Green Star Communities rating tool
An assessment
John Gelder, Manju Agrawal, Jeremy Miller
October 2018
Authors
John Gelder, Manju Agrawal, Jeremy Miller
Title
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment
ISBN
Date
25 October 2018
Keywords
Green Star, Communities, Precinct, Building Information Modelling
Publisher
CRC for Low Carbon Living
Preferred citation
Gelder, J., M. Agrawal & J. Miller (2018) Green Star Communities rating tool: An
assessment, CRC Low Carbon Living, Sydney.
1
Acknowledgements
This research is funded by the CRC for Low Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres
program, an Australian Government initiative
Disclaimer
Any opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors. They do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of
the CRCLCL or its partners, agents or employees.
The CRCLCL gives no warranty or assurance, and makes no representation as to the accuracy or reliability of any
information or advice contained in this document, or that it is suitable for any intended use. The CRCLCL, its partners,
agents and employees, disclaim any and all liability for any errors or omissions or in respect of anything or the
consequences of anything done or omitted to be done in reliance upon the whole or any part of this document.
Peer Review Statement
The CRCLCL recognises the value of knowledge exchange and the importance of objective peer review. It is committed
to encouraging and supporting its research teams in this regard.
The authors confirm that this document has been reviewed and approved by the project’s steering committee and by its
program leader. These reviewers evaluated its:
originality
methodology
rigour
compliance with ethical guidelines
conclusions against results
conformity with the principles of the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC 2007),
and provided constructive feedback which was considered and addressed by the authors.
© 2018 Cooperative Research for Low Carbon Living
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 2
Contents
Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................................................. 2
Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Peer Review Statement ................................................................................................................................................. 2
Contents .............................................................................................................................................................................. 3
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................................ 8
The report ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Greenhouse gas emissions ........................................................................................................................................... 8
Building information modelling ....................................................................................................................................... 8
Literature ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Submission guidelines ................................................................................................................................................... 8
Calculators and Guides ................................................................................................................................................. 8
Interviews ...................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Green Star Communities v1 .............................................................................................................................................. 10
Green Star & Greenhouse gas emissions ......................................................................................................................... 11
Green Star & Building Information Modelling .................................................................................................................... 12
Green Star in context ................................................................................................................................................... 12
Mapping between the different levels ..................................................................................................................... 13
Building Information Modelling..................................................................................................................................... 14
Environmental assessment schemes and the specification ................................................................................... 16
BIM and reducing GHG emissions ......................................................................................................................... 16
Green Star Literature ........................................................................................................................................................ 18
Methodology...................................................................................................................................................................... 21
Green Star Submission guidelines .................................................................................................................................... 22
Integrated water cycle ................................................................................................................................................. 22
Greenhouse gas strategy ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Performance Pathway ............................................................................................................................................ 22
Prescriptive Pathway ............................................................................................................................................. 23
Materials ...................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Performance Pathway ......................................................................................... 23
Life Cycle Impacts – Prescriptive Pathway ............................................................................................................ 23
Sustainable transport and movement .......................................................................................................................... 23
Performance Pathway ............................................................................................................................................ 23
Prescriptive Pathway ............................................................................................................................................. 24
Sustainable sites ......................................................................................................................................................... 24
Ecological value........................................................................................................................................................... 24
Waste management .................................................................................................................................................... 25
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 3
Heat island effect ......................................................................................................................................................... 25
Light pollution .............................................................................................................................................................. 25
Green Star Calculators and Guides .................................................................................................................................. 26
Visual comfort .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
Overshadowing Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 27
Greenhouse gas emissions calculator ......................................................................................................................... 27
Prescriptive Path .................................................................................................................................................... 27
Modelled Path ........................................................................................................................................................ 27
Peak electricity demand reduction ............................................................................................................................... 27
Sustainable transport calculator .................................................................................................................................. 27
Access by Public transport calculator .................................................................................................................... 29
Critiques and recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 29
Potable water calculator .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Sustainable products calculator ................................................................................................................................... 30
Ecological value calculator .......................................................................................................................................... 30
Ecological Value calculator (Communities) ............................................................................................................ 32
Biodiversity Management Plan .................................................................................................................................... 32
Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Why was this tool chosen? .......................................................................................................................................... 33
Were you seeking a particular rating, and why? .......................................................................................................... 33
What other assessment tools were considered? ......................................................................................................... 33
Is the site using PIM (precinct information modelling)? ............................................................................................... 33
At what stages has the tool been used on the projects so far?.................................................................................... 33
Which version did you use? ......................................................................................................................................... 33
What kinds of organization have used the tool on this project? ................................................................................... 33
Familiar parts of the tool .............................................................................................................................................. 34
Categories and credits ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Submission guidelines ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Scorecard: Excel spreadsheet ..................................................................................................................................... 34
Submission templates ................................................................................................................................................. 34
Calculator: Ecological Value ........................................................................................................................................ 34
Did you expect other Calculators to be a part of the tool? If so, which ones? If not, why not? .................................... 35
Toolkit components ..................................................................................................................................................... 35
Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................................ 36
Changes to Green Star Communities .......................................................................................................................... 36
Environment and Calculators ................................................................................................................................. 36
Interviews ............................................................................................................................................................... 37
Further research .......................................................................................................................................................... 37
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 4
List of Tables
Table 1 National environmental assessment schemes………………………………………………………………………….. 12
Table 2 Environmental assessment scheme criteria compared…………………………………………………………………13
Table 3 Points for percentage improvement……………………………………………………………………………………… 22
Table 4 Table 29.1 from Green Star Communities………………………………………………………………………………. 24
Table 5 Calculators and Guides in Green Star Design & As Built, and Communities……………………………………….. 26
Table 6 Green Star points for Sustainable Transport……………………………………………………………………………. 28
Table 7 Points against GCCSA proportions………………………………………………………………………………………. 29
Table 8 Priority and ease of use of Green Star Communities categories……………………………………………………… 34
Table 9 An assessment of the Toolkit components……………………………………………………………………………… 35
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 5
List of Figures
Figure 1 Australian electricity generation fuel mix, 2016 (DEE, 2017) .............................................................................. 11
Figure 2 Schema from ISO 12006-2:2015......................................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3 The role of BIM in reducing GHG emissions ....................................................................................................... 16
Figure 4 External shading at the centre of the window ...................................................................................................... 27
Figure 5 Sustainable transport: Roadmap of two alternative pathways ............................................................................. 28
Figure 6 Simulated example showing that one is better off not having remnant vegetation at all on the project site ........ 31
Figure 7 The example provided in the Ecological value calculator .................................................................................... 32
Figure 8 Adding the Green wall with extensive native vegetation did not help achieve full points. .................................... 32
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 6
Acronyms
GBCA Green Building Council of Australia
GHG Greenhouse gases
BIM
Building information modelling
PIM
Precinct information modelling
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 7
Executive Summary
The report
This report examines various aspects of Green Star
Communities v1. The first sections deal with greenhouse
gas emissions and building information modelling, and a
review of the literature about Green Star Communities.
The last sections comprise research which considers the
Green Star Communities Submission guidelines, the
Calculators, and usability.
Greenhouse gas emissions
In this part we consider the impact that Green Star
Communities might have on the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions, through the demand side. This is difficult
to quantify. But it is also becoming less relevant as
greenhouse gas emissions are being reduced on the
supply side, through the move to renewables for power
supply. Green Star Communities should take this into
account.
Building information modelling
Green Star Communities has parallels elsewhere in the
world, notably in the BREEAM and LEED systems. The
BREEAM system provides an interconnected hierarchy,
from Communities to Products, and it is suggested that
Green Star emulates this.
This object hierarchy is paralleled in digital information
modelling – PIM, BIM and digital specification systems
such as NBS Chorus. The environmental assessment
tools offered by Green Star should, like other simulation
tools, draw the information they need direct from the
digital model. To some extent this is happening already,
but should be extended. Parallel hierarchies would help
with this.
Literature
There are few published studies on Green Star
Communities. This review considers related studies,
concerning precinct-level environmental assessment
schemes generally, some conducted through CRC LCL.
Submission guidelines
In this part we examine the Green Star Communities v1
Submission guidelines and make quite a few
recommendations, mostly minor, as to how they might
be improved. Some of these may have been dealt with in
v1.1.
Calculators and Guides
Green Star Communities has just the one Calculator, but
it is suggested that Calculators developed for Green Star
Design & As Built could be used, facilitating the
interconnected hierarchy mentioned previously.
Accordingly this section explores most of these
Calculators, and the associated Guides, and makes a
number of recommendations for improvement. Again,
minor mostly, and some may have been implemented in
v1.1.
Interviews
In this part we consider the usability of Green Star
Communities. Suggestions for improvement are made,
often similar to those given in the previous sections.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 8
Introduction
This research project had a complex gestation. After
several shifts in the academic nature of the proposed
research, a post-doctoral researcher, Dr Manju Agrawal,
a mathematician with an interest in sustainability, was
engaged. At this time the intention was that the project
would assess two precinct assessment tools – Kinesis:
CCAP Precinct (PRECINX) (Kinesis, 2018) and
Melbourne University: MUtopia (Thomas, 2012). For
various reasons this did not eventuate, so after some
discussion the project switched to assessing GBCA
Green Star Communities (v1, 2015) instead. By this
point, time had been lost in the project schedule, and the
expected mathematical emphasis in the research had
been much reduced – while both the original tools use
algorithms extensively, Green Star Communities uses
just the one Calculator. Nevertheless, the research
project continued, and this report is the result.
The research project was led by John Gelder, a lecturer
at the University of South Australia’s School of Natural
and Built Environments, and an architect with an interest
in sustainability. Manju Agrawal, a post-doc researcher
with UniSA, wrote sections 7 Environment and 8
Calculators. Jeremy Miller, at the time with Sustainability
House and now with the City of Charles Sturt, wrote
section 5 Literature.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 9
Green Star Communities v1
The GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia) Green
Star Communities rating tool evaluates sustainability
aspects of the planning, design, and construction of
large scale development projects, at a precinct,
neighbourhood, or community scale. Green Star
Communities assesses projects against a holistic set of
categories:
Governance.
Liveability.
Economic Prosperity.
Environment.
Innovation.
Each category consists of a group of issues related to a
certain sustainability impact; these are known as Credits.
A Credit addresses an initiative (or set of initiatives) that
has the potential to improve a project’s sustainability
performance.
The focus of this report is the Environment category, in
acknowledgement of the funding through CRC-LCL, and
its interest in the reduction of the anthropogenic
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse
gases, through energy efficiency in use.
The report is intended to validate and improve Green
Star Communities, which is claimed to deliver more
sustainable precincts, or communities, than regulation
and conventional practice would achieve alone. The tool
deals with carbon emissions, but with many other issues
as well. Under the heading of Environment, the
Greenhouse Gas Strategy Credit is worth up to 6 points,
out of 110 across all headings. Carbon emissions would
also be picked up by some other Credits, such as
Materials (5 points), Sustainable Transport and
Movement (3 points) and Heat Island Effect (1 point).
The objective is to gain maximum points against each
Credit, but the quantitative amounts of carbon that might
be reduced will vary from project to project, even if the
maximum number of carbon-related points is accrued, if
only because of the various scales of the projects
concerned.
The pilot version of Green Star Communities was used
in the following projects:
Alkimos, Western Australia (6 star).
Barangaroo, Sydney.
Brisbane Airport, Brisbane, Queensland (4 star).
Caloundra South, Queensland (6 star).
Ecco Ripley, Ipswich, Queensland (5 star).
Greater Curtin, Curtin University, Western
Australia (5 star).
Tonsley Innovation Hub and Bowden renewal
project, Adelaide.
University of Melbourne, Parkville Campus,
Melbourne.
Green Square, NSW.
Schofields, NSW.
Willowdale, NSW.
Waterbank, WA.
Shenton Park, WA.
Lawson, ACT.
West Belconnen, ACT/NSW.
Case studies have been published by GBCA on the
Tonsley and Bowden developments in South Australia,
on the GBCA website.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 10
Green Star & Greenhouse gas
emissions
Communities, then the use of the tool could increase,
and so the overall effect would be a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.
