The BritishIUniversityIin Egypt College of EngineeringI Department ofIArchitectural Engineering
GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYTEM
Emad Shawky Mohamed 148538
ENVIROMENTAL IMPACT ASSESMENT (19ARCH16H)
SupervisedIBy: Dr. walaa salahI Lecturer inIArchitecture Department BUEI
I2019-2020
Contents TABLE OF FIGURES............................................................................................................................. 2 AbstractI ................................................................................................................................................. 3 1. IntroductionI ....................................................................................................................................... 4 1.1 The aims of the Green Pyramid RatingI System are (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011):.... 5 2. Litrature review ................................................................................................................................. 6 2.1 Components of the green pyramid rating sytem(GPRS)...................................................................... 8 2.2 Certification Iand levels of rating ...................................................................................................... 9 2.2.1 Category of weightings: .............................................................................................................. 9 3. Data Analysis (method) ................................................................................................................... 10 3.1 The steps of the analysis are as follows ........................................................................................... 10 3.1.1 Identify the respective GBRS categories ...................................................................................... 11 3.1.2 comparing the GBRS sub categories to the EIA midpoint categories.......................................... 14 3.1.3 Assorting the GPRS categories ................................................................................................. 16 3.1.4 Categorize each EIA midpoint and endpoint importance .......................................................... 18 3.1.4.1 comparing the EIA midpoint categories to GPRS ................................................................. 18 3.1.4.2 comparing the EIA endpoint categories to GPRS .................................................................. 19 4. Discussion and results........................................................................................................................ 20 5. Conclusion and recommendation ....................................................................................................... 21 6.References ......................................................................................................................................... 22
1
TABLE OF FIGURES FIGURE 1 ILLUSTRATION MAP GLOBAL GBRS’S........................................................................................................... 4 FIGURE 2 CERTIFICATION AND LEVELS OF RATING...................................................................................................... 6 FIGURE 3 EGBC AND GPRS LOGOS ................................................................................................................................. 7 FIGURE 4 FORMAT AND LAYOUT OF THE GPRS CATEGORIES....................................................................................... 8 FIGURE 5 GPRS CATEGORY WEIGHTINGS .......................................................................................................................... 9 FIGURE 6 ANALYSIS
PROCESS ....................................................................................................................................... 11
FIGURE 7 (SITE,ACCESS AND ECOLOGY SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ............................................................... 11 FIGURE 8 (ENERGYIEFFICIENCY SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ......................................................................... 12 FIGURE 9 (WATERIEFFICIENCY SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ........................................................................... 12 FIGURE 10 (MATERIAL AND RESOURCES SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ............................................................. 12 FIGURE 11 (INDOOR ENVIROMENTAL QUALITY SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS).................................................... 13 FIGURE 12 (MANAGEMENT SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ................................................................................ 13 FIGURE 13(INNOVATIONIAND ADDED VALUE SUMMARY OF THE CREDIT POINTS) ...................................................... 13 FIGURE 14 ANALYSIS OF GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA IMPACT CATEGORIES .............................................................................. 14 FIGURE 15 ANALYSIS OF GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA IMPACT CATEGORIES .............................................................................. 