried afterthe major design is completed and a label for design may be granted. However, design parameters andissues need to be verified after construction. To encourage innovation, scores will be allocated for innovativedesign.

Construction stage

The major aim at this stage is to encourage contractors to develop and implement plans to achieve agreen site, and to accomplish the requirements and vision of the developers and designers on sustainableconstruction. Main issues of consideration include setting up of an environmental team, waste management,use of sustainable materials, adoption of sustainable construction method/technology etc. Assessmentand labelling for green construction may be provided for this stage.

Operation stage

Whilst the previous stages of a building development determine the inherent quality, durability andmaintainability of a development, the operation stage is generally the longest and is vital to the overallsustainability of a building. For new buildings, this stage enables verification of the actual performanceagainst design intent. For existing buildings, the performance of the buildings as well as the performanceof the building management teams are important.

Issues that need to be considered at this stage include environmental plan for operation and maintenance,minimisation of resources, conducting periodic inspection & post occupancy evaluation, provision of ongoingtraining & education etc.

Throughout the various stage of the life cycle of a building, all relevant parties play an important part inthe overall sustainability. The developers determine the overall design brief and sustainable policies. Thedesign professionals use their ingenuity in materialising policies into design. The contractors turn thedesign into reality. The owners and building management teams operate and maintain buildings. With theadoption of a flexible life cycle approach, the contributions of all relevant parties could be assessed andrecognised accordingly.


WIDESPREAD AND CONTINUED CONSULTATION

To ensure successful development and implementation of CEPAS, consultation and involvement ofstakeholders began at a very early stage, and form a vital and integral part of the study. To involve abroader spectrum of the community, the Consultant conducted a questionnaire survey and a discussionforum. The main purpose was to collate views on the assessment criteria, framework, implementationmeasures etc. from the industry stakeholders, and building user and green groups. Apart from gatheringfeedback, the survey and forum also help to promote the scheme, and arouse interest and discussionwithin the community on environmental issues. In addition, continued consultation is carried out by way ofa Steering Committee, which provides direction to the study. Members of the committee are from varioussectors of the stakeholders.

Questionnaire Survey

The first round of widespread consultation was conducted in mid 2003 in the form of questionnaire survey.Through the survey, the Consultant collated views from the industry stakeholders and building user/greengroups on what they consider to be important local building environmental issues. These data provide astrong basis for the development of the CEPAS framework and derivation of assessment criteria andcategories.

Questionnaires were sent to 101 organisations from a wide range of target groups including developers,architects, engineers, surveyors, contractors, building management groups, academics, building usergroups, green groups, and government departments. There were two versions of the questionnaires, acomprehensive version for the professionals and industry stakeholders, and a simplified version for buildinguser groups and green groups. The response to the survey was encouraging, out of the 101 questionnairesissued, 43 replied. In addition, the Consultant received another 39 replies from individuals providing theirpersonal views.

Responses were classified into six different groups, namely developer, designer, contractor, facilitymanagement, green/concerned group, and government. To cater for the uneven number of replies fromdifferent groups, a single weighting for each issue for each group was obtained by geometric means.

One of the major findings of the survey is that 74 % of the respondents believe sustainability should beincorporated in CEPAS. 69% consider that actual data of a building should form the basis of assessment.86% suggest that incentive is an effective way to promote better environmental performance. On theissue of implementation, 43% consider CEPAS should be voluntary, 28% opted for mandatory and 17%is neutral.

Discussion Forum

The second round of broad consultation involves a discussion forum held in July 2003. It provides aplatform for discussion, exchanging of ideas and receiving feedback on the preliminary framework ofCEPAS and implementation considerations. The comments and feedback help with the development ofthe framework. Invitations were sent to the organisations identified for issuing the survey questionnaires.A total of 50 representatives from 46 industry stakeholder organisations including green/user groupsparticipated in the half-day forum.

There was general support on the preliminary CEPAS framework. We received constructive feedback ona number of issues, including the comprehensiveness of the scheme, modular structure, life cycle approach,and implementation issues. Besides, there was a general consensus that residential buildings should beconsidered separately from other building types. With regard to the issue of administrator, participantsgenerally believe that the organisation should be neutral and reputable.

Both the questionnaire survey and the discussion forum provide us with good opportunities to inviterepresentatives of various sectors of the community to express their opinions, thus contribute to thedevelopment of CEPAS from a very early stage. Their views are valuable to us in our pursuit of a schemethat caters for the aspirations and requirements of the stakeholders. Whilst no scheme can possibly meetevery requirement of everybody, we endeavour to incorporate the needs and desire of the various partiesas much as possible.