It is difficult to quantify the greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions that might be reduced as a result of this
research, for a number of reasons:
Another difficulty is that the nature of the electricity
supply is changing quickly. The emission of greenhouse
gases can be addressed in two ways – on the demand
side, and on the supply side. Green Star Communities
tackles the demand side of GHG (mostly CO2)
emissions. Reducing demand makes very good sense
for as long as electricity is generated mostly using fossil
fuels. But this is a short-term strategy. The long-term
strategy, being adopted globally, is to move from fossilfuels to renewables for electricity supply. Across
Australia, some jurisdictions are further ahead in this
than others, and most of the rest have plans to change
the energy mix substantially within the next decade.
Once the energy mix is at, say, 75% renewables, then
from an environmental point of view it does not matter
much how much energy is consumed – the GHG
emissions will be minimal. Accordingly it is suggested
that Green Star Communities incorporates a weighting
for the points awarded to reducing GHG emissions.
Where the energy mix is high in fossil fuels (currently
NSW, Victoria, Queensland, WA & NT), reducing
demand would be worth more Credits than where the
energy mix is high in renewables (currently SA and
Tasmania) (Figure 1). The picture is changing fast –
Victoria intends to get to 40% renewables by 2025, for
example (Environment Victoria, 2017), and SA is
targeting 75% (Morton, 2018). This weighting could also
be adjusted for high-emission fuel (coal) and lowemission fuel (gas). The weighting could range from zero
to 100%, considering all these factors. Without such a
weighting, the development of sustainable communities
in Tasmania, for example, would be unfairly targeted for
demand reduction. For them this would be only an
economic issue, not an environmental one, and so
beyond the remit of Green Star.
Green Star Communities is a voluntary rating
system for precincts, and so it is not and will not
be used in the design of every precinct-scale
project in Australia.
Credits linked to greenhouse gas emissions
account for a fraction of the possible Credits in
the scheme.
The scheme provides a range of overall scores,
from 6 Stars down to 4. A 4 Star scheme will
not perform as well in terms of the various
Credits available as a 6 Star scheme.
Even for the same number of Stars, different
schemes will achieve Credits in different ways –
some might maximize their greenhouse-gasemission Credits while others might not,
preferring to gain Credits elsewhere.
Use of Green Star Communities already, presumably,
has had the effect of reducing greenhouse gas
emissions, given that the GBCA states that 10 years of
data on Green Star-certified buildings shows they can
use (up to) 66% less electricity and produce (up to) 62%
fewer greenhouse gas emissions than average
Australian buildings (GBCA, 2013).
Recommendations arising from this research may not be
adopted, but where they are the impact on carbon could
be minimal.
However, it could be argued that, if the
recommendations made in this research are
implemented, and if the research ‘validates’ Green Star
Figure 1 Australian electricity generation fuel mix, 2016 (DEE, 2017)
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 11
Green Star & Building Information
Modelling
This chapter examines Green Star Communities in a
broad context – comprising both the Green Star series of
environmental assessments, and building information
modelling (BIM).
Green Star in context
National environmental assessment schemes include
several from Australia, the UK and the USA. Table 1
shows some of these, and the offerings at different
levels in the ‘object hierarchy’ (from Districts or
precincts, down to Products).
Table 1 National environmental assessment schemes
Uniclass
2015
classes
District
Australia
United Kingdom
USA
GBCA – Green
Star
Non-GBCA
BRE – BREEAM
USGBC – LEED
Green Star
Communities
Kinesis PRECINX
BREEAM
Communities
LEED
Neighborhood
development
UniMelb MUtopia
Complex
-
BREEAM
Infrastructure
-
Entity
Green Star
Design & Asbuilt
BREEAM New
construction
LEED Building
design &
construction
BREEAM
Refurbishment &
fit-out
Green Star
Interiors
Green Star
Performance
BREEAM In-use
Non-USGBC
LEED Interiors
design &
construction
LEED Building
operations &
maintenance
LEED Homes
Element
-
BRE Green Guide
to Specification
-
System
-
Ditto
-
Product
-
BRE
Environmental
Profiles
-
Good Environmental
Choice Australia
(GECA)
Global GreenTag
GreenRate
Green Star is used in Australia (GBCA) and New
Zealand (NZGBC). BREEAM is used in 77 countries,
including the UK, USA, Netherlands, Spain, Norway,
Sweden, Germany, and Austria. LEED is used in 150
countries. The top 10 are USA, Canada, China, India,
Brazil, Korea, Germany, Taiwan, UAE, Turkey, and
Sweden. Many of the criteria are common, but some are
not (Table 2). The point being made here is that
SCS Global
Services
UL
ECOLOGO
Green Seal
Standards
Green Star is broadly consistent with equivalent
schemes elsewhere.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 12
Table 2 Environmental assessment scheme criteria compared
Green Star
Design & As
Built
BREEAM
Management
Management
Integrative
process
Global warming potential.
Indoor
environmental
quality
Health &
wellbeing
Indoor
environmental
quality
Acidification of land & water.
Energy
Energy
Energy &
atmosphere
Transport
LEED
Environment.
Innovation.
But at the Product level, environmental product
declarations to EN 15804:2012 use the following criteria:
Transport
Location &
transportation
Water
Water
Water efficiency
Materials
Materials
Material &
resources
Land use &
ecology
Land use
Sustainable sites
Emissions
Pollution
-
-
Waste
-
-
-
Regional priority
Innovation
Innovation
Innovation
Depletion of stratospheric ozone.
Eutrophication.
Creation of tropospheric ozone.
Depletion of non-renewable energy resources.
The BRE Environmental Profiles add the following:
Human toxicity.
Waste disposal.
Nuclear waste.
Ecotoxicity to freshwater.
Ecotoxicity to land.
Mineral resource extraction.
Mapping between the different levels
It can be seen from Table 1 that BREEAM has a suite of
tools at every level in the hierarchy, whereas Green Star
and LEED do not. For the BREEAM suite this means
that, in principle at least, data from the lower levels can
aggregate up to the higher levels, and requirements from
the higher levels can disseminate to the lowest. Due to
discontinuities, this is not possible for Green Star or
LEED, except between Districts and Entities.
For BREEAM, this potential has been partly realized in
that data from Environmental Profiles is used in the BRE
Green Guide to Specification, and data from this is used
in BREEAM New Construction, for example. However,
this does not apply in reverse (top down), nor is there a
link – in either direction – between the BREEAM tools for
Entities and those for infrastructure and Districts.
Links between Districts (Precincts) and Entities in both
Green Star and LEED have not been implemented in
either direction. The tools are not connected.
One issue with mapping up and down the object
hierarchy (Districts to Products) is that the criteria are
necessarily different. We have seen that for Green Star
Communities they are:
Water extraction.
All of these taken together might aggregate up to
‘Environment’ at District level, but there is nothing at
Product level on governance, liveability, economic
prosperity and innovation. Nor should there be (in most
cases).
This difference is recognized in unpublished work
undertaken by one of the authors (Gelder) in the
development of the NBS Create master specification in
the UK over 2004-2012, for RIBA Enterprises. The
criteria used for the total performance specification of
high-level object classes – Regions, Districts, and
Complexes – are quite different to those for low-level
objects – Entities, Activities, Spaces, Elements, Systems
and Products. For the high-level object classes,
performance criteria would comprise: functional, social,
economic and environmental. These are akin to those
for Green Star Communities.
For low-level object classes the NBS Create
performance criteria comprise: functional, structural, fire,
environmental (e.g. ambient conditions), safety,
acoustic, energy, sustainability and non-regulatory.
These are much broader than the 13 criteria in the BRE
Environmental Profiles, which focus on ‘sustainability’, of
course.
What should happen is that decisions made should
trickle down through the design stages, to be inherited
by the next level.
Governance.
Liveability.
Economic Prosperity.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 13
It is suggested that more Green Star tools be developed,
to complete the object hierarchy from Districts to
Products. It is further suggested that these tools map to
each other, at least in terms of content and structure.
Ideally there should also be a functional (i.e. digital)
mapping to enable automatic aggregation and
disaggregation.
For example, Green Star Communities has a credit on
light pollution, as does Green Star Design and As Built.
Given this, building-by-building responses to light
pollution could be aggregated up to District-scale
responses, and vice versa. The 2016 introduction by
Green Star of the Cross Claim Approach is noted.
And actual values should be able to be aggregated up to
give actual figures. One can then compare Design
(intent) with Execution – identifying the ‘performance
gap’.
Building Information Modelling
The construction industry has been moving towards the
adoption of digital information modelling for the last
twenty years or so. Recently this has extended from
buildings (building information modelling – BIM) to
precinct information modelling (PIM) (Plume, Mitchell,
Marchant & Newton, 2017) and to digital engineering
(DE) for infrastructure (e.g. Transport for New South
Wales Digital Engineering, in 2018).
Digital information modelling uses a schema of the kind
used in ISO 12006-2:2015 (Figure 2).
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 14
Figure 2 Schema from ISO 12006-2:2015.
A part of this (Complexes – Entities – Elements) has
been used in Table 1, i.e. in Uniclass 2015. This is the
official UK classification system for the construction
industry, and is being adopted by TfNSW (Gelder, 2018),
and by NBS in Australia. It would make sense to
consider its adoption, along with the schema, across the
Green Star tools.
The idea of digital information modelling is that all project
information is held in a central model. Digital tools that
need this information should be able to extract it from the
model. This ensures currency and veracity, and saves
on rekeying information multiple times for multiple
purposes. Currently none of the environmental
assessment schemes mentioned can do this, apart from
the BRE Green Guide to Specification, which connects
to the building information model (BIM) through the
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 15
BRE’s IMPACT specification and database and
compliant tools. The Green Star tools should do this, and
feed design decisions made using the tools back into the
model – a bi-directional digital linkage. This would be a
major project as the Green Star tools are essentially
manual, apart from some simple Calculators. They will
need to be converted into databases.
Environmental assessment schemes and the
specification
Part of the digital information model is the specification,
or it should be. Accordingly, the various national master
specification systems should support environmental
assessment, but without becoming ‘green specifications’
(Gelder, 2003). In Australia, the UK and the USA, the
main systems do, to some extent.
For example, NATSPEC TR 01 Specifying ESD (2014)
states:
“This TECHreport outlines the principles of
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) and
their application to building specifications. ESDrelated items included in NATSPEC worksections are
listed and cross referenced to BCA and Green Star
requirements.”
In the UK, for NBS Create and BREEAM, see Clarke
(2010). In the USA, for Avitru (formerly ARCOM)
MasterSpec and LEED, see Metal Architecture (2013).
However, not all these national master specification
systems form a part of the digital information model. For
example, NBS Create and the cloud-based NBS Chorus
(soon to be released in Australia) do, but NATSPEC
does not – it is still an MS Word document, not a
database. There is much work to be done. But in the
meanwhile, GBCA should liaise with NATSPEC, and
NBS in Australia, to ensure that relevant content is
included, as far as practicable.
BIM and reducing GHG emissions
The NBS National BIM Report has been produced in the
UK by RIBA Enterprises every year since 2012. In the
2016 survey, with the experience of BIM among
respondents on the rise, it was thought timely to ask
about the roles expected of BIM by the UK government
in improving project cost, time and GHG emissions, and
improving the trade gap. The results for 2018 are
summarized in Figure 3.
Figure 3 The role of BIM in reducing GHG emissions
Fewer than 50% of respondents thought that BIM would
help the UK achieve a 50% reduction in GHG emissions
in the built environment. This is odd given that tools
compliant with the BRE’s IMPACT specification and
database are designed to use the BIM geometry (Revit
or IFC or both) to carry out life cycle assessment against
a range of environmental impact criteria, including
carbon, and are well-known. Providers of IMPACTcompliant software are as follows:
IESVE 2018 (compatible with BREEAM, LEED
v4, Green Mark and OTTV, and in partnership
with OneClickLCA).
The Australian eToolLCD (compatible with
BREEAM, LEED v4, CEEQUAL, and with
Green Star Communities).
