Environmental labels and certificates are widely seen as a tool to provide greener buildings. Corporates, hotels and developers sought to achieve such certificates in varies level from bronze, silver, gold to platinum. In one page summarize the different critiques given by Abdalla et al 2011 and Tolksdorf et al 2014. In your 2nd page, and as per the discussion in class and the short video, explain where do you stand in relation to the usefulness of such certification system.
|Agree||Somehow Disagree||Strongly Disagree|
- Strongly Agree (4): means you believe it is a step forward and better than nothing
- Strongly Disagree (1): means you think it is useless and miss leading and many other un certified buildings equally green
There are many benefits of environmental labels and certificates, however these programs are not without flaws. Tolksdorf et al 2014 note that there are three main issues with how the certification process works: the certification process can be “gamed”, the process is difficult and expensive and it ignores the physical and social context of the building.
The system can be “gamed” due to the ability to obtain points for easy items such as installing a bike rack. To gain the points there is no requirement to promote biking by installing showers, lockers or educational programs. It is easy for developers to stack up “easy” points with this type of system. It appears that with the new weighted system there is more consideration for how points can be earned and more weight given to bigger undertakings such as building on a reclaimed brownfield site.
Although building sustainably often has a heavy input cost it has been proven that these costs are reclaimed in numerous ways. Investing in energy efficient equipment will pay off over time and often there are government incentives to help offset the costs during purchase. Tolksdorf et al, also explains that in most cases the developer can sell the building for a much higher cost than a “regular” building due to the marketability of a green and sustainable building.
One of the biggest issues about the certification process is that is is an isolated evaluation of the building and site. Social, historical and geography are not considered when assigning points. While I was at the University of Vermont a new student building was build to LEED standards yet a huge glass atrium was built that faces North. Especially in Vermont where the winters are harsh and cold a design flaw such as this should have been taken into consideration. Tolksdorf et al, gives the example of building a LEED certified building that is built in the middle of nowhere in the desert. Without taking into account the existing conditions and site of the building the certification gives false values to a building that can actually be detrimental to the environment.
There are limited pre-requisites for developers to meter and record energy and water savings before and after construction. There is also no monitoring after the building has been completed and it is being used. Abdalla et al 2011 also emphasize that scores given at the design phase do not dictate outcome post-construction. In the example provided in the video the Bank of America building was consuming large amounts of electricity after it was built due to the servers. There was no consideration for what the building would be used for or how it could be designed to help reduce the energy that would be used once it was in use.
Another interesting aspect that Abdalla et al 2011 discussed is that project scale is relevant to success and many of the techniques used for environmental efficiency only work at medium or large scale. This makes it difficult for small homes or neighborhoods to adapt the same techniques that can be used for larger projects. Abdalla et al, also want a focus on project management and project budget to play a part in the certification. I feel that these are minor details that are not as important as the other critiques that were brought up about the certification process.
I strongly agree with the usefulness of LEED certification systems. They are not perfect systems, but as the paper noted the certification system in the United States was based on reducing negative aspects of building and construction. LEED is starting to shift to be more based on promoting good ideas and better building techniques instead of just reducing the negative aspects.
The LEED system has evolved since it was started in 1998 and is continually evolving to address the issues that have developed. It is true that there are ways to “game” the system and there will always be people or corporations who will try to find the easiest way to make money without actually caring about the environmental issues at hand. I agree with the video that the main issue does not lay with the certification process, but is more of a result of corporate greed and a lack of progressive policy.
Another reason I am in favor of these certification processes is that they educate and bring to the forefront both the environmental issues caused by construction and the possible solutions that are available. These certifications push innovation and industry to create better building techniques and standards. I am very interested to know if the LEED certification has helped to raise the baseline for building codes across the country.
With any process or system there will be issues that occur especially as the system is developing, but we should not completely dismiss the certification because of these small flaws. Instead we should focus on the benefits and work to alter the system continually as the market and technologies evolve. There also needs to be policy to help support these types of certifications instead of just relying on the free market to shape the outcome.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is the video we watched today:
Many countries developed and applied Environmental Assessment Tools (EAT) to build eco-friendly buildings worldwide. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the United States, Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan, Qatar Sustainability Assessment System (QSAS) in Qatar, Green Mark in Singapore, and Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED) in South Korea. EAT assign scores to projects using some sustainability aspects (i.e., energy consumption, environment and ecology, technology, social characters, etc.) according to design and realization documents and evidence (Abdalla, 2011).
