JOURNAL OF THE KOREAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS. December 2018. 1013-1020
https://doi.org/10.12652/Ksce.2018.38.6.1013


ABSTRACT


MAIN

  • 1. Introduction

  • 2. Materials and Methods

  •   2.1 G-SEED, South Korea

  •   2.2 EEWH, Taiwan

  •   2.3 BERDE, Philippines

  • 3. Application for Watershed Evaluation

  • 4. Conclusion

1. Introduction

Urbanization is the process whereby rural populations move to urban areas which enable cities and towns to grow. The industrialization in cities offer better job opportunities causing an increased rate of urbanization because people prefer to live closer to their workplaces. Moreover, urban communities offer the potential of socially, politically, and economically better mileage of lifestyle. The urbanization trend whilst have positive impacts on growth of economies worldwide, it has some negative effects as well. Larger cities are becoming over-populated and problems are arising like poor water and air quality, shortage of potable water, and waste accumulation. Large population require high scale construction for meeting accommodation demands, resulting in permeable land surfaces to be replaced by concrete- built layers (Buckley, 2014).

Construction and development activities corresponds to deforestation and covering of natural ground areas with impervious roads, pathways, and buildings in watershed areas. This in turn create a ripple of problems like groundwater depletion, higher flood peaks, higher velocities of water, and soil erosion. As impervious surfaces do not allow for rainwater to seep down easily, the floodwater volume builds up to form runoff quickly. Runoff travel time on a concrete or asphalt surface like storm drain pipe, street, or road is 50 times greater than on pervious surface (Li et al., 2018). Development activities exacerbate flooding in mainly two ways; a) the volume and velocity of runoff is increased on impervious surfaces so higher flow drifts towards properties downstream, and b) with high urbanization more and more people are living now in flood-prone areas (Ballio et al., 2015).

A watershed is an area of any dimensions in which all flowing water accumulates and drains to a common point of concentration (Singh and Woolhiser, 2002). Managing above mentioned water- related hazards on watershed scale is challenging because watershed systems are complex and involve lots of tightly coupled in-stream processes. Watershed projects are being implemented throughout the world which have pivotal role in managing soil and water resources. The scope of a watershed project may be different depending upon topography and hydrology of the area. In dryland areas such as Pakistan's semi-arid tropical regions, watershed projects are employed to maximize water availability for irrigation and domestic consumption through soil and moisture conservation (Sabatier et al., 2005). In catchments of hydroelectric dams, watershed projects mainly focus on minimizing soil erosion that causes loss of the fertile top layer of soil which deposits in the form of sediments into reservoirs. In densely populated areas, watershed projects are mainly concerned with reducing nonpoint source pollution (Imperial, 2005).

Despite the increasing significance of watershed projects as an approach to natural resource management, relatively little research exists on their impact and evaluation (Weber et al., 2018). However, evaluation is difficult due to the technical and social complexities of phenomenon involved in watershed projects. Historically, watershed project evaluators adopt an approach to derive conclusion from a limited sample of project sites regarding how the same projects would perform in other environments. Evaluations customarily take either qualitative or quantitative methodology and the two approaches generally viewed as alternatives (Sabatier et al., 2005).

As the development of green buildings has increased manifold over the past two decades, a variety of green building rating systems (GBRSs) have been developed recently (Shan and Hwang, 2018). Generally, GBRS is an extensive framework of standards and methodologies developed with the intention of assessing, validating, and verifying the sustainability and degree of greenness of buildings (Nguyen et al., 2016). It includes categories of specific performance thresholds as well as particular guidelines that buildings should meet to be certified as 'green' (Nguyen et al., 2016). GBRS has become increasingly important in the current green building development, as it can authorities in several aspects including baselining, benchmarking, decision- making, and documentation (Eisenstein et al., 2017; Park et al., 2017).

The objective of this study is to provide an insight of rating systems methodologies to trigger the development of a comprehensive rating system for evaluating watershed management projects. To meet this objective, three renowned green building rating systems are studied and compared from water management perspective. Three rating systems studied are Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design (G-SEED) of South Korea, Ecological, Energy Saving, Waste Reduction, Health (EEWH) of Taiwan, and Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence (BERDE) of Philippines. In section 2, an overview of these rating systems is provided, and their water management categories are discussed. In section 3, the water management categories are compared and their fitting to rate typical aspects of watershed management projects is discussed. The conclusions drawn on the basis of comparative study undertaken are addressed in section 4.