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 16
Bionova’s OneClick LCA (compatible with Green
Star, BREEAM, LEED v4, DGNB (Germany),
HQE International and, for infrastructure,
BREEAM Infrastructure, CEEQUAL (CEEQUAL
2018 is replacing CEEQUAL 5.2 and BREEAM
Infrastructure), Envision, and PAS 2080:2016
Carbon management in infrastructure).
It seems that IESVE 2018 cannot be used with Green
Star tools, and that OneClick LCA cannot be used with
Green Star Communities. It is suggested that Green Star
should pursue these compatibilities, in order to connect
the Green Star entity-level and precinct-level tools to the
building information model (BIM). However, connecting
Green Star Communities to the precinct information
model (PIM) is not possible at present, since PIM itself is
still in development, and so this is something for the
future.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 17
Green Star Literature
Green Star Communities has been described as
“Australia’s leading sustainability rating system for the
built environment at a precinct level” (Newton et al,
2013). It is a voluntary tool for assessing the “planning,
design and construction of large scale development
projects at a precinct, neighbourhood and/or community
scale” (GBCA, 2017).
Designed and supported by the Green Building Council
of Australia (GBCA), version 1.1 of Green Star
Communities was released in mid-September 2016. The
GBCA states that the tool provides “a rigorous and
holistic rating” (GBCA, 2017) across the five impact
categories (being governance, liveability, economic
prosperity, environment and innovation) and associated
credits. As of 25 October 2018 the online GBCA Green
Star Project Directory lists 59 Communities projects.
These include both certified projects (having gone
through the process to achieve a star rating) and
registered projects (those still awaiting certification).
Many of the projects were initiated during the pilot phase
of the tools development. The breakdown is as follows:
Pilot v0.0: 8 projects.
Pilot v0.1: 4 projects.
Pilot v0.2: 17 projects.
v1: 11 projects.
v1.1: 19 projects.
For the researcher looking to unpack the existing
literature related to the impact of the Green Star
Communities tool on developing and influencing low
carbon living, the point that soon becomes apparent is
there are few published studies specifically focused on
this area.
One obvious explanation for this would be that Green
Star Communities, as a voluntary industry adopted tool
to drive sustainable development, is not very old and so
the number of projects available for a researcher to
consider is somewhat limited. However, the question can
be asked whether this is the whole picture? Are there
other factors to consider, such as what drives adoption
of sustainability assessment tools in a competitive
market? Are complex voluntary tools with high
administrative overheads appealing to industry? How is
the adoption of these tools split between projects
initiated by government, and private projects? What
does Green Star Communities signpost as contributing
to this? Finally, can Green Star Communities influence
the design and development of precincts to the scope
required, particularly in respect to low carbon living?
While specific rating tools that adopt assessment
categories to score development may be a recent
innovation, designing to structured principles with a
focus on outcomes is not a new idea. Several significant
urban planning movements characterize the 20th
century (Sharifi, 2016). Planning and assessment tools
are available to the designer and developer to assess
environmental impact from the single building level to the
urban / precinct scale (Sharifi and Mirayama, 2013).
Jackson (2016) summarized twelve contemporary tools
to assess development at this urban / precinct scale,
identifying five tools for use in Australia (the criteria of
having local support and presence). These five are:
Green Star Communities from the GBCA, the
EnviroDevelopment tool from the Urban Development
Institute of Australia (UDIA), One Planet Communities
associated with One Planet Living, the Living Community
Challenge from the Living Futures Institute, and Circles
of Sustainability from the UN Global Compact Cities
Program.
Other noteworthy and comparable tools identified
include BREEAM Communities, DGNB for Urban
Districts and LEED for Neighbourhood Development,
none of which are (currently) available in Australia. All
tools provide for and / or predicted and measured
certification strategies. Jackson (2016) comments that a
tool’s uptake depends on applicability to local conditions
and environment, training, technical support, tool and
workshop facilitation, with all tools seeking to improve
the quality of development.
Sharifi and Murayama (2013) ascribe assessment
frameworks like Green Star Communities as
“neighbourhood sustainability assessment” tools,
equating them to impact assessment. In their analysis of
seven such tools they concluded that only tools
embedded into the broader planning framework are
doing well with regard to applicability. In a research
study, Criterion Planners (2014) studied 35 tools used
across 22 countries, from which Jackson (2016)
concludes that the difference between tools is quite
subtle – primarily depending on the operation, phase
and format, or how prescriptive the criteria are. In
Australia, such assessment tools are voluntary with
“Green Star Communities and EnviroDevelopment …
playing a leading role across Australia in encouraging
the development and application of urban sustainability
assessment”. (Newton et al, 2013).
Green Star Communities provides a prescriptive
framework for developing sustainable communities, and
a rating tool to assess them. The tool provides a set of
“indicators against each principle” which benchmark
associated credits depending on the level of
performance achieved (Newton et al, 2013).
Through a series of interviews, Morris (2017) identifies
key barriers to the use of Green Star Communities.
These include documentation, human resources,
evidence of success, complexity, financial outcomes,
lack of accredited professionals and certification cost. A
level of inequality is highlighted in that smaller
developers do not have the same opportunities to
embed the principles advocated for by the GBCA –
which points to the tool only being used by developers of
a certain size and with larger budgets to manage such
projects, or to government-initiated projects.
Writing in 2012 Adam Beck (the then Manager for
Sustainable Communities at the GBCA) made the case
for implementing rating schemes such as Green Star
Communities as multi-level operations. Project financiers
would gain a framework for sustainable investment while
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 18
government policy outcomes would be met and the
planning and approval of significant projects streamlined.
Two years before Beck, Martin Musgrave, the then UDIA
Deputy Director – Policy, wrote about
EnviroDevelopment being a tool that would deliver a
scheme to inform homebuyers looking to make
purchases in a green field development, giving certainty
that they were buying into schemes that had high
environmental credentials. These values were seen to
translate to homes that addressed affordability in terms
of occupancy cost, not just purchase price.
Developments need to be “outstanding” and be
designed to protect the environment, use resources
responsibly and offer benefits to “homeowners, industry
and government” (Musgrave, 2010).
Beck (2012) sees schemes like Green Star as facilitators
of more efficient development which in turn allow
consumers to make more informed decisions. Newton
(2017) sees the use of assessment tools as providing
“roadmaps” to low carbon development that include
mitigation and adaptation pathways. The pathways
Newton (2017) describes are required because “the
scale of the decarbonisation challenge is now such that
change must be transformative, not incremental.”
Do Green Star Communities and other such rating tools
provide the urgency and “pathways” as seen by Newton
(2017), such that they “have a capacity to significantly
decarbonise key sectors of an urban system“? One
issue highlighted by Rogmans and Ghunaim (2016) is
that rating systems put more emphasis on sustainable
design than they do sustainable performance. Morris et
al. (2017) point out that with few notable exceptions;
government-initiated projects have been the main users
of the (Green Star) tools and had a clear role in the
success of them. Jackson (2016) recognizes that the
Green Star tools have come to dominate the Australian
market with a well-known brand with “strong support
from major developers”. However, Sharifi and Murayama
(2012) and Haapio (2012), when looking at the impetus
to undertake large scale projects with rating tools,
suggested that the cost/benefit, ease of use, and return
on capital and administrative investment will limit
projects, or transfer costs to taxpayers. Newton (2017)
points out that “markets can’t set policy, but they can
deliver on policy”. Such tools seek to guide decision
making and policy, giving certainty to long term planning
and investment (Haapio, 2012; Newton, 2017; Beck,
2012). Further to this analysis, Davidson et al (2012)
questioned the common neo-liberal conceptualization of
sustainability that places the economy as a core concern
and proposes a new typology to categorise indicators of
sustainability, one that seeks a social-democratic
approach, with an emphasis on social justice and taking
a pre-cautionary principle to natural capital.
Perhaps we will see more of a shift in the discourse from
sustainability to a discussion of resilience to the shocks
and stresses of climate change (Boltz & Granlund,
2014), as indeed the Australian cities of Melbourne and
Sydney are approaching through the 100 Resilient Cities
program pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation.
Resilient Melbourne (2016) is one such program and
expresses this strategy across the four action areas –
Adapt, Survive, Thrive and Embed (City of Melbourne,
2016). Within the Green Star suite of tools, particularly
Green Star Communities and Design and As Built, there
are credits that deal with climate change adaptation (for
example Credit 03 in Design and As Built calls on the
production of a Climate Adaptation Plan in order to meet
the credit criteria). Adaptation and resilience thinking is
not unique to Green Star, with sustainability indicators
and frameworks such as One Planet Living being used
by local government. The City of Subiaco Sustainability
and Resilience Strategy (2016) created an Action Plan
centered on the ten One Planet Living sustainability
principles to create a framework for their strategic
response to diagnose, respond and to structured
thinking around a sustainability agenda.
Newton (2016) referred to the rapid transition towards
urbanization and the growing ecological footprint of
human settlements. The challenge in growing cities is
one that provides resilience to the array of endogenous
and exogenous pressures, the notion of “decarbonising”
therefore has to equal regenerative (re)development of
the built environment.
Morris et al. (2017) were interested in the concept of
sustainable development, specifically in relation to
Green Star Communities and the uptake and impact of
the rating tool. They drew a focus to the recent
introduction of the tool and note that “there has been a
lack of research and critical analysis about the rating
tool’s anticipated influence within the local industry.” This
is perhaps not unsurprising due to the perceived barriers
of cost, time and complexity (Morris et al., 2017) for
industry to adopt rating tools to assess communities.
Jackson (2016) highlights the number of competing tools
available observing that Green Star exists in a market
alongside several tools that can be used to assess
performance and provide “inspiration for the
development and adaption of communities and cities”.
In this context Tanya Plant introduced
EnviroDevelopment as a planning framework to inspire
and deliver sustainable development across a wide
range of development typologies. The certification tool
was to be used to “distinguish real achievement from
any ‘greenwash’” (Plant, 2007, p. 14). Designed with a
focus on providing a marketing angle for developers to
brand their communities, the tool provides for pragmatic
flexibility while still protecting the “integrity and credibility
of the EnvioDevelopment brand” (Plant, 2007, p. 14).
Musgrave (2010) contrasts the marketing of “green
projects” against housing affordability, acknowledging
that some developers will shy away from adding any
additional costs to their projects in the belief that this will
effect competitiveness in the market.
EnviroDevelopment is promoted as a development
industry tool to substantiate environmental claims, noting
that a development can be accredited across one, some
or all of the EnviroDevelopment elements (Water,
Energy, Ecosystems, Community, Materials, Waste).
While the development industry may implement tools or
frameworks like Green Star, One Planet Living or
EnviroDevelopment, it is in Victoria we see local
government, led by the Council Alliance for a
Sustainable Built Environment (CASBE) members, using
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 19
the planning framework to drive sustainable design
(Arnott, 2016). The Sustainable Design Assessment in
the Planning Process (SDAPP) framework uses the Built
Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS). This tool,
like Green Star, seeks to improve proposals beyond
minimal national standards (Arnott, 2016). It assesses
development across a number of impact categories in
scale from standalone residential houses to large multiunit residential and industrial and commercial sites.
While it is not a precinct scale tool, it uses categories
similar to those considered in Green Star, including
Management, Water, Energy, Stormwater, Indoor
Environment Quality (IEQ), Transport, Waste, Urban
Ecology and Innovation. BESS has a focus on “applying
Ecologically Sustainable Development (ESD) principles
to the built environment through the statutory planning
system”. The use of the BESS tool does not encompass
the whole of Victoria and is primarily focused on innercity Melbourne Councils who subscribe to it; though in
future it could be Australia-wide as more Local
Government Areas subscribe (Arnott, 2016).
carbon indicators (pp 52 – 54) it then goes on to
examine the precinct design and assessment tools that
are associated with the CRC partner organizations. This
evaluation includes the tools LESS (Hassell), MUtopia
(University of Melbourne), PRECINX (NSW
Government) and SSIM (AECOM). Not all of these tools
are current. The review examines alignment with a
carbon-sustainability-resilience (C-S-R) framework, gaps
in coverage including data availability, use of
benchmarks, information and software platform issues
associated with each tool. The paper undertook a
detailed gap analysis and comparison also exploring
Precinct Information Modelling (PIM) and Lifecycle Cycle
Assessment and Inventory. Several conclusions are
drawn including recommendations for improving
definitions of key indicators, data availability and
adequacy, benchmarking and how precinct assessment
tools used during design phases are aligned with rating
tools (such as Green Star Communities).