Abdalla et al. evaluate to what extent EAT can predict the actual project outcomes as assessed in the post-occupancy phase. Authors focus on evaluating Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREAAM), which is the first EAT and most widely used to address sustainability issues such as water, energy efficiency, material and resources, and indoor environmental quality. But cultural and market diversities influence the rating and weighting system of EAT. Authors conclude that the score given by BREEAM at the design phase cannot ensure proper quality outcomes in the use phase. I agree with their conclusion and appreciate their effort to overcome data scarcity by interviewing key figures of the six projects. However, I think six sustainable urban development projects are insufficient to evaluate BREEAM adequately.
Tolksdorf et al. looked at the advantages and disadvantages of LEED as a certification system in the context of environmental sustainability. This article provides more specific eco-friendly habitat and how this benefits the users of the building. Some people argue that the eco-friendly construction is costly and certification processes are burdensome. This article explicitly explains the benefit of LEED so that readers understand reasons for implementing LEED. For example, according to a study commissioned by the state of California, certification resulted in increasing the construction cost by $4 per square foot. However, due to the reduction in operating costs, employee absenteeism, and turnover, along with increased productivity, the buildings earned a profit over the first 20 years of $49 per square foot. I agree with the Tolksdorf that act of embracing environmental sustainability and enforce eco-friendly practices attaches a positive, conscientious label to those involved. I would recommend authors to include other EAT examples used in the US to support reasons for choosing LEED out of many different EAT.
South Korea used BRREEAM certification of sustainable measures for the first time in 2013. This building featured integrated solar panels on the roof, roof gardens, plumbed-in water cooler, rainwater collection for irrigation of landscaping, etc. We use BREEAM and LEED but also have our own EAT known as G-SEED. Department of Environment (DOE) in South Kore initially developed G-SEED in 2003. Their three primary goals are to sustain (a) productive soil and land use, (b) air and water quality protection, and (c) carbon dioxide emission reduction. So far 3,923 buildings in South Korea have G-SEED certification, and nowadays DOE requires new public buildings to obtain G-SEED certification.
I “Agree (3)” to the usefulness of certification systems because they are a step forward and better than nothing. I strongly agree that the current development should not harm future generations and we have responsibilities to promote energy efficient and eco-friendly practices in commercial, residential, and the construction in the United States (Tolksdorf, 2014). One way to do this is through certification system which brings awareness to many people. Therefore, we should not ignore the positives that EAT brings.
The short clip called “The Resident: Why LEED is a joke” is about the Bank of America (BoA) tower in New York City, which opened up in 2010. At first, people thought this building was one of the most environmentally responsible high-rise office building. Two years later, New York City released data revealing that the BoA tower releases more greenhouse gases and uses more energy per square than any office building in Manhattan of its size. By implementing green building materials, light dimmers, and installing bike racks, BoA earned LEED certification when the points accumulated. BoA building, businesses have found their way to exploit it and to use it to their advantage, not the environment. I think one of the biggest flaws in this certification system is that builders are not responsible for how their tenants will use the building after buildings receive LEED certification.
I think EAT should be responsible for monitoring before-after the EAT implementation or have an expiration date for certification. Maybe a few years later any building permit issued will be abandoned and invalid unless the building owners renew the certification. Other words, BREEAM or LEED certification should not be a life-long permit. Certifiers should come up with good recertification ideas to convince building owners to go through the recertification process and renew the certification by sustaining or improving in an eco-friendly manner. I think the recertification process should have different categories that take climate or environmental change or technology improvement into account. Certifiers should monitor certified buildings regularly and award building owners if they keep their structure environmentally sustainable for a more extended period.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Environmental labels have the potential to provide significant benefits to the environment by setting green building standards and eventually normalizing the need to consider the environmental impact of construction projects. However, so far while the adoption of an environmental label system is a step in the right direction, there have been practices or lack of procedural requirements that diminish the impact environmental label systems are meant to have. One concern is at what point environmental assessment tools should be incorporated in the building process. Abdalla et al 2011 discusses whether environmental assessment tools, which measure the performance levels of buildings, can predict actual project outcomes. Abdalla et al explains that assessment tools are often employed during the design and construction phase of projects and no assessment is made once a project is complete. Abdalla studies the outcome of six sustainable urban development projects, which employed environmental assessment tools in their design and found that even the buildings that met certification standards did not produce the desired environmental outcomes.