15 FIGURE 16 ANAYSIS OF THE GPRS TO EIA MIDPOINTS.................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 17 ANAYSIS OF THE GPRS TO EIA ENDPOINTS.................................................................................................... 17 FIGURE 18 GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF ANAYSIS OF THE GPRS TO EIA MIDPOINTS...................................................... 18 FIGURE 19 GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA MIDPOINT CATEGORIES ............................................................................................... 18 FIGURE 20 GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF ANAYSIS OF THE GPRS TO EIA ENDPOINTS ......................................................... 19 FIGURE 21 GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA ENDPOINT CATEGORIES ............................................................................................... 19 FIGURE 22 PROS AND CONS OF GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM ................................................................................. 20
2
Abstract Different attempts have been accumulated to improve energyIefficiency and to proclaim green sustainable buildings. The creation GreenIPyramid Rating System (GPRS) was promotedIby EgyptianIGreen Building Council (EGBC) Iis also such type attemptIto achieve energyIefficiency as well asIsustainability. The primary motivation of GPRS was to eliminateIany stigmaIassociatedIwith greenIconstruction andIinstead presentIgreenIconstruction as a logical andIappropriate course of action that integrates important national and global concernsIand produceIviableIsustainable products which meet theIshort term and long term needs of people andIecosystem in general. As an immediateIaction to activate this role of a sustainable future was through approval of developing a NationalIGreen BuildingIRating SystemIcalled the Green Pyramid Rating System (GPRS). But dueIto lack of case studiesIor specific example, followersImightIfind theIrating tool inappropriate. TheIevidence basedIpiloting or pre-testingIcan beIa first supporting manual for the relevant stakeholdersIbefore going toIcertification process. Beside case studies, GPRS is unable to provideIcomprehensive measure of sustainableIcommunities due to lackIof some arenasIlike economicIefficiency, goodIgovernance and so on which portraysIthe gap of missing indicators but properly addressed in other systems like DGNB, ILEED. Other rating system integrate the life cycle assesmets in their sub categories in order to achieve the most of preserving the enviroment, while the GPRS doesn’t directly adress the LCA or EIA. although the doesn’t include the Enviromental assement some of the categories contribute with EIA objectives. ThisIstudy discussesIvarious dimensionsIof existing GPRS impact categories and provide an insight on how some of the EIA and LCA impact categories can integrate with the GreenIpyramid rating system.
3
1. Introduction The introductionIof a system forIgreen buildingIassessment andIrating is considered to be one of the foundation of promotingIsustainable green buildingIdevelopment (Kumar, 2017). ForIexample, in 1990 the BuildingIcornerstonesIResearchIEstablishmentIin the UK introduced theIBuilding Research Establishment EnvironmentalIAssessment MethodIBREEAM and after that , theIUnited StatesIGreen Building Council launchedIbasisIitsILEED (LeadershipIin EnergyIand EnvironmentalIDesign) system (Kumar, 2017). Many otherIcountries have followedIsuit (1). ThereIis increasingIevidenceIfrom theseIcountries thatIinvestors, ownersI andIthe public areIstarting toIplace a premium on certified green buildings. Smilary, Egypt need for an a better impact buildings in egypt and an independent EgyptianIgreen buildingIassessment system. WithIadapting theIexperienceIof otherIcountries GBRA’s, the HousingIandIBuildingINational Research Center created The GreenIPyramid Rating System (GPRS).
Figure 1 ILLUSTRATION MAP GLOBAL GBRS’S
4
TheIGreen Pyramid RatingISystem is a national governmentIenvironmental ratingIsystem for buildings. It provides definitiveIcriteria byIwhich theIenvironmental credentialsIof buildings can be evaluated, and the buildingsIthemselvesIcanIbe rated. Additionally, the System assists buildingIdevelopers, designer and constructorsIto make strategicIchoices based upon theIenvironmental impact ofItheirIdecisions. Scope of theIGreen Pyramid Rating SystemIand eligibilityIfor assessment. The Green PyramidIRating System is designedIfor useIin newIbuilding works andIassess individualInew buildingsIat eitherIor bothIof the following stages (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011): •
DesignIStage
•
ConstructionIStage
1.1 The aims of theIGreen PyramidIRating SystemIare (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011): •
To ensure buildingIconstructors, Idevelopers and designers, to makeIreasoned choicesIbased upon the environmentalIimpact of theirIdecisions
•
ToIallow different stake holders to contributeIto wider future onIGreen low impact Buildings in Egypt.
•
Provide awareness of for green sustainable buildings
•
encourage the construction and design of green and sustainable buildings, Iand contribute significantlyIfor aIbetter, more green buildingIstock for theIcountry.