The feedback collated from the questionnaire survey and discussion forum form the backbone of thescheme. All comments and suggestions were considered in great details and incorporated whereappropriate. The framework was shaped taking into account the views of the participants. To name a fewessential ones:

1. Embrace sustainability in CEPAS at the building level with more focus on the environmental side;

2. Re-organize and modify performance categories and criteria. The relative weighting of assessmentcriteria will be taken into account in the formulation of the ratings system; and

3. Reflect the difference between residential buildings and other building types in the assessment criteria.

PROGRESS

The Consultant is fine-tuning the proposed preliminary framework. They will provide recommendationson implementation measures and strategies, administration arrangements, qualifications and trainingrequirements of assessors in the near future.

One consistent message that emerged from both the questionnaire survey and the discussion forum isthat more consultation is needed. Therefore, upon completion of the draft CEPAS scheme, we shallconduct a wide consultation with the stakeholders and relevant organizations before determining the wayforward.

CONCLUSION

In line with the government policy directive, the Buildings Department has commissioned a consultancystudy to derive an assessment scheme to gauge the environmental performance of buildings. Widespreadconsultation and participation of various sectors of the stakeholders from an early stage form an integralpart of the study. Views collated from the stakeholders through questionnaire survey and discussionforum provide a strong basis for the development of the CEPAS framework and assessment criteria. Wehope that CEPAS is not just a scheme that is acceptable to the industry and the community at large butone that is derived collectively by the community and for the community.

Reference:

1. Ove Arup and Partners Hong Kong Limited, Final Research Report for Buildings Department Consultancy Agreement

No. CAO 028, April 2003

2. Ove Arup and Partners Hong Kong Limited, Preliminary Development Report for Buildings Department Consultancy

Agreement No. CAO 028, September 2003


Figure 1 - CEPAS Categories


Fig

ure

2 -

Lif

e C

ycle

Ap

pro

ach


CURRENT RESEARCH ON BUILDING CLASSIFICATION/LABELLING SYSTEM

Dr. Daniel C W HOFaculty of Architecture, The University of Hong Kong

ABSTRACT

This article aims to outline the current status of research on building classification, or labelling. It firstdescribes what building classification systems are, and then elaborates on the potential benefits ofimplementing building classification. This is followed by a review of two new building classification schemesdeveloped by the University of Hong Kong, namely the Building Health and Hygiene Index (BHHI) and theBuilding Safety and Conditions Index (BSCI). The paper concludes that the methodology of the indices issuitable for use in the development and implementation of the voluntary building classification systemadvocated in the public consultation paper on building management and maintenance.

Keywords: building classification, building labeling, health & hygiene, safety & condition

BACKGROUND

The outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) in early 2003 and the often fatal accidentsof fallen external renderings, unauthorized canopies, spalling concrete pieces, etc. have highlightedconcerns over the possible dire consequences of building neglect. The pitfalls in our living environmentthreatening the occupants and the public have been revealed. According to the Buildings Department,there are 42,000 private buildings territory-wide. About 11,400 are 20 to 40 years old and are moresusceptible to maintenance problems, particularly those without proper management.1 Requests foraddressing the prolonged problems of inadequate building management and maintenance in Hong Konghave become more frequent than ever.

After the outbreak of SARS, the government initiated a public consultation on ways for the proper upkeepof private buildings throughout the territory (Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau, 2003). Among thesuggestions proposed by the authority, such as the mandatory building safety inspection and buildingmanagement, one of particular interest was to devise a voluntary building classification scheme. It wasbelieved that the classification scheme can give positive recognition and encouragement to well-designedand properly managed buildings. As concerns over the quality of our living environment continue tosurge, developers in the planning stage have to share a responsibility in taking a long-term view of thisconcern and putting it into account.

This article aims to outline the current status of research on building classification, or labelling. It firstdescribes what building classification systems are, and then elaborates on the potential benefits ofimplementing building classification. This is followed by a review of two new building classification schemesdeveloped by the University of Hong Kong. One is the Building Health and Hygiene Index (BHHI), whichwas developed and tested last year (Ho, et. al., 2004). The other is the Building Safety and ConditionsIndex (BSCI), which is currently being developed and is expected to be completed within the next fewmonths.

1 According to Team Clean (2003), there are still some 8,000 private buildings without any form of management either by the ownersor management companies.