In Perth, the Western Australian Government’s land and
development agency, LandCorp, led the White Gum
Valley (WGV) project to create Australia’s second One
Planet Living Community. The development is within
Australia’s first One Planet Living City, Fremantle and as
such is aiming to be a Zero Carbon development with an
Action Plan that “aims to achieve a ‘One Planet’ lifestyle
for the council, residents and business community by
2025” (Bioregional Australia, One Planet Fremantle,
2016).
Notably, WGV is one of the communities selected by the
CRC Low-Carbon Living as part of RP3033:
Mainstreaming Low Carbon Housing Precincts – The
White Gum Valley Living Laboratory, with a “focus on the
mechanism used to achieve low carbon outcomes, their
acceptance and uptake, with a view to making them
mainstream” (LCL CRC, RP3033, 2018).
In one of a number of papers that compares the Green
Star Design and As Built tool with others, Roderick el al.
(2009) point to a contrast between Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design (LEED), BRE Environmental
Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Green Star when
used to assess building projects. While not a discussion
around community rating, the study found that there was
a divergence in results between the tools when
compared against a benchmark site. The paper
concluded that obtaining similar results is problematic
due to the means by which each of the schemes differs
in the quantification of energy loads (Roderick el al.,
2009, p. 1171).
A more detailed comparison of precinct assessment and
rating tools is made in the CRC Low Carbon Living
paper – Performance Assessment of Urban Precinct
Design: A Scoping Study (Newton et al, 2013). In this
paper a review of functionality of rating and assessment
tools for community development was undertaken. The
relevant chapter begins by comparing the alignment of
Green Star Communities, LEEDnd (LEED for
neighbourhood development) and BREEAM
Communities, UK. Following a comparison of key
features of these three rating tools and energy and
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 20
Methodology
The following research comprises two parts, an
independent assessment of the Green Star Communities
documentation and software, and interviews with two
users of the tool.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 21
Green Star Submission guidelines
Integrated water cycle
The Submission Guidelines document (Community) has
an error in the formula 24A.1.2 (p. 186). The formula
written there actually calculates the percentage of total
nominated water demand supplied with potable water at
the project site with respect to the reference site.
The percent reduction in potable water should be
calculated as
100 x (1 – Amount of total nominated water demand
supplied with potable water / Amount of total
nominated water demand supplied with 100%
potable water)
However, while it is unlikely that a qualified professional
would overlook this kind of error while doing the
calculations, this error should be corrected.
Greenhouse gas strategy
Performance Pathway
Predicted annual energy use and corresponding GHG
emissions for the proposed project are to be compared
to the reference project and the percentage
improvement calculated. Points are awarded based on
the proposed project’s percentage improvements when
compared against the reference project’s annual
greenhouse gas emissions, as detailed in Table 3.
Table 3 Points for percentage improvement
could. Even though ‘Design and As Built’ and
‘Communities’ have different point allocations and
different credit criteria, it would yet still count to the same
amount of GHG emissions when it comes to the
calculations of emissions of a building of a certain type,
irrespective of whether it is an individual building or
stands as a part of the community under assessment.
For a user, getting ‘locked out of the formula cells’ could
be a big obstacle, and this could be removed. Moreover,
it should not be difficult for GBCA to adapt the calculator
spreadsheet for each building type, and hence making a
suite of the calculator tools available for Communities.
It is suggested that detailed guidance should be
provided for the GHG Strategy Performance Pathway.
Ensure that Green Star Communities users can use the
Design and As Built GHG Emissions Calculator Guide.
Users should not be locked out of the formula cells. The
Calculator spreadsheet should be able to be adapted for
each building type, to create a suite of Calculator tools
for Green Star Communities.
The document ‘Energy Consumption and Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Calculator Guide’ is well structured and
has in-depth details of the calculation procedure which
are much appreciated. Specifically, the Tables in the
Appendices have very detailed and informative clear
guidelines. However, the Table 72: Greenhouse gas
emission factors by fuel type (pp 97-98), was somewhat
disappointing. The Table 72 has emission factors listed
from National Greenhouse Accounts Factors – July
2013. At the time of release of the document (December
2015), another release dated August 2015 was already
available. The current edition is dated July 2018.
Proposed projects should be encouraged to use the
latest GHG emission factors and the latest carbon
intensity of electricity in their modelling performance, not
merely because they are the latest, but also because
they are supposed to predict their future GHG emissions
performance. It is suggested that the Table move away
from past emission factors, so that users can use the
most recent emission factors in their calculations.
As noted above, it may not always be practical because
these figures are changing at a fast pace due to the
ever-increasing proportion of renewables in the
electricity generation grid (see, Clean Energy Australia
Report, 2018).
The user is provided with appropriate guidelines
regarding the calculations for the reference project as
well as for the proposed project. No detailed guidance is
provided, though. For the calculations regarding on-site
energy generation, the user is referred to the ‘Energy
Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Calculator Guide’ which is originally developed for the
rating tool ‘Design and As Built’. However, it is not clear
that the user could also be able to use the
corresponding ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculator’
spreadsheet. It would have been very useful if they
It is quite likely that a proposed project would be
disadvantaged in terms of credit points achieved, if older
figures are used. To achieve certain points, the
Proposed Project has to achieve a better performance
by a certain percentage in comparison to a benchmark
Reference Project. Both the projects ought to use the
same base data. As 2018 emission factors are lower
than 2015 emission factors, for example, the Reference
Project would certainly be doing better using 2018
emission factors, and then consequently, the Proposed
Project would need to work even harder to achieve the
better performance by the same percentage.
Then, to be fair for all the proposed projects (past,
present and future), GBCA may need to revise the point
allocation criteria together with percentage improvement.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 22
For the calculations of energy contribution from
photovoltaics the user is referred to ‘Green Star
Photovoltaic Modelling Guidelines’ available on the
GBCA’s website. Instructions in this guidelines
document are provided in a lucid manner and with
appropriate technical details.
Prescriptive Pathway
While District Heating and Cooling Connection is a future
possibility in Australia, this point should be given only if
the energy is from renewable energy sources, such as
geothermal. The point should not be awarded if, for
example, the energy came from coal-fired electricity.
Materials
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) – Performance Pathway
Eligibility and Compliance requirements appear to be
reasonable. “The inclusion of operational energy in the
LCA approach in Green Star is a reflection of current
international best practice as per EN 15804
Sustainability of Construction Work - Environmental
Product Declarations - Core Rules for the Category of
Construction Products. The GBCA recognises that there
is a ‘double counting’ by this approach”. We totally agree
with this statement, and expect that the international
experts recognize this fact and for there to be
revolutionary change in the LCA approach regarding the
inclusion/exclusion of operational energy.
There are two options available for comparison to the
project’s life cycle assessment, using a standard practice
reference project or using an actual reference project. As
it is defined, we foresee no issues with the standard
practice reference project. However, the actual reference
project may lead to ambiguous outcomes. As defined in
(26.A.1a.5B):
“This Actual Reference Project option is only
applicable where data for a suitable existing
masterplanned development is available to project
teams, in accordance with the following
requirements:
a. The existing development must have been
planned and at least partly constructed in the past 5
years;
b. The age of the reference project must be
calculated based on the proposed project’s Green
Star registration date and the date of planning
approval for the reference project; and
c. Where there is no actual reference project that has
the same scale as the proposed project, the data of
an actual reference project may be adjusted to reflect
the scale of the proposed project.”
What if this actual reference project was doing very well
regarding environmental impacts in most of the impact
categories (listed under 26.A.1a.3)? If this is the case,
then comparing the LCA of the proposed project with this
actual reference project would not allow it to score as
many credits as if it had it been compared with a
standard practice reference project.
One possibility is that another requirement be added to
the definition which would require the actual reference
project to be following standard practice (at least for the
duration you are using the data from this actual
reference project). This may not be a plausible condition
to impose, though. If there was indeed such an actual
project (or community) during the past 5 years or so,
they would not be living entirely unsustainably. This is
unlikely given that communities have much more
awareness regarding sustainability. Perhaps, simply
remove the option of actual reference project for
comparing LCA impacts.
Life Cycle Impacts – Prescriptive Pathway
Compliance requirements and credit criteria appear to
be reasonable. However, we do have a few concerns.
Under the item 26B.0.3.1 Timber Cost, it is stated that
“Where the actual cost of reused items is not known then
the cost may be estimated on the basis of replacement
cost (i.e. the cost of an equivalent new item).” Does this
mean that the estimated cost of the reused item is taken
to be the same as the full cost of an equivalent new item
or should it be a fraction of the cost of an equivalent new
item? This point needs to be clarified.
Under the item 26.B.0.3.2 Formwork, it is stated that:
“Formwork, made from non-certified timber, that is
purchased as new for a project and is reused within the
same project, may not be claimed as reused,
irrespective of the number of times it is reused on the
same project.
Formwork, made from non-certified timber, that has
previously been used in another project, and is used
again in this project, can be claimed as reused.”
If the formwork is already made using non-certified
timber, then in terms of GHG emissions, there is
apparently no distinction between the two cases, i.e.
whether the formwork was previously used in a different
project or in the same project. Both the cases should be
considered as equivalent. In other words, allow timber
formwork to be claimed as reused irrespective of
whether it was previously used in the same project or in
a different project.
The same comments and recommendations are
applicable to the criteria 26.A.0.3.1 Timber Costs and
26.A.0.3.2 which fall under Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
– Performance Pathway.
Sustainable transport and movement
Performance Pathway
This pathway is entirely based on the transport
assessment (or statement) developed by a suitably
qualified professional. The transport assessment or
statement is required to at least include
recommendations or plans that address certain criteria
from a given list (27A.4). This appears to be a
reasonable list. However, depending on how it is
addressed, the points achieved through this pathway
could be different. For example, assessments or
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 23
statements prepared by different individuals could lead
to different point scores for the same project.
Prescriptive Pathway
The instructions regarding calculation of the points are
well explained and supported by a worked example.
Everything under this pathway appears reasonable and
correct except a few typos found in the Guidance
Section under the heading ‘Calculating AIBSPP for
transport routes (27B.2.2)’ (p 246). Table X is referred a
number of times; was it meant to be Table 27B.2.2?
Another typo is regarding afternoon peak period: it
should be commencing at 4:30 pm (not 4:30 am). These
errors should be corrected.
Sustainable sites
Credit criteria and guidelines are clearly stated and we
do not foresee any issues.
calculation (p. 262, Submission Guidelines). However, it
is unclear how the weighting is allocated for this land
type. Neither the Table 29.1 (p. 262) nor the ecological
value calculator (Ecological_Value_Communities v1_r
1.1.xlsx) have any mention of relevant weightings (see
Table 4). Also, the dropdown list in the Calculator does
not allow any input regarding Vertical Gardens and
Green Roofs. This should be rectified.
Table 4 (extracted from the Submission Guidelines)
does mention of green roof in the parenthesis under item
“4. Planted native vegetation”. However, if the user
included the area of green roof under this category in the
‘Calculator’, the ‘before’ and ‘after’ areas may not match,
resulting in an error in the calculation.
This calculation error should be rectified, and the
weighting for Vertical Gardens and Green Roofs land
type must be clearly stated in the ecological value
calculator (Ecological_Value_Communities v1_r 1.1.xlsx)
as well in the Submission Guidelines.
Ecological value
There are some instructions on the inclusion of Vertical
Gardens and Green Roofs into the credit point
Table 4 Table 29.1 from Green Star Communities
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 24
Another set of arguable items are the items 5, 6 and 7, in
Table 4. For instance, suppose a project site had
regenerated native habitat < 5 years old at the date of
site purchase (or option contract), and it becomes > 5
years old at the date of project completion. No re-growth
was involved; it was simply maintained as it was at the
time of purchase. How would the points be calculated in
this scenario? Will the project be eligible to claim points
for this criterion? If yes, would it be 0.75 weighting to be
applied for ‘after’ and 0.50 for ‘before’?
it as double counting, and some will not. It is suggested
that there should be clear instructions on this aspect.