Tolksdorf et al 2014 assesses the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certification (LEED) specifically. Tolksdorf ideates the following problems with LEED:
(1) The LEED point system, which only requires 40 out of 100 points to acquire certification, encourages builders to “game” the system. This structure allocates the same amount of points to quick and easy “green” amenities that don’t provide real environmental value that it does to investments that generate renewable energy or decrease water usage, for example.
(2) LEED is difficult and expensive to implement which poses issues especially for small-scale projects.
(3) LEED building evaluation often ignores context and performance. Whether a building is sustainable or not is not only due to the building itself but also on whether it contributes or detracts from the sustainability of its location. Additionally, it is important to consider how buildings are used. The benefits of using certain materials to construct a building for example are almost cancelled out if the building will house activity that has high long-lasting environmental costs.
(4) As LEED certification becomes more mainstream, attaining certification will be just another requirement, putting even less emphasis on its true purpose.
Tolksdorf mentions that the latest iteration of the LEED certification attempts to address some of these problems by adopting additional impact categories such as whether a building contributes to reversing global climate change or helps improve human health. Tolksdorf also points to the benefits of green buildings such as their ability to reduce energy and water usage, lower operating and maintenance costs, as well as contribution sot enhanced occupant productivity and health. Tolksdorf also found that LEED label buildings have a positive effect on occupancy level.
I think that certification systems such as LEED are useful, despite the need for improvement in how they are implemented and how standards are set. I think the biggest issue stems for the lack of inherent consideration for environmental integrity in most countries. LEED can easily be used for economic gain as developers realize the premium clients are willing to pay for LEED certified constructions; cost saving measures (energy reduction, lower operating and maintenance costs) and environmental impacts are lower in the totem pole. I think that corporate greed and a tendency to seek immediate economic return, taints the environmental outcomes LEED hopes to encourage. Right now, people can be awarded for just attempting to consider environmental impact; like a participation trophy of sorts. While not perfect, it does encourage better behavior.
However, certification systems have the power to define what the ultimate goal should be: to simply minimize negative impacts or to strive for climate neutrality. In an attempt to achieve whatever goal it sets, environmental assessment tools must fully consider the cultural and economic context that will guide builder’s adoption of environmental standards. Right now, economic considerations are likely the primary incentives for attaining LEED certification, but this may change as environmental integrity and protection is more widely adopted. There are exceptions of course, as in the case of developers or corporations that wish build a reputation based on sustainable practices. Either way, there is still a question of whether the numeric models that measure environmental impact and dictate environmental guidelines actually translate to sustainability. Perhaps, a revision of standards is required to improve the outcome of projects that use environmental assessment guidelines. This is especially important if public funds are being used to retrofit public buildings based on green guidelines, so that resources are used on projects that will actually have positive environmental impact.
LikeLiked by 1 person
With rapid urbanization, cities have had the tendency to grow uncontrollably, impacting the environment around it with serious consequences, in addition to having multiple stakeholders in the decision making process of what gets built where and how. Environmental Assessment tools measure the performance and the impact of the built environment on nature. Tools such as the BREEAM and LEED are used to identify green initiatives adopted during the construction stage of a building to define and measure whether the building has adopted sustainable measures during the construction and realization of the project. The pointing system is based on a set of aspects which the building may satisfy and each aspect gives the building points on a scale. The paper, Criticism of Environmental Assessment Tools points out how BREEAM is unable to estimate the project outputs of the selected case studies and how post-occupancy studies show an entirely different output than the construction phase. It also shows the lack of study related to the end-users of each project. Many corporate companies, hotels, and developers seem to use the pointing system of the environmental assessment tool as a marketing strategy to better the image of the company or increase a building’s sale value. Many a time, the motive of the company is to monetize on the points gained by adopting some of the aspects of the assessment tool which is not necessarily the best in terms of the environmental sustainability.