BUILDING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM: NOT A NEW THING

The idea of building classification is not new. Basically, a building classification, or rating, scheme is aprotocol to grade buildings into different classes with reference to the performance of various attributesbased on certain pre-defined objectives. A number of schemes have been developed and adoptedworldwide for various purposes. Many of these systems focus mainly on environmental issues. Well-known examples are The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) scheme2 and theBuilding Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), 3 which provide labellingfor buildings in the US and the UK, respectively. Locally, the Hong Kong Building EnvironmentalAssessment Method (HK-BEAM) has been used to assess private office and residential buildings since1996. However, classification for some fundamental issues, such as building safety and hygiene standards,seems to have been neglected. There seems to be only a few rating schemes (e.g. the RICS BuildingCondition Classification system) designed specifically for these issues.

In Hong Kong, cries for a building classification system based on safety and hygiene standards were firstaccorded in 2000. The former Planning and Lands Bureau suggested classifying private buildings bytheir standards of safety, management, and maintenance. The bureau then set up a task force to studythe viability of the proposal. In January 2001, the task force considered a voluntary building classificationscheme viable. However, there has not been any concrete implementation plan so far. Recently, aconsultancy study on a broad framework of building classification based on safety and conditions, whichwas commissioned by the Buildings Department, has been completed. Details have yet to be released.The following section will elaborate on the potential benefits of a building classification system.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS?

The primary function of a building classification system is to distinguish the good from the bad. It isbelieved that a well-publicized and well-received classification scheme will benefit all parties who areinterested in how good a building is, such as owners, occupants, users, potential buyers, mortgagees,brokers, property managers, builders, designers, and the government. Based on the information providedby the classification system, these parties can make informed decisions on what actions they shouldtake. The benefits of the scheme can be derived from economic, social, and policymaking viewpoints.

1. Revelation of Hidden Information

Apart from observable attributes such as the locality and appearance of each building, there are certaincharacteristics that are not apparent and easily compared. These characteristics are in many occasionsthose with a direct relationship to the standard of comfort of our living environment, such as hygiene andsafety. For building users or occupants, the classification scheme provides a useful tool for evaluatingdifferent aspects of a building that are not easily observable. By grading every building, such schemesserve to inform people on how each building performs.

For example, owners, potential buyers, and potential tenants can refer to the grading in their decision onwhether to make a property transaction or not. The search time will be reduced, and the transactionprocess smoothed out. Transactions will become more frequent in the end, as the transaction costsinvolved are reduced due to the extra information available.

2 The LEED is a voluntary, consensus-based, market-driven building rating system based on existing proven technology that evaluatesenvironmental performance from a Ô whole buildingÕ perspective over a buildingÕ s service life. The LEED gives separate ratings tonew and existing buildings. For the latter, the scheme rates the environmental aspects of a building and the behaviour of itsoccupants to arrive at a final score that results in platinum, gold, silver, or bronze plaques being awarded.

3 The BREEAM label, which is also a voluntary assessment scheme, awards an environmental label after assessing buildings againsta range of environmental issues covering the impacts of buildings on the environment on global, regional, local, and indoor levels.The number of credits attained in different levels is interpreted in the form of an overall rating of excellent, very good, good, and pass.


2. Reward or Punishment by Property Prices

Another advantage of the classification scheme is to distinguish buildings of similar ages with differentperformances in respect of hygiene, safety, and management. At present, without information for thehidden attributes of buildings, the public values properties with an unrealistically high emphasis on theage of the building. In fact, buildings of similar ages, but with a better hygiene and safety performance,should be valued higher. Through a building classification scheme, positive recognition is awarded towell-managed and maintained buildings. The labelling effect on those better performing buildings will betranslated into higher property values, and vice versa. It is envisaged that a territory-wide classificationscheme covering most residential buildings can bring about a redistribution of wealth among building andflat owners.

With a reassessment mechanism, those property owners of buildings with lower grades could lodgeimprovement projects to their buildings in consideration of potential monetary benefits. In particular, theowners of buildings with excellent intrinsic properties, such as locality, do not want these advantagesblemished by the poor hygiene and safety performance of their buildings. Well-maintained buildings mayattain higher market values and attract more favourable mortgage terms and rental income. Eventually,the implementation of a building classification system can bring market forces into play to encourageowners to take positive actions to take up their management and maintenance responsibilities. Owners'desires for enhanced property values, lower insurance premiums, and a better living environment willhelp mobilize them.

3. Promotion of Good Practices in Building Design and Management

Buildings in disrepair and dilapidation pose problems for public safety and health, and impede our city'simage. This can be attributed to the prolonged lack of a building care culture in our society. A buildingclassification scheme offers information on the best building designs and best management practices.Architects and designers are given references or standards to check and improve the quality of newbuilding designs, in order to achieve a higher grading. Likewise, property managers can cross-checktheir management practices with the criteria set for the scheme, and learn the practice to improve theirservices.