Light pollution
Compliance requirements and guidance are adequately
addressed.
Apparently, if a land type in the project site remains in
the same band 7, 8, or 9, before as well as after, then
the project is not going to achieve any benefit in terms of
credit points for ecological value.
Another, similar situation would be with items 8 and 9,
‘remnant native vegetation’ and ‘natural water bodies’.
The land type would have to be only the pre-existing
land types. They cannot be created or enhanced ‘after’
the development. Thus having these land types (8
and/or 9) on the proposed project site and maintaining
them ‘after’ the development is essentially not going to
benefit the proposed project in terms of credit points for
ecological value.
These ambiguities should be investigated and resolved.
Regarding Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP), It is
stated (under 29.2.1.2) that the BMP must include at
least ‘A brief explanation of how the project applicant
can be at least 50% confident that the net gain they are
claiming for biodiversity gains is likely to be achievable’.
How do you measure “at least 50% confident”? This
should be clarified.
There are some general issues with hyperlinks. They
should be both relevant and current, or removed
otherwise. For example, there is a reference to Parkes,
D., Newell G., & Cheal, D. (2011), ‘Assessing the Quality
of Native Vegetation: the 'Habitat Hectares' Approach’,
Victorian Department of Primary Industries. But the
given hyperlink did not work. In any case, probably the
project team would not need the document, because the
documentation for assessment is to be carried out by a
qualified ecologist. What was presumably the intended
article was found, but it was dated 2003, and published
in the journal Ecological management & Restoration.
Waste management
Compliance requirements and guidance are adequately
addressed. The list of the nominated key questions for
the five principles of ‘Designing out Waste’ is excellent,
and the project teams would find it certainly useful.
Heat island effect
Credit Criteria are clearly stated and the guidance is
adequately addressed. However, as the vegetation,
green roofs and water bodies also contribute to the
credits towards Ecological Value, this could lead to
double counting. Perhaps, counting twice would not be a
big issue (as it is just one point), but different assessors
could interpret the criteria differently. Some will consider
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 25
Green Star Calculators and Guides
The Green Star Design and As Built tool has a number
of Credit Calculators and Guides available on the GBCA
website. Not every guide corresponds to a calculator and
vice versa. Table 5 summarizes the full list of Calculators
and Guides.
Table 5 Calculators and Guides in Green Star Design & As Built, and Communities
Green Star Design and As Built
Green Star Communities
Credit
Calculator
Guide
12. Visual
Comfort
No calculator
Daylight and Views
Hand Calculation
Guide
15.Greenhouse
Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Calculator
Greenhouse Gas
Emission Calculator
Guide
16. Peak
Electricity
Demand
Reduction
17. Sustainable
Transport
Credit
Calculator
Guide
29.1 Ecological
Value
Ecological
Value
Calculator
No guide
Share Services and
Low-carbon Energy
Supply Calculator
Guide
Sustainable
Transport calculator
Access by Public
Transport Calculator
Sustainable
Transport calculator
Guide
Access by Public
Transport Calculator
Guide
18. Potable
Water
Potable Water
Calculator
Potable Water
Calculator Guide
21. Sustainable
Products
Sustainable
Products Calculator
No guide
23. Ecological
Value
Ecological Value
Calculator
No guide
29. Refrigerant
Impacts
Refrigerant Impacts
Calculator
No guide
30. Innovation
No calculator
Innovation Category
Guidance
There is only one calculator, the Ecological Value
Calculator, associated with both the Green Star Design
and As Built and Communities rating systems. Most of
the calculators (and guides) from Green Star Design and
As Built should be adapted for the credit calculations for
Communities. With this in mind, they are each discussed
briefly in this section, apart from the Refrigerant Impacts
Calculator, which is probably not relevant to
Communities.
Visual comfort
The guideline notes that “GBCA encourages project
teams to use this guide to claim points instead of
performing daylight modelling”. For this particular
criteria, the prescriptive path is preferred over the
modelled path. But what if one performed daylight
modelling instead? How would the points be awarded in
that case?
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 26
Overshadowing Requirements
Projects where external shading does not impinge on the
direct 25° line from the mid-height (centre) of the window
are deemed to not be overshadowed (Figure 4). External
shading includes buildings, cliffs, and any other solid
structure. External shading does not include trees.
An obvious question arises (which does not seem to be
answered in the calculation guide): If the building has
more than one floor, how is the mid-height window
defined?
Figure 4 External shading at the centre of the window
Greenhouse gas emissions calculator
Prescriptive Path
15A Prescriptive Pathway (design and as built)
calculator worksheet: 15A Prescriptive Path:
If the Comfort Control strategy is selected to be ‘Natural
Ventilation’, then the contents of the cells B31 and D31
(under the heading 'Building Sealing') become invisible.
However the embedded dropdown input is still active in
the cell D31, and may affect the calculation of credits if
inadvertently a 'No' was present in cell D31. The error
would be hard to detect due to invisibility of the contents
of the cell D31.
It is suggested that the formula in cell D41 should be
rectified to ignore the content of D31, in the case if the
Natural Ventilation is selected in the cell D12.
Alternatively, some logical statement could be used to
disable the input of cell D31 if the case 'Natural
Ventilation' is selected for 'Comfort Control Strategy'.
D23-D26 become invisible too (but these cells have
dropdown input options Yes/No/NA). Once again, it
would be safer to use a remedy similar to that suggested
for the cells D31, D41 (above) instead of merely making
the relevant cells invisible.
Modelled Path
As noted above, GHG emission factors being used are
not current. There is also a multiple pathway calculator
worksheet, and it appears that the user is allowed to use
multiple pathways for each part of the floor area of the
single project site. The impact of unsynchronized
assumptions could be significant, e.g., if GBCA is using
2015 emission factors, and NatHERS is using 2018
factors, and the NABERS energy path and BASIX using
some other version. This could lead to different
outcomes or inconsistent results using different
pathways, given the inherent lack of transparency
regarding the underlying assumptions in the black-box of
the software being used.
We did not look into the details of the three worksheets,
namely 15B NatHERS Path, 15C BASIX Path, and 15D
NABERS Energy Path.
Peak electricity demand reduction
We don’t foresee any specific issues in this regard, as
the peak electricity demand reduction calculations are
based on the modelled scenario and the calculations of
peak electricity demand for the Reference project.
Sustainable transport calculator
Points awarded in the ‘Sustainable Transport’ credit can
be achieved using the Performance Pathway or a
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 27
Prescriptive Pathway (Figure 5). While this Calculator
determines the number of points awarded out of the
available points under the Performance Pathway for the
‘Sustainable Transport’ credit, there is a separate
calculator, namely, ‘Access by Public Transport
calculator’ to determine the number of respective subpoints under the Prescriptive Pathway. The latter is
discussed in the subsequent section, although it is a
subset of the former.
Figure 5 Sustainable transport: Roadmap of two alternative
pathways
The Sustainable Transport Calculator works by
comparing the Proposed Project with a Reference
Project against the criteria listed in Table 6.
Table 6 Green Star points for Sustainable Transport
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 28
The Reference Project characteristics are automatically
calculated within the Calculator. Mode share data is
determined using SA2 level data from the ABS 2011
Census Method of Travel to Work (MTWP) data.
Average trip length for the Reference Project is also
determined using the same data. Emissions intensity is
estimated using a report prepared by SKM MMA (2011)
while the local electricity grid’s emission intensity factors
are sourced from National Greenhouse Accounts
Factors, 2013. Points are achieved by comparing the
performance of the Proposed Project with the Reference
Project. This all sounds reasonable assuming that the
emission intensity factors would remain unchanged for a
time window of 2-5 years. However, the recent fast
growing proportion of renewable energy into the
electricity grid (to achieve Australia’s Renewable Energy
Target by 2020) would require faster updates on the grid
emission intensity factors in the calculator. Again, energy
data for the same year should be used across the
Calculator.
The ‘Walkable Neighborhoods’ criterion considers the
walkability score of the location of the project being
rated. Points are achieved using outputs from the Walk
Score® website (Walk Score, 2018). The walk score on
this website should be updated as soon as new
amenities and services develop near a location.
Access by Public transport calculator
The Access by Public Transport calculator was
developed by GBCA and AECOM to determine how well
a particular destination is served by public transport.
This Calculator is only to be used for projects
undertaking the Prescriptive Pathway under the
Sustainable Transport credit in Green Star Design & As
Built rating tool. The Prescriptive Pathway is an
alternative to the Performance Pathway in the
Sustainable Transport credit. The Calculator determines
the number of points awarded out of the three points
available for the Access by Public Transport criterion.
This involves use of a uniquely developed Public
Transport Accessibility Index (PTAI) to determine the
project’s accessibility, which reflects how well a
particular destination is served by public transport.
The measure of the accessibility relates to the number of
project occupants that can access the nominated
destination through the use of public transport within a
45 minute travel time threshold during morning peak
hour.
The 45 minute travel time threshold includes the
following:
Walk time to and from the public transport stop at
both ends of the trip.
In-vehicle time.
Wait/transfer times.
“Dead” time – the difference between the desired
arrival time and the actual arrival time.
The Calculator works by:
using Google Maps to search for the nominated
project address and allocate a statistical area
(SA2);
querying data sourced from Google Transit to
determine which other SA2s contain a
population of residents that can access the
nominated destination through the use of public
transport within a 45 minute travel time
threshold during morning peak hour, with the
exception of Victoria. The analysis for Victorian
based locations is based on AECOM’s analysis
of existing public transport services databases.
Dynamic data is not currently available for
Victorian based public transport networks;
using 2011 Census data to determine the
population of the SA2s that meet the design
parameters; and
comparing the total population that can access
the location within a 45 minute travelled time to
the total population in the Australian Bureau of
Statistics, Greater Capital City Statistical Areas
(GCCSA).
Points are assigned according the following proportion
percentages:
Table 7 Points against GCCSA proportions
Number
of points
0
1
2
3
Proportion
of
GCCSA
population
< 5%
5 to
10%
10 to
15%
> 15%
Due to the data being sourced from Google Transit
servers, there is a limit of three complete spreadsheet
calculations that can be run from any given IP address
per day.
Critiques and recommendations
We ran the calculator for a number of randomly chosen
locations Australia wide, and the output was excellent
and very informative. The underlying program code
might have much greater scope of application, e.g. in
other relevant research areas. However, the calculator
algorithms triggered a few concerns.
Does Google Transit still use the 2011 data? This is
certainly not the case (e.g. Adelaide Metro has updated
timetables and frequency of public transport several
times since 2011, and it is observed that the Google
Transit is actually using the most recent data feed). In
view of this, it is not reasonable to use SA2’s population
figures from 2011 Census data for the credit point
calculations. We recommend that the most recent
population estimates (or projections) should be used in
the calculations.
Another concern is that the sparsely populated SA2
region might be unfairly represented in comparison to
their densely populated counterparts. For example,
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 29
suppose that project site A is located in the vicinity of
sparsely populated SA2 regions and project site B is
located in the vicinity of densely populated SA2 regions,
and that site A and site B both fall under the same
Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA). Then
despite having a similar level of public transport
availability, site A might be missing out on credit points,
while site B would have achieved a good score.
The following advice is given in the calculator guide:
“For locations with lower populations, or less access
to public transport infrastructure it is not possible to
achieve a score above zero. Project teams should
consider using the ‘Performance Pathway’ to
demonstrate improvements in sustainable transport
for their project.”
Users should be advised of this somewhere near the
beginning of the Calculator Guidelines.
It can be seen that the 10 year range in the parentheses
varies across the locations. It might be robust enough in
itself. But if the user decided to use another set of 10
year data for averaging (for example most recent data
for 10 year daily average rainfall, say 2008-2018), it
could be very different to the daily average rainfall
obtained using a previous decade. Southern Oscillation
Index (SOI) values and other climate drivers (e.g. El
Niño and La Niña events) affect the rainfall patterns
across the continent. There is no clear mention in the
calculator or in the calculator guidelines about which 10
years to be selected. Should those be necessarily any
10 consecutive years? Selecting a decade having more
wet years than dry years might be beneficial to the
project in terms of credit score, because there would be
more rainwater/storm water available for use and reuse.