•
To provide an opprotunity forIgoodIpractice that enablesIbuildings inIEgypt to be assessed for their greenIcredentials throughIa credible, challengingIand transparentIenvironmentalIrating system
5
2. Litrature review The Green Building Council in Egypt (EGBC) was founded in JanuaryI2009 consisting of officers from respected NGOs, governmentIministers from Cabinet level agencies, seasonedIlabour leaders, major contractors, prominent businessmen..etc. The intial objective wasIto eliminate any resistance contibuted to greenIconstruction produceIgreen construction with aIfinancially logical and appropriate course of action that adress importantIglobal andInational concernsIto produceIviable sustainableIproducts which meet the shortIterm andIlong termIneeds of people (MOSTAFA, 2016). In orderIto activate theIrole of thisIcouncil, was through approval of IdevelopingIthe Egyptian GreenIBuilding RatingISystem (EGBRS) called the GreenIPyramid Rating SystemI (GPRS). So theIcouncil hasIcommissionedIto define theIframework of a rating system and aInational committeeIhas been formedIto review and ultimatelyIapprove theIGPRS (Mohamed M. , 2014). There are fourIlevels for green buildingIcertification inIaccordance with the EgyptianI (GPRS, 2011)
Levels
Credit points
GPRSIcertified
40 – 49
SilverIpyramid
50 – 59
GoldIpyramid
60 – 79
GreenIpyramid
80 and above ProjectsIwith less thanI40 credits will be Iclassified as ‘Uncertified’
Figure 2 CERTIFICATION AND LEVELS OF RATING
6
The first version of theIGreen Pyramid RatingISystem (GPRS) was introduced InIApril 2011 and the secondIversion cameIafter in 2017. It wasIdeveloped by Ithe Egyptian HousingIand Building National CenterI (HBRC) to adaptIto the local contextIand achieve Egypt’sIvision inI2030 (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018). Due to te absence of genuine application of the GPRS, Some studies discussed the application of the GPRS to assess the sustainable performance of buildings (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018). For exampleIit was applied to anIIslamic buildingIinIOld Cairo andIscored 65% of allIavailable points which qualified it to obtain the silver pyramid certification (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018). Although some buildings meets the GPRS certification. It was recommended by many papers that the ratingIsystem criteria and structure needs to be developed to correspond with the national context; socially, environmentally and economically (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018).
Figure 3 EGBC and GPRS logos
7
2.1 ComponentsIof the greenIpyramid rating sytem(GPRS) TheIrating sytem consits of sevenIrating Categories whichIin turn containIsub-categories (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011). CreditIpoints will be awardedIbased upon criteriaIgiven in theIdocument (3), andIin some cases a CategoryIwill have one or more obligatoryIMinimumIRequirementsIwithout which no other points will beIachievable (3). There are alsoIoccasionalIconditionsIstipulated forIexample (3) ‘CreditIpoints for thisISub-category will notIbe awardedIif …’. Failure to observeIthese conditions will nullifyItheIaward of other creditIpoints in theICategory or Sub-category’ (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011). In thisIdocument, each Category is presentedIin a standardisedIlayout, comprising (3) •
ObjectivesIofItheICategory
•
SummaryIofItheICreditIPointsIavailableIfor theICategory
•
DetailsIof CreditIPoints in theICategory (includingIMinimum Requirements, Iif applicable)
•
A statementIof theItotalIavailableICredit PointsIin each Category
Figure 4 FORMATIAND LAYOUT OF THE GPRSICATEGORIES
8
2.2 CertificationIand levels of rating In order to earnI a GreenIPyramid certificationIfor aIproject mustIsatisfy allIthe statedIMandatory Minimum RequirementsIand may obtainICredit Points by meeting certainIcriteria (The Green Pyramid Rating System, 2011). ProjectsIwill be rated, basedIon Credit Points gathered, accordingIto the followingIrating system. 2.2.1 Category of weightings: Green PyramidICategory Weightings are as follows:
Category
weightings
SustainableISite, Accessibility, IEcology
15%
EnergyIEfficiency
25%
WaterIEfficiency
30%
MaterialsIand Resources
10%
IndoorIEnvironmental Quality
10%
Management
10%
InnovationIand Added Value Bonus
Bonus
Figure 5 GPRS Category weightings
9
3. Data Analysis (method) The aim of this analysis is to achieve full understading of the GPRS categories weghtings and the scoring. The analysis of the categories and sub categories will conclude if there is a direct or indirect linkage between the scoring system and Enviromental impact assesment areas of protection. The EIA has two integrated impact categories which are: the end point impact categrories and then spreads out to the long impact midpoint catrgories. So the understanding of the objectives of each scoring sub categories will determine if the categories has a link to the EIA midpoint impact assesments and according to that link, will determine if the sub categories has an impact to the EIA end point categories.