With the incorporation of design factors and management performance into the classification scheme,developers and property management agencies will pay closer attention to their products and services.This is because higher grades obtained for their housing products or managed buildings can be a powerfulmarketing tool. As a result, the classification scheme serves to foster the culture of constructing andmaintaining good quality buildings.

4. Better Allocation of Private and Public Resources for Maintenance

Owners of a bundle of investment assets can benefit from a reliable assessment system as the informationprovided is essential for proper planning, maintenance, repairs, and capital improvements. This becomesincreasingly important in situations where fiscal resources are limited and must be spread out over extendedperiods. The condition assessment therefore serves as a budget planning tool and provides the basis forallocating and directing funding to specific building problems.

The problems associated with building hygiene and safety do not only affect property occupants or users.The problematic results and their costs are spread among all society. At present, much reliance is leviedon the government to arrest the problems. Compulsory and legislative measures, such as issuing repairorders or the immediate removal of unauthorized building works, are not accorded by the community andindeed do not touch the root of the problems. With the implementation of a classification scheme, theproblems can be addressed properly by recourse to market forces in light of the premise put forward inprevious paragraphs. The government's resources can be used more efficiently by being directed to theareas where action is most needed.


In addition, a fair building assessment scheme can facilitate the urban renewal programme that has longbeen regarded as politically problematic. With one more step, the government can consider the possibilityof an official classification scheme. This can be used as one of the criteria for implementing urbanrenewal and/or mandatory inspection, maintenance, and rehabilitation schemes. It helps the relevantauthorities identify those obsolescent and derelict buildings and prioritize certain urban renewal projects.

RESEARCH ON BUILDING CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS

As mentioned before, a building classification system is not a new idea. There already exist gradingsystems elsewhere on environmental, hygiene, and safety standards. However, these schemes usuallyfall short in practicality and objectivity, and are usually not suitable for the mass assessment of buildings.In view of the need to enhance the living environment of our city, the Faculty of Architecture of theUniversity of Hong Kong in mid-2003 launched a research project that focused on formulating a vigorous,yet simple, building classification framework on building performance on health and hygiene aspects.The Building Health & Hygiene Index (BHHI) scheme has the following key features:

First, it considers a set of building-related factors that are conducive not only to imminent hazards like theoutbreak of fire or other infectious diseases, but also the conditions of a building's environment.

Second, it adopts a low cost, objective, and pragmatic approach that enables mass assessments to bemade within a relatively short period of time. Whenever possible, a building is assessed with reference toits basic configurations and conditions without the need to inspect individual flats. A site visit may berequired, but generally is confined to common areas and the external environment only. In general, onlycharacteristics of buildings easily assessable in the common or public area are acquired, measured, andassessed. This keeps the assessment process quick and simple and ensures that the results are verifiableand objective.

Third, the framework allows for the transformation of technical assessment results into a user-friendlyindicator for general public reference. The integration of information into a simple performance parameteris through the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) (Saaty, 1982). In essence, the AHP,which is one of the most widely-used multiple criteria decision models, attempts to resolve conflictsthrough a process of determining the relative importance of a set of activities or criteria. The results ofAHP generate individual weightings for each of the building factors in the assessment hierarchy. Basedon the performance indicator, the public can easily assess the relative performance of any building inrespect of upholding its occupants' health and safety.

All of these features, plus the sound theoretical foundation of the assessment scheme, back up thecreditability of the assessment while maintaining its practicality. Based on these features, two buildingclassification schemes, one on health and hygiene (BHHI) and the other on Building Safety & ConditionIndex (BSCI), have been developed.

1. The Building Health and Hygiene Index (BHHI)

In collaboration with local professional bodies and other tertiary institutions, the Faculty of Architecture,HKU, developed the BHHI assessment framework and carried out a pilot scheme for a sample of multi-storey private residential buildings in Hong Kong during June to September 2003.

The BHHI (see Figure 1) is essentially an index that classifies buildings into different grades (A, B, C, andUnclassified) based on the level of achievement of an individual building in safeguarding building healthand environmental hygiene. At the top of the hierarchy is the BHHI score, which is divided into Designand Management on the second level.


Figure 1: Hierarchy of the BHHI

The Design aspect of a building represents the 'hardware' of a building, which is usually hard to changetechnically or economically once a building is put into use. On the other hand, the Management aspect ofa building represents the 'software', which is dynamic and relatively easy to change even after a buildingis occupied. The classification of building factors into Design and Management has the advantage ofdividing the factors into groups that are within and beyond the control of the owners. This helps ownersidentify the possible actions that could be taken to improve their buildings' health and hygiene. Theassessment scheme was designed after an intensive workshop with expert representatives from keyprofessional bodies and other universities.