In the paper about LEED, the authors explain how the assessment tool is seen as a status symbol and is sometimes not adopted with the intentions of protecting the environment, but as a method to increase gains through branding it as something more than it intends to be. Other points discussed include how the tools are expensive and how having someone who is a LEED-certified person in the design team of the building makes it easier to get branded as a LEED certified building rather than actually satisfying the factors of the environment. They also explain how the LEED is an evaluation of the building, isolated from its context and if made mandatory, loses its adaptability. However, the paper fails to bring up aspects in relation to the cultural, historical or other social importance that could tie in to make an overall unsustainable design.
Environmental Assessment tools seem like a good starting point for ensuring that buildings perform in an unbiased manner to the larger environment. However, such assessment tools should be enforced in a way that the assessment takes place over a period of time from construction to post-occupancy, and should be repeated or timed at various points of the building’s lifecycle. Only a repeated system of assessment will be able to actually ensure that the building remains in the same status of “sustainable” a few years into its construction and occupation by various organizations over the years. Another possible method of implementing sustainable practices in the construction of buildings is by ranking all buildings on both a positive and negative scale which ensures that buildings that are not respecting the environment are not completely excluded from the larger set. Environmental assessment tools are certainly trying to keep things in check and control the harm by the built environment. However, the process of such tools and their applications should be reinvented from time to time to suit the changing global scene, to ensure that it is not taken advantage of and that the environment is actually benefitted.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tolksdorf et al were primarily concerned with evaluating the British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) which they report was the first international assessment tool for measuring and rating the performance of buildings in areas such as energy consumption, environmental health, ecological impact, lifecycle and sourcing of materials, and water use. Different tools evaluate and weigh things differently and while there are now many established protocols, many of them were based on BREEAM. Tolksdorf used a series of interviews to determine whether six different BREEAM-rated projects were performing according to their design. The projects were, on average, 88% successful, which I believe is a fairly high success rate.
Abdalla et al evaluated another popular building assessment and rating system commonly used in the United States, though rumored to be based on BREEAM, LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. Their primary criticisms of LEED were that its popular status and point system would encourage developers to “game” the system by claiming relatively easy points such as installing a bike rack (1 point) rather than doing good things for the environment like redeveloping a brown field (1 point). LEED buildings are well-regarded by the public and by tenants, such that LEED buildings maintain a higher rate of occupancy and can draw higher rents. This is a big incentive to developers whose profits are based on the building’s lifespan use. Another criticism of LEED is that is expensive and difficult to do independently. There are fees and the services of LEED-accredited design professionals to pay. It also doesn’t take frugality into concern as one of its metrics and I believe the affordability of environmentally beneficial practices is essential to promoting them as a viable alternative. One of the biggest problems with LEED, I believe, is that it ignores context and performance. Environmentally friendly materials are sometimes also industry standard and it should not net the developer points for using standard materials, though it should remove points if they use non-standard, un-friendly materials. LEED doesn’t have any sort of on-going metric to evaluate a building’s performance. It doesn’t matter if the building was originally designed with low-water using fixtures if they are removed and water-expensive fixtures are later installed. Shouldn’t the certification be lost if the building does not operate as designed? This should also be an opportunity to encourage the adoption of new technologies, such as LED lighting over compact fluorescent, as they become available.
I STRONGLY AGREE that rating systems such as BREEAM and LEED are useful tools to build understanding and buy-in on the part of builders and developers to make environmentally beneficial choices when they build. It’s important to remember that these are just tools, and only as useful and the way in which they are wielded. I’m also certain that as we observe the effects of our assessment tools that it is possible to adjust them to achieve a better outcome. My family have been building for a long time and there are lots of wasteful practices and harmful materials in the industry. There are also better practices and materials and the difference between which get used are price. Sometimes price is about the preciousness of the material and sometimes it is about availability and whether it is mass-produced or specialty. As new technologies and materials become mainstream the price drops and they become accessible. A few years ago LED lighting was price-prohibitive and now almost every fixture in my house is affordable LED. A rating system helps to make these technologies more popular more quickly and reach market saturation.
I realize that there are failings and problems with LEED. My alma mater, UCSB, built the first LEED Platinum research facility in the country which houses the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management. The building has a great number of problems and inefficiencies and certainly doesn’t perform as intended. However, it was the FIRST and I’m sure the twentieth building will have worked out a lot of the kinks.