A particular decade should be specified.
Sustainable products calculator
Potable water calculator
The Potable Water Calculator spreadsheet (Design and
As Built) appears to have very detailed structure and
analysis regarding all types of water resources.
However, as the formulae in the cells are invisible
(hidden), we were unable to detect flaws (if there were
any) in the Calculator spreadsheet.
The Potable Water Calculator Guide (Design and As
Built) is excellently documented with well explained
formulae and clear user guidance. Run-off coefficients
for different roof surface types are sourced from BS
8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting systems – Code of
practice (now replaced by BS EN 16941-1:2018), and is
assumed to be the same in the Australian context. The
standard should be updated.
Application efficiencies of common irrigation systems are
assumed (no source mentioned). They appear to be
reasonable, though. Where the irrigation efficiency is
different from any of the pre-allocated values, the user is
allowed to alter the efficiency values manually, and in
that case, the user is required to submit additional
compliance documentation to prove that such efficiency
can be achieved.
The user is required to purchase certain climate data
(specific to the project site) from the Bureau of
Meteorology. The data required are the monthly average
dry-bulb temperature, monthly average humidity, daily
average rainfall and point potential evapotranspiration
data for the project location. While some of these data
are freely available at the BoM site, some might require
a purchase. The data sets purchased from the BoM
must form part of the project’s Green Star submission
documentation.
Daily rainfall data (10 years’ average) for a few selected
locations is provided in the calculator worksheet. It is
given for Melbourne (1998 - 2007), Sydney (1996 2005), Brisbane (1997 - 2006), Adelaide (1996 - 2005),
Hobart (1996 - 2005), Perth (1997 - 2006), Darwin (1996
- 2005), Canberra (1997 - 2006), Mackay (1991 - 2000)
and Townsville (1994 - 2003). Given that the climate is
changing, this data should be as current as possible.
Points are awarded based on the percentage value of
the products that meet one of the specified initiatives.
This is established by calculating the Project
Sustainability Value (PSV) and comparing it with the
Project Contract Value (PCV).
For each individual product, its Sustainability Value is
obtained by multiplying its dollar cost by a Sustainability
Factor (SF) that reflects the weighted benefit of the
initiative.
The projects’ overall Project Sustainability Value (PSV)
is then calculated as the combined value for all
compliant products on the project.
The only possible concern here was that the dollar value
of the individual products was taken into account.
Accordingly, the proposed project is better off using
recycled material for the costliest items than using
recycled cheaper items. This concern, however, is ruled
out after noting that the other sustainable aspects e.g.,
‘Life Cycle Impacts’, ‘Responsible Building Materials’ ,
‘Construction and Demolition Waste’ have been
adequately addressed under the Materials Category.
The calculator spreadsheet is available for the
subcategory ‘Sustainable Products’ only.
Ecological value calculator
In our first attempt, we evaluated the October 2015
version (Ecological Value Calculator 07102015.xlsx).
The calculator did not enforce the upper bound threshold
of the full available points (i.e. it was possible to obtain
more than three points calculated in some instances).
However, this issue has been fixed in the newer version
(Ecological Value Calculator_20160115.xlsx), which is
excellent. The logical test in the cell C22 for checking
Area Match is good, thus accordingly the points will not
be awarded where areas (Before and After) do not
match. It is acceptable for an increase in area, for
example, where vertical gardens are provided on the
site.
There are a few other issues present, though. One of the
issues is the criteria 'Remnant Native Vegetation’. If it
was already present on the project site, it will either
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 30
remain the same (or could be reduced) but certainly
cannot be further added on the same site. One cannot
grow it (has to be original existing vegetation on the
site). A logical/conditional checking statement should be
inserted in the calculator spreadsheet which ensures
user input (After) is the same as or less than the user
input (Before).
There is a nice worked example given in the Ecological
Value Calculator. We simulated a similar example using
exactly the same data except that it had 'Remnant
Native Vegetation’ absent throughout. Surprisingly, it
achieved full allocated points. This might suggest,
somewhat counterintuitively, that you are better off not
having 'Remnant Native Vegetation’ at all on your project
site than having it on the site and maintaining it as it is.
Interestingly, the presence of 'Remnant Native
Vegetation’ up-to 12 m2 would still allow the calculator to
award full points.
Before
Land Type
After
Area (m2)
Weighting
Score
Plan area Green wall
Hard surface
0.00
220
Exotic vegetation
0.05
100
Non-improved pastures
0.35
Planted native vegetation
0.50
Artificial water-bodies
0.50
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) < 5 years old
0.50
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) 5 – 10 years old
0.75
-
0.00
Area (m2)
Score
Plan area Green wall
180
-
0.00
5.00
-
0.00
0.00
-
0.00
0.00
100
50.00
-
0.00
40
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
20.00
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) > 10 years old
0.90
-
0.00
-
0.00
Remnant native vegetation
1.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
Natural water-bodies
1.00
Total
320
0.00
-
Ecological Value Score
320
0.02
Check Areas Match
TRUE
Total Change in Ecological Value
0.203
Points Achieved
5.00
3.0
0.00
-
70.00
0.22
Full points achieved.
Figure 6 Simulated example showing that one is better off not having remnant vegetation at all on the project site
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 31
Figure 7 The example provided in the Ecological value calculator
Before
Land Type
Hard surface
0.00
220
Exotic vegetation
0.05
100
Non-improved pastures
0.35
Planted native vegetation
0.50
Artificial water-bodies
0.50
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) < 5 years old
0.50
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) 5 – 10 years old
0.75
Regenerating native habitat (re-growth) > 10 years old
0.90
Remnant native vegetation
1.00
Natural water-bodies
1.00
Total
-
0.00
100
TRUE
Total Change in Ecological Value
0.194
180
-
0.00
0.00
0.00
-
0.00
0.00
100
-
0.00
40
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
0.00
-
100.00
-
100
0.00
-
105.00
0.25
Check Areas Match
Area (m2)
Score
Plan area Green wall
5.00
-
420
Ecological Value Score
Points Achieved
After
Area (m2)
Weighting
Score
Plan area Green wall
600
-
20.00
-
0.00
-
100.00
420
200.00
0.00
300
320.00
0.44
2.9
Figure 8 Adding the Green wall with extensive native vegetation
did not help achieve full points.
Another simulation was done (based on the same
example data, again) to explore how additional Green
Wall area affects the points. Interestingly, even if you
increase Green Wall with Native Vegetation,
hypothetically, by 600 m2 (this is quite unrealistic as the
horizontal area is much smaller; 420 m2), full points still
cannot be achieved (Figure 8). The same number of
points is awarded whether there is 500 m2 of Green wall
or 600 m2 of Green wall. This is because the
denominator in the ratio is increasing more rapidly than
the numerator, hence the ratio increases very slowly.
This might be discouraging to those who wish to
enhance the ecological value of their project site by
creating green roof or wall with growing Native
Vegetation on it. They might have some other
constraints on their floor area which might restrict them
to grow enough native vegetation there but they were
optimistic and enthusiastic for creating a green wall full
of native vegetation. Perhaps, re-allocate the weighting,
or re-define the formula which fairly takes into accounts
the Green Wall with native vegetation.
Ecological Value calculator (Communities)
This calculator requires significant improvements.
Perhaps, the similar layout as its counterpart in ‘Design
and As Built’ has would be helpful and transparent to the
user. There is no Green-wall input currently allowed in
the calculator worksheet, while it is mentioned in the
instruction worksheet.
Biodiversity Management Plan
As noted above, it is stated (under 29.2.1.2) that the
BMP must include at least a brief explanation of how the
project applicant can be at least 50% confident that the
net gain they are claiming for biodiversity gains is likely
to be achievable. But how do you measure “at least 50%
confident”?
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 32
Interviews
Two users of Green Star Communities, both qualified
GSAPs (Green Star Accredited Professionals) for
Communities, were interviewed (Green Building Council
of Australia, 2018). They had used the tool on separate
projects – in one case the use of the tool was complete
at the time of the interview (for the time being) and in the
other the project was mid-process. Their responses
follow.
Why was this tool chosen?
For one project the decision to ‘go green’ preceded the
decision to use Green Star Communities by 2 years, and
was made because the project was to be a
demonstration project, leading to better and widely
adopted sustainability practices. The use of Green Star
Communities was seen as a way of demonstrating this
leadership.
For the other project several reasons were given. The
developer’s director of sustainability was involved in the
development of Green Star tools and advocated their
use. The project’s masterplan, which preceded the
decision to use Green Star Communities, revolved
around green technologies, and broader issues of
sustainability, so the tool was seen as a good fit. Use of
the tool could be used for marketing. The tool provided a
neat way of integrating sustainability into the project
processes. The independent third party, and thorough,
recognition that certification to Green Star Communities
gives suited the client’s objectives.
Were you seeking a particular rating, and
why?
The minimum rating available is 4 Star (Best Practice)
and the maximum is 6 Star (World Leadership). Both
project teams actively targeted the middle of the range –
a 5 Star rating (Australian Excellence) – in one case as a
result of a project-team round-table, and in the other
because of the project team’s desire to be seen to be
leading other projects in SA by example.
One of the projects has achieved a 6 Star rating, partly
because announcement of the 5 Star minimum target led
to public and team pressure to do even better.
The other project had not been rated at the time of the
interview.
What other assessment tools were
considered?
For both projects, Enviro Development was considered.
One Planet Living (OPL) was also considered for one of
them, because the project’s original ‘feasibility report’
referenced the ten principles of OPL.
Neither the UK’s BREEAM Communities (BREEAM,
2017) nor the USA’s LEED Neighborhood Development
(USGBC, 2018) were considered, if only because GBCA
claims to have cherry-picked the best parts of both for
Green Star Communities. Of course, these schemes are
also geared to conditions in the UK and USA
respectively, rather than to those in South Australia, and
so would need to be adapted for use here, as they have
been adapted for use in other jurisdictions.
Is the site using PIM (precinct information
modelling)?
Neither project has used PIM. For one of the projects,
BIM (building information modelling) has been used for
many of the buildings and there had been engagement
with the Low Carbon Living CRC project RP2011: PIM –
An open digital information standard throughout the
urban development lifecycle (2014-2017), but this was
discontinued due to the amount of data required by that
team (Plume et al, 2017).
At what stages has the tool been used on the
projects so far?
For one project the early stages were carried out before
Green Star Communities was brought in. These stages
included feasibility and master-planning. Instead the
developer’s own sustainability framework was used,
feeding into the masterplan. This was all compatible with
Green Star Communities, training for which was carried
out during master-planning, and the project documents
needed to be organized for certification. This took 18
months. The tool was used in all subsequent stages.
For the other project, which has seven (mostly)
residential zones, Green Star Communities has been
used throughout master-planning, and beyond. At the
time of the interview, 1 zone was occupied, 2 were under
construction, and 3 were at initial design. One third of
the credits were ready for certification, with around 20
points achieved.
For the first project is was observed that recertification of
the project will be required every 5 years, until the
project is complete. Precinct-scale projects will often
have extended timelines, and so face this recertification
issue. By way of example, for this particular project, a
residential component has been recently approved, and
the issue of contaminated land has consequently been
raised – this may affect recertification.
Which version did you use?
Both projects picked and mixed from the various
versions of the tool that were issued during the design
process. In one case Pilot versions v0.0, v0.1 and v0.2
were all used, and in the other Pilot versions v0.0, v0.1
and v0.2, and release Version 1 have been used. For
this project, Green Star Communities was still being
used, as the interview was conducted mid-process.
What kinds of organization have used the tool
on this project?
One user told us that the consultant architects were not
familiar with Green Star, whereas the consultant
services engineering were. Various developer
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 33
departments also contributed, as did the consultant
contractors.
Accordingly, the first user could answer questions about
all parts of the tool, but the other could not.
For the other project, of around 15 consultants on the
project, some have contributed to the Green Star
certification process, e.g. the consultant traffic
engineers. Others have not.
Categories and credits
Familiar parts of the tool
Familiarity was a function of the position in the project
process at the time of the interview. For one user, with
the process complete, familiarity was with all parts, but
for the other, with the process unfinished, there was no
familiarity with the Submission Templates, Ecological
Value Calculator and Submission Checklist. These had
not yet been used.