Under Design, building factors are divided into three categories (Architecture, Building Services, andExternal Environment), which in turn are sub-divided into 16 sub-categories. Architecture is assessed todistinguish the layout design of the subject building in promoting good lighting, efficient ventilation, noisereduction, adequate headroom, and reasonable juxtapositions of various features on plans. The presenceof open space is considered a good attribute in terms of health and hygiene. The design of BuildingServices such as water supply, drainage, refuse disposal, and lift systems will also affect the standards ofhygiene for the occupants. A 'green' External Environment will enhance the health of the occupants in theimmediate neighbourhood. Items such as the presence of parks and amenities, population densities, andthe air/aural/visual/thermal environment will be assessed. The design aspect of the scheme allows for anassessment of buildings at the design stage before construction, and can be employed as a usefulbenchmarking tool by designers to improve the health and hygiene conditions of buildings upon completion.

Under Management, building factors are divided into two categories (Operations & Maintenance andBuilding Management), which in turn are sub-divided into 9 sub-categories. Operations refers to standardsof cleaning, pest control, and refuse handling conditions, whereas Maintenance refers to the inspectionand maintenance of various building services (water supply and drainage), all of which are crucial tosafeguarding the health and hygiene of occupants. Building Management is concerned with strategicissues such as management organization, documentation, emergency preparedness, and evaluationsystems. These are forward-looking measures for enhancing the health and hygiene performance of abuilding.


In the pilot test, 57 multi-storey private residential buildings were randomly sampled from various districtsin Hong Kong. The age of the buildings in the sampled pool ranged from one year to 47 years, and theusable floor area ranged from 19m2 to 198m2. After inspecting the buildings and rating their performance,five buildings were classified Grade A, 25 as Grade B, 21 as Grade C, and 6 as Unclassified.

The study revealed that certain aged buildings could achieve a high BHHI score due to their superiorbuilding management and improvements in design through renovations. Also, buildings with a gooddesign may not be properly managed buildings. This relationship is not significant. Whereas buildingswith good management often achieve a high BHHI score, the range in design performance was not aslarge as that in management performance. Therefore, the quality of a building's management was decisiveon the BHHI score for most buildings.

The experience of the pilot test has shown the BHHI to be a practical scheme. However, it does not meanthe end of the research. It has been realized that the current scope of assessment of the BHHI is notadequate to cover all aspects of building performance. For the purpose of developing an overall buildingquality assessment scheme, it is necessary to expand the scope of assessment criteria. This involvesanother index that better indicates a building's performance in respect of fire risk and structural safety.

2. The Proposed Building Safety and Conditions Index (BSCI)

The frequencies of fires, falling concrete pieces, defective external renderings, or even falling windowsashes are tragic lessons on the disastrous consequences of the inadequate maintenance and ineffectivemanagement of buildings. These incidents have alerted the public on fire safety and the unsafe conditionsin their living environment. Admittedly, these issues should be regarded as critical, as health and hygieneare vital in determining the quality of our living conditions. On this premise, the Faculty is now devising aBSCI in parallel with the BHHI.

The construction of the BSCI is very similar to that of BHHI, except for its focus on building-associated firerisk and condition problems rather than health and hygiene. For the assessment framework of the BSCI,the building factors are again classified into intrinsic Design and controllable Management aspects, asshown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Proposed Hierarchy of the BSCI


The Design parameters of the BSCI include three categories (Architecture, Building Services, and ExternalEnvironment), which are further divided into 10 sub-categories. Architecture deals with the fire risk ofbuildings and the provision of the means of escape and means of access for firefighting and rescue incase of fire. Also, this category is assessed in respect of the measures against falling objects. Theprovision of utility platforms and covered walkways at street level can reduce the risk caused by fallingobjects. The design of Building Services such as fire services, electrical installations, and fuel supply alsohas a direct influence on the safety of users or occupants of buildings. As for the External Environment,hazards like the presence of a petrol filling station in the neighbourhood will be highlighted. Also, thelocation of buildings relative to certain civil services like a fire station is considered in this category. Withregard to these design aspects, the safety issues of buildings can be addressed at the outset of a project(i.e. the design stage).

Likewise, building factors under Management are grouped into two categories (Operations & Maintenanceand Building Management), which in turn are sub-divided into 7 sub-categories. Maintenance is aboutthe inspection and maintenance of various building fabrics and services; whereas Operations refers tothe tidiness and integrity of the exit routes and appendages to the building. Building Management, beingregarded as the software to improve the safety and conditions of buildings, embraces strategic issuessuch as owner's institution, management organization, arrangements of facilities management, emergencypreparedness, and post-occupancy evaluation.