LikeLiked by 1 person
More business corporations and governmental organizations are using environmental assessment tools to measure the sustainability of buildings and urban housing projects. These environmental tools including BREEAM (Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method, UK), LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, USA) and etc. increase the design process of sustainable environment and well-understood planning. However, as these assessment tools are mostly focusing on the beneficial aspects in the design process but not taking everything into account and evaluating the overall output of a building when it is finished, there is still a huge room for these tools to be improved.
Abdalla et al. in 2011 compare BREEAM’s theoretical measurement of six renowned projects in Europe with the actual outputs of them to see the performance of this environmental assessment tool. The reasons why he selects BREEAM are its applicability on the community scale, flexibility to be used internationally, and not considering financial aspects in evaluating areas. After giving two tables of comparison, he arrives at the conclusion that the projects did not achieve the desired result because some of them do not consider enough sub aspects of BREEAM and all of them have some sub aspects in which they work badly.
He further discussed that projects should be realistic and well-defined in order that BREEAM sub issues would work well. A large scale would facilitate the implementation of parking, renewable energy use and water management. I do not doubt his conclusion “high BREEAM score does not ensure project success from a project management perspective” but I am suspicious of his method of comparison and that his objective in his abstract does not match the analysis part (Abdalla 2011). After reading “these tools still unable to estimate the actual project outputs…” I expected to see his comparison of several assessment tools rather than only BREEAM and his analysis of their distinct advantages and disadvantages. In addition, it would be better if he reached his conclusion by comparing the exact BREEAM score of those projects with actual outputs other than calculating the sub aspects in which these projects do not work well.
Tolksdorf, et al. give quite objective comment about Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) which is the main environmental assessment tool used in America. Tolksdorf mentions that the new weighting scale developed through USGBC introducing “impact categories” including greener economy, protect and restore biodiversity and ecosystem services, helps LEED certification promoting more good things in design process. Moreover, he points out the extensive variety of credit opportunities. The benefits of green construction include:
(1) “Green” construction is beneficial to those constructing the new building and the community as a whole.
(2) It saves cost from reduced energy, water and waste; lower operations and maintenance costs. Financial benefits are over ten times the average initial investment.
(3) Green building has a huge impact on productivity and health gains which could be translated into large economic benefits.
(4) Investors make more money from LEED certification while tenants are willing to pay for that certification.
Just like that every system may have its own flaws, LEED also have several problems indicated by Tolksdorf. First, its status symbol and point system may encourage people to game the system. Designers would just try to earn the points but not make decisions that are environmentally conscious. Second, as an isolate evaluation of the design process, it ignores context and performance as well as the influence of end-users. It is also expensive to do on one’s own and loses adaptability when it becomes mandate.
I strongly agree with the usefulness of this certification system although I think agree is a better option that “means you believe it is a step forward and better than nothing”. There is no about LEED has changed the design process during which builders consider more about sustainability and the harmony with natural environment. Whether their target is to gain points or really want to solve environmental problems, builders make progress in incorporating consciousness of cutting cost of energy, water, waste and etc. into design. Furthermore, as tenants and users gradually pay attention to the LEED certification, more people would consider the sustainability of buildings. The short video blames Bank of America Tower with platinum LEED certification for using energy more than any other buildings in Manhattan and running servers 24-7. However, LEED is mainly responsible for weighting whether a design is sustainable but not for the greed desire of users. We should focus more on the progress it makes in promoting sustainable design, good impact it brings to the environment but not clinging to its defects.
Although I insist that assessment tools like BREEAM and LEED are useful, there is still much room for improvement. As Tolksdorf mentions that USGBC has introduced new version of LEED, some old buildings should be reassessed to make the evaluation and certification fair for all buildings tested. While LEED encourages to do “more good”, it should take unsustainable design part into account. Furthermore, the context should be prioritized that buildings in marsh which disturbs the diversity of ecosystem, or buildings in desert which would cause more cost of energy and water should not be allowed. Moreover, it would be fair to create a new certification that evaluates solely the performance of using phase. And then we can compare these two certifications and see if there is coherence in them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
My knowledge of environmental labeling and certification of development comes from experience in reviewing Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification, specifically in Neighborhood Development. As a consultant, I was contracted by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC), the organization that manages LEED, to review projects for certification. This process has allowed me to understand the process very well.