Both users felt that the allocation of Credits across the
main categories, and the subcategories, was skewed,
both with respect to the number of credits available, and
to the effort involved. Both felt that Governance credits
reward accepted practice, and so achieving them is
more of a formality. Green Star ratings begin with 4
Stars, which is meant to be Australian Best Practice, not
‘average practice’. Governance – accepted practice –
should not be worth so many points.
Table 8 summarizes the perceived priority and ease
across the main categories.
Table 8 Priority and ease of use of Green Star Communities categories
Category
Green Star: Priority
(by Credits)
User two:
Priority
User one:
Priority
User two: Ease
User one:
Ease
Environment
1 (29)
1
-
Not known yet
Difficult
Governance
2 (28)
4
-
Easy
Easy
Liveability
3 (22)
2
-
Easier for a big
project
-
Economic
prosperity
4 (21)
3
-
-
-
Innovation
5 (10)
5
-
Credits too high, too
undefined
Too
undefined
Submission guidelines
Submission templates
One interviewee observed that these Guidelines are the
‘bible’ – users of the tool must understand them. But at
300 pages long (v1.1 is over 400 pages long), for both
users the use of the guidelines was largely self-taught.
However, there was some interpretation provided from
GBCA – including a workshop in the early stages of one
of the projects with other users of the tool in Adelaide –
and technical clarifications and responses to Credit
Interpretation Requests.
These first became available during the project process,
so were not used in either project. Instead the two
project teams developed their own templates. However,
one of the users had tried to use one of the Green Star
Communities templates, but found it too much of a
straight-jacket, constraining the response. It was thought
that the templates might help assessors, but they made
the process harder for the users. It did not help that the
GBCA kept changing them once they had been
introduced – presumably they have now stabilized.
It was noted that the credits can be hard to find in the
Guidelines, and colour coding was a suggested solution.
Scorecard: Excel spreadsheet
It was noted that some credits require experts to be
involved, which is to be expected. It was also noted
there were issues with the formulae – they were ‘clunky’
to use, with the result that the assessors returned one as
it had not been filled out correctly, due to ‘human error’.
Both agreed that the Input sheet is adequate, that the
Instructions are clear, and that the Scorecard has given
expected results, and is fair.
One user said that the process is transparent, but the
user more experienced in the Scorecard said that it was
not, and did not like being locked out of the formulae, for
example.
However, one interviewee noted later that he ‘found the
templates good when completing the later credits’.
Calculator: Ecological Value
One interviewee had not used this yet, but noted that it
was compulsory. The other had used it, but considered it
a flawed credit. The user is locked out of the formulae.
The hidden formulae were wrong – GBCA rejigged the
Calculator, but it did not work. It was not clear what
GBCA was trying to achieve through this credit. In spite
of the effort put into it, the team only managed to score
0.1 out of 1 possible credit. Errors in this Calculator
should be rectified.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 34
Green Star Communities (according to the PRECINX
website), there would be no need to adapt the Green
Star Design & As Built calculators for these topics. But,
Green Star Communities v1.1 makes no mention of
PRECINX.
Did you expect other Calculators to be a part
of the tool? If so, which ones? If not, why not?
Both users thought that there should be more
Calculators in the tool. One user thought most of those
available for Green Star Design & As Built could be
adapted, and that they were not flawed. The other
specifically suggested the use of the Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Calculator, and perhaps the Sustainable
Transport Calculator. In any event, more Calculators
should be added.
Toolkit components
One of the interviewees characterized the various
components of Green Star Communities as shown in
Table 9.
However, it was noted that because Kinesis PRECINX
deals with energy consumption and greenhouse gas
emissions, and since this tool can be used to report for
Checklist: Project inception
Categories & credits
Submission guidelines
Scorecard
Submission templates
Calculator: Ecological value
Checklist: Submission
Table 9 An assessment of the Toolkit components
Did the Toolkit have no influence
at all?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did it have a beneficial
influence?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Did its use backfire in some
ways?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Did the Toolkit encourage a tickbox approach in lieu of good
design?
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Did it encourage good design?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Did it facilitate good design?
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Did it encourage designers to
consider issues that wouldn’t
otherwise be considered?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Did it encourage designers to
obtain data they might not have
otherwise obtained?
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Did it encourage designers to
ignore some issues or data they
would normally not have
ignored?
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 35
Recommendations
Table 72, Greenhouse gas emission factors by
fuel type, should use, or enable the use of,
current emission factors.
Changes to Green Star Communities
The Proposed Project and the Reference Project
should use the same base energy mix data.
Then, to be fair for all the proposed projects
(past, present and future), GBCA should revise
the point allocation criteria together with
percentage improvement.
This research has led to a number of recommendations
for improvement to the GBCA Green Star Communities
tool. These are generally presented in the sequence
they are made in the report, as follows:
Green Star Communities should incorporate an
energy-mix weighting for the points awarded to
reducing GHG emissions. Where the energy
mix is high in fossil fuels, reducing demand
would be worth more Credits than where the
energy mix is low in fossil fuels (and high in
renewables).
In terms of these recommendations, consider
how they have been addressed by other
environmental assessment schemes, such as
BREEAM and LEED, if at all.
More Green Star tools should be developed, to
complete the object hierarchy from Districts to
Products.
The tools adjacent to each other along the object
hierarchy should map to each other, at least in
terms of content and structure. Ideally there
should also be a functional (i.e. digital) mapping
to enable automatic aggregation and
disaggregation.
Consider the adoption of Uniclass 2015, and its
schema, across the Green Star tools.
The Green Star tools should be able to draw the
information they need from the digital
information model, and to feed design decisions
back to the model – a bi-directional digital
linkage.
In particular, GBCA should pursue compatibility
with IESVE 2018 and OneClick LCA, in order to
connect the Green Star entity-level and
precinct-level tools to the building information
model (BIM).
GBCA should liaise with NATSPEC, and NBS in
Australia, to ensure that relevant Green Star
content is included in Australian national master
specification systems, as far as practicable.
Environment and Calculators
Correct the error in Integrated Water Cycle
formula 24A.1.2.
Detailed guidance should be provided for the
GHG Strategy Performance Pathway. Ensure
that Green Star Communities users can use the
Design and As Built GHG Emissions Calculator
Guide. Users should not be locked out of the
formula cells. The Calculator spreadsheet
should be able to be adapted for each building
type, to create a suite of Calculator tools for
Green Star Communities.
The point for District Heating and Cooling
Connection should be given only if the energy
is from renewable energy sources, such as
geothermal.
For the Life Cycle Assessment Performance
Pathway, remove the option of the Actual
Reference Project for comparing LCA impacts.
Under 26.A.0.3.1 and 26B.0.3.1 Timber Cost,
clarify the meaning of ‘the cost of an equivalent
new item’.
Under 26.A.0.3.2 and 26.B.0.3.2 Formwork, allow
timber formwork to be claimed as reused
irrespective of whether it was previously used in
the same project or in a different project.
Under Sustainable Transport and Movement,
correct a couple of errors: Under ‘Calculating
AIBSPP for transport routes’ Table X should be
Table 27B.2.2 (?). The afternoon peak period
should commence at 4:30 pm, not 4:30 am.
Under Ecological Value, the dropdown list in the
Calculator should allow input regarding Vertical
Gardens and Green Roofs. The weighting for
Vertical Gardens and Green Roofs land type
must be clearly stated in the ecological value
calculator as well in the Submission Guidelines.
The calculation error in the ‘Calculator’,
whereby the ‘before’ and ‘after’ areas for
Planted native vegetation may not match,
resulting in an error in the calculation, should
be rectified.
Under Ecological Value, investigate and resolve
the various ambiguities identified in the text
about Table 29.1 Land Types and Relative
Weightings.
For the Biodiversity Management Plan (BMP)
29.2.1.2, clarify how one is to measure “at least
50% confident”.
Hyperlinks should be both relevant and current,
or removed otherwise.
Under Heat Island Effect, clarify the issue of
possible double counting for vegetation, green
roofs and water bodies also in Ecological
Value.
Most of the calculators (and guides) from Green
Star Design and As Built should be adapted for
the credit calculations for Communities.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 36
For overshadowing, how is the mid-height of the
window defined for buildings with more than
one floor?
GHG Calculator – Prescriptive Path: It is
suggested that the formula in cell D41 should
be rectified to ignore the content of D31, in the
case if the Natural Ventilation is selected in the
cell D12. Alternatively, some logical statement
could be used to disable the input of cell D31 if
the case 'Natural Ventilation' is selected for
'Comfort Control Strategy'. Ditto for cells D23D26.
For the GHG Calculator Multiple pathway
calculator worksheet, the energy mixes
assumed for each pathway must be the same.
For the Sustainable Transport Calculator, energy
data for the same year should be used
throughout.
The walk score on the Walk Score website
should be updated as soon as new amenities
and services develop near a location.
The Access by Public Transport calculator should
use the most recent population estimates (or
projections) in the calculations.
The advice regarding locations with lower
populations should be located somewhere near
the beginning of the Calculator Guidelines.
Replace BS 8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting
systems – Code of practice with EN 169411:2018, assuming this applies in Australian
conditions.
Rainfall data in the Potable Water Calculator
should be as current as possible, particularly
given that the climate has been changing over
the last decade or so, and will continue to do
so. The decade should be specified.
For the Ecological Value Calculator, perhaps, reallocate the weighting, or re-define the formula
which fairly takes into accounts the Green Wall
with native vegetation.
Interviews
The Governance category should not be worth so
many points.
Colour coding for Credits is suggested in the
Submission guidelines.
Errors in the Ecological Value Calculator should
be rectified (echoes recommendations above).
More Calculators should be added, particularly
the Green Star Design & As Built Greenhouse
Gas Emissions Calculator, and perhaps the
Sustainable Transport Calculator (echoes
recommendations above).
Further research
As for further research, similar studies of parallel tools
used in Australia could be carried out, forming a suite of
critiques – in effect extending Jackson (2016). These
tools are:
UN Global Compact Cities Programme: Circle of
Sustainability (Circles of Sustainability, 2018).
UDIA: Enviro Development (EnviroDevelopment
& UDIA, n.d.).
Living Future Institute of Australia: Living
Community Challenge (LFIA, 2017).
BioRegional: One Planet Communities (Desai,
2009).
A press release on 2 March 2016 announced that the
GBCA, the Living Future Institute of Australia, and the
International Living Future Institute will be working to
align relevant Green Star credits and Living Building
Challenge Imperatives, but this does not appear to
extend to alignment between Green Star Communities
credits and the Living Community Challenge (GBCA,
2016). Perhaps it should.
The tools originally intended to be studied in this
research project – Kinesis: CCAP Precinct (PRECINX)
and Melbourne University: MUtopia – could also be
studied in this way. Both serve Green Star Communities.
Other such tools include Energy Inspection: AccuRate
(Energy Inspection, 2018) and BERS Pro (Energy
Inspection, 2018), though these have been reviewed on
several occasions, as part of their own improvement
cycles (see Delsante 2005, for example).
Finally, other tools in the GBCA Green Star suite could
be studied, with a view to assessing the extent to which
they operate as a consistent family.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 37
References
38
Arnott, D. (2016) ‘Spot the difference’, Building Connection 32, Spring, pp. 34-35.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012) Method of Travel to Work (MTWP), ABS. Online at:
http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/statementspersonmtwp?opendocument&navpos=430 (accessed 25
October 2018).
Beck, A. (2012) ‘Inside the Green Star Communities Ratings Tool’, The Urban Developer, June.
Bionova Ltd (2018) OneClick LCA. Online at: www.oneclicklca.com/construction/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Bioregional Australia (2018) Category archives: Endorsed, Bioregional Australia. Online at:
http://bioregional.com.au/category/projects/endorsed/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Boltz, F. & A. Granlund (2014) Building resilience to the shocks and stresses of climate change, December 15. Online at:
www.rockefellerfoundation.org/blog/building-resilience-shocks-stresses/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
BRE (2016) BREEAM UK New Construction non-domestic buildings technical manual 2014: Pol 01 Impact of
refrigerants. Online at: www.breeam.com/BREEAMUK2014SchemeDocument/content/12_pollution/pol01.htm (accessed
31 August 2018).
BRE (2017) BREEAM Communities: Technical manual 1.2, BRE, 14 August. Online at:
www.breeam.com/discover/technical-standards/communities/ (accessed 25 October 2018).