The development of the BSCI is still in its infant stage. It is expected that the scheme will be finalized inthe next few months. Once the assessment framework is ready, the pilot scheme of the BSCI can beinitiated to test its practicality. In fact, there may be factors of other kinds that could be included for theassessment of overall building quality. In other words, there will be more new indices in addition to theBHHI and BSCI in the future. All of these depend on the strength of public concern over buildingperformance. For simplicity, these indices can be integrated into one single index, the Building QualityIndex, for consumption readily.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

Hon Michael Suen, Secretary for Housing, Planning & Lands, said in the opening ceremony of the 'ProperMaintenance Makes Hygienic Homes' Roadshow, organized by the Buildings Department on 2 November2003, that "The fruitful consequence of proper management and maintenance of property is not confinedmerely to the health and hygiene, [but] also the safety of the building occupants and the general public asa whole." Undoubtedly, the problems of building health and safety should be properly addressed withoutfurther delay. Instead of resorting to the problems of intolerable incremental remedies, a long-term viewshould be taken. The implementation of a well-formulated building classification scheme (BCS) is beneficialto all parties. For building occupants and users, the assessment scheme provides a useful tool for abuilding's performance evaluation. For developers, building owners, and management agencies, theBCS encourages better construction and maintenance of their buildings. For architects and designers,the BCS presents a useful reference for checking and improving on new building designs. For thegovernment, the results of the BCS can be used as a policy tool.

In essence, the implementation of a sustainable building classification system does favour the well-beingof the community. We have, in the above paragraphs, presented the theoretical and generic frameworkof a building performance assessment tool in classifying buildings into different grades, based upon theirrelative performances in building health and environmental hygiene, and similarly in structural safety andfire risk. We also demonstrated how the assessment tool that we developed works in practice, and howit can be modified in order to cover other aspects of building performance. To conclude, the BHHI andBSCI are rigorous performance assessment indices with high practicality. It is believed that the BHHI andBSCI's methodology is suitable for use in the development and implementation of a voluntary buildingclassification system advocated in the public consultation paper.

**********


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to gratefully acknowledge the financial support given to this project by The University of Hong Kong

SARS Fund. We also thank the representatives from the Asian Institutes of Intelligent Buildings, Chartered Institute of

Housing, Chartered Institute of Building (Hong Kong Branch), Hong Kong Institute of Real Estate Administrators, Hong

Kong Association of Property Management Companies Limited, Hong Kong Institute of Architects, Hong Kong Institute

of Engineers, Hong Kong Institute of Facility Management, Hong Kong Institute of Housing, Hong Kong Institute of

Landscape Architects, Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors, Professional Green Building Council, Urban Renewal Authority,

Chinese University of Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University for their

helpful comments and participation at various stages of the project. We would also like to give special thanks to the

Buildings Department and the Office of the Home Affairs Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region for their speedy provision of information and support. Last but not least, we are indebted to our

colleagues in the Faculty of Architecture, Faculty of Engineering, and Faculty of Medicine of The University of Hong

Kong. The list of names is too long to be included here.

REFERENCES

Ho. D.C.W., Leung, H.F., Wong, S.K., Cheung, K.C., Lau S.Y., Wong, W.S., Lung, P.Y. and Chau, K.W. (2004).

Assessing the Health and Hygiene Performance of Apartment Buildings. Facilities, forthcoming.

Housing, Planning and Lands Bureau (2003). Building Management and Maintenance - Public Consultation.

Hong Kong: Government Printer.

Saaty, T.L. (1982). The Analytical Hierarchy Process. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Team Clean (2003). Report on Measures to Improve Environmental Hygiene in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:

Government Printer.


BUILDING DISTINCTIONGREEN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION IN THE ORCHARDS

Stephen FONGGeneral Manager, Swire Properties Ltd.

W. H. LAMDirector, Wong & Ouyang (HK) Ltd.

Allan S. K. CHANDirector, Hip Hing Construction Co., Ltd.

ABSTRACT

The Orchards is a new residential complex developed by Swire Properties Ltd. in Quarry Bay, HongKong. The project has gained public recognition for many green initiatives and features used in thedesign and construction. It was the first urban residential development to be awarded with the "Excellent"rating from HK-BEAM. The implementation of green building concepts requires a close partnering andenvironmental commitment among the entire project team including the developer, the consultants andthe contractors. The paper introduces the project management, design and construction of the project. Ithighlights the importance of clients' commitment and participation in environmental protection.