3.1 The steps of the analysis are as follows 1. Identify the respective GBRS categories, this aims of understanding the weight and importance of each category. This will also determine if this categories directly adress any f the EIA impact asssement. 2. comparing the GBRS sub categories to the EIA midpoint categories. This will determine which GBRS category doesn’t comply with the midpoint categories and which midpont category not covered in the GBRS 3. Assorting the GBRS categories according to the midpoint categories to the corrosponding end point categories 4. Categorize each EIA midpoint and endpoint importance to the GBRS. This will conclude the validation of the GBRS for the LCA and EIA.
10
Figure 6 Analysis process
3.1.1 Identify the respective GBRS categories •
(SUSTAINABLE SITE, ACCESSIBILITY AND ECOLOGY ) the category it weighs 15 % of the total rating system, its credits 10 points.
Figure 7 (site,access and ecology summary of the credit points)
•
(Energy efficiency ) the category it weighs 25 % of the total rating system, its credits 50 points.
11
Figure 8 (energy efficiency summary of the credit points)
•
(water efficiency ) the category it weighs 30 % of the total rating system, its credits 50 points.
Figure 9 (water efficiency summary of the credit points)
•
(material and resources ) the category it weighs 10 % of the total rating system, its credits 20 points.
Figure 10 (material and resources summary of the credit points)
•
(indoor enviromental quality ) the category it weighs 10 % of the total rating system, its credits 20 points.
12
Figure 11 (indoor enviromental quality summary of the credit points)
•
(management) the category it weighs 10 % of the total rating system, its credits 20 points.
Figure 12 (management summary of the credit points)
•
(Innovation and added value ) the category it weighs as a 10 points Bonus
Figure 13(innovation and added value summary of the credit points)
13
3.1.2 comparing the GBRS sub categories to the EIA midpoint categories The EIA covers 4 main cissues which are as follows: HumanIhealth, Ecosystem quality, Climate change andIresources. The most covered aspects in the EIA are mainy HUMAN HEALTH and ECOSYSTEM QUALITY quality. As shown in the fig some of the GPRS sub categories doesn’t link with either the end or mid points of the EIA and some of the EIA midpoint don’t link with GPRS.
Figure 14 analysis of GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA impact categories
14
Figure 15 analysis of GPRS COVERAGE OF EIA impact categories
15
3.1.3 Assorting the GPRS categories
Figure 16 Anaysis of the GPRS to EIA MIDPOINTS
16
Figure 17 Anaysis of the GPRS to EIA ENDPOINTS
17
3.1.4 Categorize each EIA midpoint and endpoint importance 3.1.4.1 comparing the EIA midpoint categories to GPRS As concluded form assorting GPRS categories some of the EIA categories are covered by the GPRS more than other. The mostly covered aspect is HUMAN TOXICITY ( 17)
EIA midpoints non renewable energy water consumptions water withdrawl global warming land occupation aquatic eutrophiction aquatic acidification aquatic ecotoxicity photochemical oxidation ozone layer depletion ionizing radiation
Series1
respiratory effects human toxicisty 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
midpoint categories
GPRS coverage of EIA
Figure 18 GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF Anaysis of the GPRS to EIA MIDPOINTS
Human toxicity
14%
Repiratory effects
13%
Water withdrawl
10%
Water consumptions
10%
Ozone layer depletion
8%
Ionizing radiation
7%
Aquatic ecotoxicity
7%
aquatic acidification
7%
aquatic eutrophiction
7%
non renewable energy
6%
global warming
5%
Photochemical oxidation
3%
Land occupation
1%
Figure 19 GPRS coverage of EIA midpoint categories
18
3.1.4.2 comparing the EIA endpoint categories to GPRS As concluded form assorting GPRS categories some of the EIA endpoint categories are covered by the GPRS more than other. The mostly covered damage category is HUMAN HEALTH ( 18)
EIA ENDPOINT resources
climate change
ecosystem quality
human health 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
endpoint categories
GPRS coverage of EIA
Figure 20 GRAPHICAL ILLUSTRATION OF Anaysis of the GPRS to EIA endpoints
Human health
31%
Resources
27%
Climate change
24%
Resources
18%
Figure 21 GPRS coverage of EIA endpoint categories
19
4. Discussion and results Damage the ecosystm and human health are the greatest challenges facingIhumanity, and research appears that theIphenomena are a resultIof increasedIlevels of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from toxic human activity (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018). ItIis EstimatedIthat half of totalIcarbonI related emission comesIfrom buildings . The Government of Egypt came up with a proposal, representedIby the Ministry ofIHousing to show interestIin promoting greenIbuilding as part of the Ministry' sIoverall sustainableIdevelopment plans (ismael, TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM, 2018). Hence the GPRSI (Green Pyramid RatingISystem) have been developed. GPRS aim is redefine the way peoplethink about building they design in Egypt. Some studies discussed the application of the GPRS to assess the sustainable performance of buildings, most of the studies on building were barely certified. It was recommended developing the structure and rating criteria to correspond with the national context economically, socially and environmentally. Further more the GPRS doesn’t fully meet with the national Egyptian building codes and the Life ccyle asssement (LCA).