BRE (2015) Green guide to specification. Online at: https://www.bre.co.uk/greenguide/podpage.jsp?id=2126 (accessed
25 October 2018).
BRE (2018) ‘CEEQUAL (2018) coming soon’, BRE. Online at: www.ceequal.com/ (accessed 25 October 2018).
BRE IMPACT. Online at: www.impactwba.com/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
British Standards Institute (2009) BS 8515:2009 Rainwater harvesting systems – Code of practice, BSI.
British Standards Institute (2016) PAS 2080:2016 Carbon management in infrastructure, BSI.
British Standards Institute (2018) BS EN 16941-1:2018 On-site non-potable water systems. Systems for the use of
rainwater, BSI.
CEN (2012) EN 15804:2012 Sustainability of construction works – Environmental product declarations – Core rules for
the product category of construction products, CEN.
CEN (2018) EN 16941-1:2018 On-site non-potable water systems. Systems for the use of rainwater, CEN.
Circles of Sustainability (2018) Circles of Sustainability. Online at: www.circlesofsustainability.org/ (accessed 31 August
2018).
City of Melbourne (2016) 100 resilient cities: Resilient Melbourne. Online at: www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/aboutmelbourne/melbourne-profile/Pages/100-resilient-cities.aspx (accessed 31 August 2018)
Clark, B. (2010) ‘NBS and BREEAM’, NBS, 1 November (archived). Online at: www.thenbs.com/knowledge/nbs-andbreeam (accessed 31 August 2018).
Clean Energy Council (2018) Clean energy Australia: Report 2018, CEC, Melbourne. Online at:
www.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/policy-advocacy/reports/clean-energy-australia-report.html (accessed 31 August 2018).
CRC Low-Carbon Living (2018) RP3033: Mainstreaming Low Carbon Housing Precincts – The White Gum Valley Living
Laboratory. Online at: www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/research/program-3-engaged-communities/rp3033mainstreaming-low-carbon-housing-precincts-%E2%80%93-white-gum (accessed 31 August 2018).
Criterion Planners (2014) A global survey of urban sustainability rating tools, Portland, USA. Online at:
http://crit.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/criterion_planners_sustainability_ratings_tool.pdf (accessed 31 August 2018).
Delsante, A. (2005) ‘Is the new generation of building energy rating software up to the task? – A review of AccuRate’,
ABCB Conference: Building Australia’s future, Surfers Paradise, 11-15 September.
Department of the Environment and Energy (2017), Australian Energy Update 2017, DEE, Canberra.
Department of the Environment and Energy (2018) National Greenhouse Accounts Factors – July 2018, DEE, Canberra.
Desai, P. (2009) One Planet Communities: A real-life guide to sustainable living, Wiley.
DGNB GmbH (2018) DGNB System, DGNB. Online at: www.dgnb-system.de/en/schemes/scheme-overview/ (accessed
25 October 2018).
DIICCSR&TE (2013) Australian National Greenhouse Accounts: NGA Factors, Commonwealth of Australia.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 39
Energy Inspection (2018a) AccuRate Sustainability 2.3.3.13. Online at:
www.energyinspection.com.au/products/accurate/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Energy Inspection (2018b) BERS PRO V4.3.0.X (3.13). Online at: www.energyinspection.com.au/products/berspro/
(accessed 31 August 2018).
EnviroDevelopment & Urban Development Institute of Australia (n.d.) EnviroDevelopment: National Technical Standards
Version 2. Online at: http://www.envirodevelopment.com.au/01_cms/details.asp?ID=93 (accessed 31 August 2018).
EnviroDevelopment (2011) EnviroDevelopment. Online at: www.envirodevelopment.com.au/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Environment Victoria (2017) Clean energy boom! What the Victorian Renewable Energy Target means for Victoria.
Online at: https://environmentvictoria.org.au/2017/09/19/clean-energy-boom-victorian-renewable-energy-target-meansvictoria/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
eTool Global (2016) ‘eToolLCD is IMPACT compliant’, eTool Global. Online at: https://etoolglobal.com/eblog/mediarelease/etoollcd-is-impact-compliant/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Gelder, J. (2003) ‘PRO 17 & 18: Green specifying – The role of national master specification systems 1 & 2’, AIA
Environment Design Guide.
Gelder, J. (2011) ‘Sustainability and the new NBS’. Online at:
www.thenbs.com/topics/Environment/articles/sustainabilityAndTheNewNBS.asp (no longer accessible).
Gelder, J. (2018) ‘Classification and Transport for New South Wales’, May, online at: www.thenbs.com.au/aboutnbs/press-releases/classification-and-transport-for-new-south-wales (accessed 14 September 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2013) The value of Green Star: A decade of environmental benefits, GBCA.
Green Building Council of Australia (2015) Green Star Communities: Project Inception Checklist, GBCA. Online at:
https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/communities/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2015) Introducing Green Star, GBCA.
Green Building Council of Australia (2016) Green Star Communities v1.1: Submission Guidelines, GBCA. Online at:
www.gbca.org.au/shop/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2016) Green Star Communities: Scorecard, GBCA. Online at:
https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/communities/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2016) New green building partnership to push best practice boundaries. Online at:
https://new.gbca.org.au/news/gbca-media-releases/new-green-building-partnership-push-best-practice-boundaries/
(accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2016) Cross claim approach: Green Star – Communities and Green Star – Design &
As Built, GBCA, September. Online at: https://new.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-system/communities/ (accessed 24
October 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2018) Accredited Professional Directory. Online at: www.gbca.org.au/people/
(accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Building Council of Australia (2018) Case studies, GBCA. Online at: www.gbca.org.au/advocacy/state-andterritory-government-activities/case-studies/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Haapio, A. (2012) ‘Towards sustainable urban communities’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review 32/1, pp. 165169.
Handley, M. & A. Moman (2015) ‘Bringing clarity to complex problems: The Sustainable Systems Integration Model
(SSIM™)’, AECOM. Online at: https://energyhuntsville.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/AECOM-Presentation.pdf
(accessed 25 October 2018).
Hassell (2012) ‘AILA award for HASSELL envisioning and sustainability system’, Hassell: Archive, 20 August. Online at:
www.hassellstudio.com/en/cms-news/2012 (accessed 25 October 2018).
Holden, D. & J. Young (2015) CCAP Precinct + Green Star Communities, Kinesis.
IES-VE (2014) IMPACT Introduction Video, YouTube, 23 July. Online at:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zF18gRR1O0&feature=youtu.be (accessed 25 October 2018).
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure (2018) Envision: Driving success in sustainable infrastructure projects’, ISI. Online
at: https://sustainableinfrastructure.org/envision/ (accessed 25 October 2018).
ISO (2015) ISO 12006-2:2015 Building construction – Organization of information about construction works- Framework
for classification, ISO.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 40
Jackson, S. (2016) ‘A summary of urban design tools for application in Australia’, Environment Design Guide 84 SJ,
February.
Kinesis (2018) CCAP Precinct (PRECINX). Online at: https://kinesis.org/ccap-precinct/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
LEED (2018) LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development, LEED, 2 July. Online at: www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4neighborhood-development-current-version (accessed 25 October 2018).
Living Future Institute Australia (2017) Living building challenge. Online at: https://living-future.org.au/living-buildingchallenge/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Low Carbon Living CRC (2017) RP3033: Mainstreaming low carbon housing precincts – The White Gum Valley Living
Laboratory, LCL CRC, Sydney. Online at: www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/research/program-3-engagedcommunities/rp3033-mainstreaming-low-carbon-housing-precincts-%E2%80%93-white-gum (accessed 31 August 2018).
Metal Architecture (2013) ‘ARCOM to support USGBC’s LEED v4’, Metal Architecture: Daily news, 19 November. Online
at: www.metalarchitecture.com/daily-news/arcom-to-support-usgbcs-leed-v4 (accessed 25 October 2018).
Morris, A., J. Zuo, Y. Wang, Y. & J. Wang (2018) ‘Readiness for sustainable community: A case study of Green Star
Communities’, Journal of Cleaner Production 173, 1 February, pp. 308-317.
Morton, A. (2018) ‘South Australia on track to meet 75% renewables target Liberals promised to scrap’, The Guardian,
25 July. Online at: www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/25/south-australia-to-hit-75-renewables-target-by-2025liberal-energy-minister-says (accessed 31 August 2018).
Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV) (2018) Built Environment Sustainability Scorecard (BESS). Online at:
http://bess.net.au (accessed 31 August 2018).
Musgrave, M. (2010) ‘Envirodevelopment: Sustainability accreditation from the development industry’, Planning News
36/5, June, p. 11.
NBS (2018) Uniclass 2015, NBS, 7 September. Online at: https://toolkit.thenbs.com/articles/classification (accessed 31
August 2018).
NATSPEC (2014) ‘TR 01 Specifying ESD’, NATSPEC, April. Online at: www.natspec.com.au/resources/techreport
(accessed 31 August 2018).
Newton, P., D. Marchant, J. Mitchell, J. Plume, S. Seongwon, S. & R. Roggema (2013) Performance assessment of
urban precinct design: A scoping study. Low Carbon Living CRC, August.
Newton, P.W. (2017) ‘Innovation for a sustainable low carbon built environment’, Procedia Engineering 180, pp. 16-32.
Parkes, D., G. Newell & D. Cheal (2003) ‘Assessing the quality of native vegetation: The ‘habitat hectares’ approach’,
Ecological Management & Restoration 4, Supplement 1, 24 February, pp. S29-S38.
Plant, T. (2007) ‘Inspiring and delivering sustainable developments’, Australian Planner 44/4, pp. 14-15.
Plume, J., J. Mitchell, D, Marchant & P. Newton (2017) RP2011: Precinct Information Modelling: Position paper, Low
Carbon Living CRC, Sydney.
RIBA Enterprises (2018) National BIM Report 2018, NBS, Newcastle upon Tyne.
RIBA Enterprises (2018) theNBS.com.au (NBS Australia). Online at: www.thenbs.com.au/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Rogmans, T. & M. Ghunaim (2016) ‘A framework for evaluating sustainability indicators in the real estate industry’,
Ecological Indicators 66, July, pp. 603-611.
Sharifi, A. & A. Murayama (2013) ‘A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38, pp. 73–87.
Sharifi, A. (2016) ‘From Garden City to Eco-urbanism: The quest for sustainable neighborhood development’,
Sustainable Cities and Society 20, January, pp. 1–16.
SKM MMA (2011) Australian Transport Emissions Projections to 2050 v1, 9 February.
Thomas, J. (2012) ‘MUtopia – A sustainable vision for cities’, The Melbourne Engineer, 14 August. Online at:
https://themelbourneengineer.eng.unimelb.edu.au/2012/08/mutopia-a-sustainable-vision-for-cities/ (accessed 31 August
2018).
Transport for New South Wales (2018) Digital Engineering, TfNSW. Online at: www.transport.nsw.gov.au/digitalengineering (accessed 31 August 2018).
UNEP (2018) Montreal Protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer, Ozone Secretariat, UNEP. Online at:
http://ozone.unep.org/montreal-protocol-substances-deplete-ozone-layer/79705/5 (accessed 31 August 2018).
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 41
Urban Land Institute (2015) Building healthy places toolkit: Strategies for enhancing health in the built environment,
Washington DC, ULI.
US Green Building Council (USGBC) (2018) LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development. Online at:
www.usgbc.org/resources/leed-v4-neighborhood-development-current-version (accessed 31 August 2018).
Venou, A. (2014) Investigation of the ‘BREEAM Communities’ tool with respect to urban design, Stockholm, KTH.
Walk Score (2018) Walk Score. Online at: www.walkscore.com/ (accessed 31 August 2018).
Younger, M. et al (2008) ‘The built environment, climate change, and health: Opportunities for co-benefits’, American
Journal of Preventive Medicine 35/5, pp. 517-526.
Green Star Communities rating tool: An assessment 42