INTRODUCTION

At Swire Properties, "building distinction" is part of corporate values. This ensures that at all times Swire'sbuildings meet customers' needs, integrate with the community and care for the environment. The Companyis firmly committed to advancing the standard of the building industry, focusing on the product, and moreimportantly the process.

KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS

The Orchards includes many green initiatives and features. The success of the project could bedemonstrated by the following six Key Performance Indicators.

(1) Partnering Commitment

Having actively promoted the partnering spirit within the project team, the partnering performance ofestablished objectives was monitored regularly. High average scores for each objective were recorded.

(2) GMP Contractual Arrangement

A GMP form of contract was adopted to promote transparency and cost certainty. This effectivelyestablished the cost ceiling and clearly defined the design responsibilities.

Figure1 - The Orchards


The project was completed on schedule and below the contract sum. Unnecessary dispute wereeliminated.

(3) e-Project Management

Swire Properties are one of the pioneers in using the project extranet system to handle the extensivevolume of contract correspondence and drawings. It is now proven that the use of paper was reducedby 60%. The overall efficiency of project team members improved by over 20%. (Fig 2)

(4) Green Innovative Design

Swire Properties initiated a series of green innovative features with the issuance of the Joint PracticeNotes. These features aimed not only to enhance the living conditions but also to promoteenvironmental awareness. In recognition of some of our environmental achievements, The Orchardswas the first urban residential development to be awarded with the "Excellent" rating from HK BEAM.Homebuyers have also shown very positive responses to the new green design as all flats were soldout within a 5-month period.

Figure 2 - Increase in Efficiency by using Project Extranet

Figure 3 - Green Innovative Design


(5) Advance Construction Methods

By collaborating with the consultants and the main contractor, Swire Properties implemented advancedconstruction methods, which include precast facade, lost form, and prefabrication of certain interiorfittings. Although the overall superstructure cost increased slightly by about 1%, the Main Contractorwere able to achieve a steady 4-day construction floor cycle and the manpower on site (in-situworkers) was reduced by an average of 9.5%. Needless to say the quality of works significantlyimproved.

(6) Safety Control

Having implemented regular safety audits and compulsory submission of safety plan the averageaccident rate was reduced to 30 persons per 1000, as compared to the 85 persons per 1000 recordedin the overall construction industry.

DESIGN

From the onset, the brief for the Orchards was to design for a model project for green building developmentin the private residential sector.

The team's approach was to design integrally with the innovative construction standards and processesthat the team would like to incorporate in mind. Throughout, the team made reference to the HK-BEAM forNew Residential Buildings and employed it to validate the team's approach.

The development consists of two 48 storeys high residential towers with carpark and clubhouse at thepodium. It has 442 flats total with two levels of sky garden at each tower.

Figure 4 - Advance Construction Method Ð Time and Cost Comparison

Figure 5 - Site Plan


During construction, the team was able to take advantage of Green Concessions from Buildings Departmentunder the provisions of the first two Joint Practice Notes. This includes exemption of public spaces,prefabricated facade, balcony, architectural features such as sun-shading devices and refuse sortingarea from gross area calculation. With the concession area, one additional floor of residential units werebuilt.

Figure 6 - GFA Exemption

IMPLEMENTED GREEN FEATURES

The Green Building Features implemented includes:

• The two towers were so positioned within the entire planning area as to obtain optimal open spacesand a balance between orientation for energy efficiency and desirable view.

• Communal green spaces were maximized. In addition to the heavily landscaped podium, two skygardens were provided at each of the two towers. (Fig 7) These double as refuge floors and helpimprove microclimate. Furthermore, on the roof, private terraces provide for intimate outdoor livingareas.

• The building facade were pre-cast and pre-finished and had integrated sun-shading fins, with windowframes casted-in. Shear walls were cladded with pre-finished permanent formwork (lost forms).(Fig 8)

• Balconies provide private outdoor space for the flats.

• Lift lobby at typical floors widened and provided with natural lighting and ventilations for a betterquality common space. Here, the lighting is controlled by light sensors. Natural ventilation is alsoprovided in other public areas such as clubhouse and carpark, together with flexible operation optionsfor the air conditioners at these areas.


For the flats, again natural lighting was maximized throughout and window for cross ventilation wasprovided.