In the particular case of LEED-ND I have never been impressed with the levels of sustainability associated with any of the projects I have ever reviewed. This does not mean I completely dislike the LEED system. I appreciate the system for that being able to quantify specific aspects of a development. For example, for a development to earn points for bicycle parking it must have a certain number in relation to vehicle parking spaces, and they must be placed evenly across the development, usually within a certain distance of building entrances. Unfortunately, these requirements are not rigorous enough in terms of being sustainable.
We can all acknowledge that promoting bicycling is a good thing, however if a development ultimately has a majority of its users using automobiles to access the site, then why should the development receive recognition? This is the general issue I have with LEED, in that it is suggesting by providing relatively minor design features, then the development is worthy of being recognized as being sustainable.
Another clear issue with LEED certification is that, even if these factors were made more rigorous, monitoring is not a component of LEED. Credit towards certification can be awarded for providing transit access to a development. Sometimes this factor can be met because public transit is already being provided by a municipal agency. In other cases, the developer must contract a private transit company to provide the service. To apply for this credit, the developer only needs to provide a letter of intent, and a contract of the agreement between the developer and transit company. The contracts are usually for several years, and without monitoring, there is no guarantee this service will be provided for the lifespan of the development.
In conclusion, I would say that I am a supporter of environmental certifications and labels. I would rank myself as 3 in that I think this concept is useful, but greater rigor would be required to gain my full support. Obviously, this is challenging, not on a technical level, but based on what the market is willing to build. These certifications are applied to new construction, and making the accreditation process too rigorous could detract developers. For now, LEED certified buildings are typically a step in the right direction, and provides built inspiration to further the goal of sustainability.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Environmental certificate system (ECS) is one of the most popular tools for governors, designers and investors to achieve environmental friendly development. However, Abodalla et al 2011 claim that there are two main problems with how ECS works.
Firstly, he points out hta ECS is focus on design phase rather than use phase, which cannot ensure the environmental friendly outcomes in the usage. For example, ECS underestimates role of project endusers in the estimation process. For instance, the score system of BREEAM only evaluate the design or realiztion phase. The water or energy usage haven’t been taken to account, which would not insure whether the building is acttually environmental friendly.
Secondly, he mentions that ECS hasn’t consider the financial aspects. The environmental oriented building could has relatively higher budget in the realiztion phase, which makes the strategy difficult to be realized.
From Tolksdorf’s notes, one of the biggest problems of LEED is that the point system of LEED forces you to ”game” the system and then ignore the social, historical and geography context of the buiding. He mentions that building designers prefers to pursue cheapist and easist points to meet the demand of LEED gaming sytem. For example, 99.7% of LEED buidlings gained a point by using recycled materials such as steel and concrete, which are normal buidling materials.
Besides, Tolksdorf also mentions that it’s hard to use the LEED system individually since LEED is a complex index sytem, which prevents the publics to test the effectness of LEED.
Moreover, one of the biggest problem of these certificate sytems is that those sytems are consist of one standard indexs whithout local environment factors. Some of the environmental design strategies useful in desert areas may not be effective in tropical areas. However, the building in different climate condition share the same evaluation system in ECS.
I strongly agree with the environmental certification system. Admittedly, the flaws of environmental labels and certificates entail some usefulness of existing certification to some extent. But those systems are also keep pregressing since they were born. The LEED v4 takes energy and water use into evaluation system, which combat the “gaming of the system” of fomer LEED version.
Moreover, these certificate system also provides opportunities for us to know the effectiveness of so call “environmental” design strategies. There are endless discussion about ECS since it was born, t. Through these discussions, relative stakeholders like disigners, users and investors gained better understanding of the environmental effectness of certificate indexs. For example, it’s my first time to learn the environmtnal certificate system. I also gained the knowledge of what kinds of “environmental” design techniques are not environmental friendly in some context.
Even though there are flaws of the ECS, I still believe the effectness of ECS since it keep progresssing and bringing us opportunities to renew our understanding of environmental development.
LikeLiked by 1 person