PROS
CONS
Simple approach: Summing up points from categories
absence of case study
Free access
NO neighbourhood development Doesn’t fully meet with national building codes
Water efficiency National rating system
Needs further development
Energy efficiency
Not integrated with LCA
Sustainable site selection
There are multiple errors in point calculation
Could be integrated with LCA
NO Economic Efficiency
Figure 22 pros and cons of GREEN PYRAMIDIRATING SYSTEM
20
The resultsIof the study are presentedIin the form of charts (19),(18). EachIgraph revealed theImaximum and minimum responset o a certain aspect of the green pyramid To the EIA midpoints and endpoints impact categories. Some of the midpoint impact categories had been assorted out, due the GPRS not covering it in the sub categories (14),(15)
5. Conclusion and recommendation The approachIto green or sustainable developmentIthrough developing Green PyramidIRating System is no-doubtIa milestoneIfor Egyptian buidling system. The multidisciplinaryIapproach accompanyingIwith different keyIstakeholders representsIthe promise to achieveIthe sustainable vision. IThe annual reviewing and monitoringIpath with theIplanners, developers and otherIpersonals depict theIimportance and responsive version of progress. To strengthenIthat groundIstronger and toImake the nationalIsystem more comprehensiveIit is reccommended to study and exploresIeach and every particleIof GPRS and understand its potentials such integrating the Life cucle assement because as concluded from the report. Assessment (LCA) of GPRS Categories had a low adoption rate.
21
Calculating Life Cycle
6.References Bassili, G. (2015). Energy Efficiency Building Codes and Green Pyramid Rating System. CAIRO. Hanna, G. B. (2013). Energy Efficiency Building Codes and Green Pyramid Rating System. International Journal of Science and Research, 6. ismael, w. (2018). midpoint and endpoint impact categories in green building rating systems . jornal of cleaner production , 11. ismael, w. (2018). TO BE OR NOT TO BE: THE NATIONAL GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM. GREEN HERITAGE CONFERENCE, (p. 18). SHROUK CITY . khalifa, s. (2018). Obstacles of Application of Green Pyramid Rating System (GPRS) on Local Projects in Egypt., (p. 9). cairo . Kumar, P. (2017). EVALUATING GREEN PYRAMID RATING SYSTEM: POTENTIALITIES & REVIVAL. Towards A Better Quality of Life, (p. 13). Gouna, Egypt. Mohamed, M. (2014). Adapting the Green Pyramid Rating System for Assessing Zero Energy Concept on Neighborhoods Level. PORT SAID ENGINEERING RESEARCH JOURNAL , 8. MOHAMED, M. (2018). حماية البيئة المحلية من خالل تطوير أنظمة تقييم إستدامة المبانى فى مصر. Minia Journal of Engineering & Technology, 19. Mohamed, M. (2019). Green Building Rating Systems as Sustainability Assessment Tools: Case Study Analysis. CAIRO. MOSTAFA, H. (2016). EVALUATION OF GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS FOR EGYPT . cairo. moussa, R. r. (2019). The reasons for not implementing green pyramid rating system in egyptian buildings . Ain Shams Engineering jornal, 11. The Green Pyramid Rating System. (2011, Aprill). Retrieved from The Egyptian Green Building Council.
22