During detailed design materials were selected with their overall environmental impact in mind.For the common areas, solar powered landscape lighting was adopted.Inside the flats, (Fig 9) there were• Engineering timber flooring• Re-constituted stone• Prefabricated wall panels and vanity units• Dual flush toilets• Water-saving fixtures• Energy efficient appliances

Figure 7 - Skygarden Figure 8 - Balconies and Sunshades

Figure 9 - Prefabricated wall panels and vanity units

Other green provisions included• Energy-saving equipment such as lamps, lifts and pumps• Non-ozone depleting air conditioning systems• Rain water recycling tank where rain water was collected for irrigation use• Refuse Room and Refuse storage chambers with space for sorting to facilitate recycling


CONSTRUCTION

The Orchards was built with green construction technique, and incorporated Swire's idea of Green Living& requirement of Green Building. Of notes are the use of pre-cast materials, quality, durability and greensite management. Figure 10 below compares the environmental performance of conventional buildingmethod and green construction technique. The traditional way of building method uses a lot of bamboofor scaffolding, tons of timber for formwork, producing a lot of wastes, dusts and noise nuisance. All theseare polluting factors to the environment.

Figure 10 - Comparison of Environmental Performance Between ConventionalBuilding Method & Green Construction Technique

EFFICIENT USE OF MATERIAL

The Orchards was build with, widespread use of prefabricated elements in the concrete frame and dryfixing application on finishing work so as to reduce wastes and at the same time achieved high qualitystandard. Pre-cast elements were adopted to keep noise nuisance to the nearby residents to a minimum.Figure 11 shows the advantage & disadvantage of pre-cast construction and in-situ construction methods.By using pre-casting construction method, waste can be reduced by at least 30%. Construction timecould also be shortened.

Figure 11 - Advantages & Disadvantages - Pre-cast vs. in-situ construction method

Greenconstructiontechnique appliedfor Orchards

Minimizedscaffolding work

Significantlyreduced

Less pollution

Minimizedconsumption


Figure 12 - Location of Different Precast Elements

The outer face of the towers in the Orchards was built with pre-cast elements at, all highlighted in colourin Figure 12. The core of the building was built with standardized aluminium formwork, which, in additionto being reusable, reduced dust nuisance. In fact, the aluminium formwork panel could be reused for over100 times and reduce by 30% the loss of concrete caused by the damaged timber formwork.

QUALITY AND DURABILITY

De-bonding of external wall tiles have long plagued high-rise buildings in Hong Kong. In the Orchards, anew technique call "lost form" panel was introduced to tackle this long-term maintenance problem, improvequality and durability and ensure public safety. "Lost Form" is a system of pre-finished permanent concreteformwork. External wall tiles were applied monolithically during casting of the concrete formwork panel.Tiles applied this way can withstand a much higher stress when tested than those using thin bed method.(Fig 13 & 14) In the context of green construction, the lost form technique gained its maximum benefitfrom reducing waste production and resources conservation. With the lost form panels used as thepermanent formwork, significant amount of waste was avoided. Furthermore, there was no plasteringand tiling wet trades carried out on site, thus reducing overall water and electricity consumption anddebris cleaning cost. A cleaner and safer working environment is also created.

Figure 13 - Placing Tile to Lost Form Panel Figure 14 - Installing Lost Form Panel


PRECAST BALCONY

The balconies were formed with semi-precast elements. (Fig 15 & 16) Since all balconies were wellpainted and well protected in factory, air pollution at the construction stage was greatly reduced. Moreover,the end products were consistent in terms of quality and durability.

Figure 15 - Spray Painting on Balcony’sSurface

SITE MANAGEMENT ~ IMPLEMENTATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Apart from adopting low waste construction technologies on the construction site, a comprehensive planon pollution control with a list of objectives to monitor the environmental conditions during constructionwere set up. Particular items within the plan included wheel washing facilities, dust and noise barrier,plant for recycling of waste water and materials etc. (Fig 17)

Figure 16 - Semi-Precast Balcony

Figure 17 - Water Pollution Control


COST COMPARISON

Although low waste construction technologies such as aluminium formwork, hardiwall system and sprayplaster could cost more, adoption of extensive pre-cast elements in the residential towers had producedobvious advantages. As reflected in the tables below (Fig 18 & 19), both the consumption of water andproduction of waste were largely reduced. It also saved time & manpower as well.

Figure 18 - Summary of Resources Consumption of Precast Elements AgainstConventioal Method

Figure 19 - Cost Compairson of Tradional Methods and Low Waste Technologies

**********

C:Old Hard DiskPhilipPGBC Sy - hkpgbc.org Booklet - Session 2.pdfThe Hong Kong Building...

Documents

Transcript of C:Old Hard DiskPhilipPGBC Sy - hkpgbc.org Booklet - Session 2.pdfThe Hong Kong Building...