2. Materials and Methods

In the following section, a brief overview of three well-established GBRSs is provided. The rating systems discussed include G-SEED, BERDE, and EEWH. These rating systems are from South Korea, Philippines, and Taiwan respectively which are situated in the same region of the world.

2.1 G-SEED, South Korea

The development of Korean G-SEED (Green Standard for Energy and Environmental Design) started in 2002 with objectives of efficient energy consumption in buildings and the reduction of greenhouse gas (Wang et al., 2014). It is the national GBRS of South Korea. The Korean government introduced critical policies for public building certification with aims of rapid dissemination of green architecture and the introduction of different incentives to induce the private sector's building certification. Already there were different voluntary participation in this certification process in the building industry. Hence, the green building rating system in Korea was successfully developed within a decade owing to strong government policies and participation from the private sector. Korea's successful and rapid implementation of a green building policy and development of consensus on singular GBRS can provide a role model for developing countries planning to introduce green architecture. The different categories of G-SEED along with maximum possible score for each category is given in Table 1. Each category has specified guidelines and set of rules to assign score to a building which reflects degree of adaptation of standards. These categories cover various energy, environmental, and social aspects of structures being used as public household (Jeong et al., 2016; Roh et al., 2016).

Table 1. Categories of G-SEED, South Korea (Wang et al., 2014)

CategoryMaximum Possible Score
1. Land use and transportation16
2. Energy and environmental pollution20
3. Materials and resources15
4. Water circulation management14
5. Maintenance9
6. Ecological environment20
7. Indoor environment21
8. Housing performance sector0
ID (Innovative Design)19
TOTAL 134

In this study, the category of 'water circulation management' is explored in further detail. The subcategories of 'water circulation management' are described in Table 2 along with type of assessment they fall in, possible points, and housing types they are employed to. The assessment methods of each sub-category are given in Table 3. All subcategories classify a building in one of the four categories (1st class to 4th class) based on several criteria and evaluations. The 'Rainwater management' subcategory emphasize and rate a building based on amount of 'Low Impact Development' and "Green Infrastructure' techniques adopted in the building. Details about Low Impact development in recent literature can be found in (Wang et al., 2018) and for Green Infrastructure in (Carter et al., 2018).

Table 2. Subcategories of Water Circulation Management (Wang et al., 2014)

CategoryAssessment TypePointsGeneral HousingApartment
Rainwater managementoptional5
Rainwater and runoff groundwater usageoptional4
Water-saving equipment usagecompulsory3
Water usage monitoringoptional2

Table 3. Assessment Methods of Subcategories of Water Circulation Management (Wang et al., 2014)

A: Rainwater management
ClassFacilities to reduce and manage rainwater management capacityWeighting score
1st class(LID) method or a green infrastructure (GI) facility that can manage rainwater management area (m2) x 0.03 (m) or more capacity (m3) and area of 80 % or more of total impervious surface1.0
2nd class(LID) method or a green infrastructure (GI) facility that can manage rainwater management area (m2) x 0.02 (m) or more capacity (m3) and area of 80 % or more of total impervious surface0.8
3rd class(LID) method or a green infrastructure (GI) facility that can manage rainwater management area (m2) x 0.01 (m) or more capacity (m3) and area of 50 % or more of total impervious surface0.6
4th class(LID) method or a green infrastructure (GI) facility that can manage rainwater management area (m2) x 0.001 (m) or more capacity (m3) and area of 50 % or more of total impervious surface0.4
B: Rainwater and runoff groundwater usage
ClassWater tank capacity of rainwater and runoff groundwater (m3) and direct use installationWeighting score
1st classInstallation or directly use the water tank of rainwater / runoff groundwater with a construction area (m2) x 0.03 (m) or more1.0
2nd classEstablishment of water tank for rainwater and runoff groundwater with construction area (m2) × 0.02 (m)0.8
3rd classEstablishment of water tank for rainwater and runoff groundwater with construction area (m2) × 0.01 (m)0.6
4th classInstallation or direct use of rainwater / runoff groundwater reservoirs with a building area (m2) x 0.005 (m) or more0.4
C: Water saving equipment usage
ClassNumber of points according to total number of environment labelled products appliedWeighting score
1st classMore than 5 points1.0
2nd class4 points0.8
3rd class3 points0.6
4th class2 points0.4
D: Water usage monitoring
ClassWater usage monitoring and managementWeighting score
1st classLevel 2 + water consumption meter monitoring and water management program (rainwater utilization facility, heavy water supply facility, etc.)1.0
2nd classLevel 3 + water consumption meter monitoring and water management program0.8
3rd classLevel 4 + in-house water-use monitoring devices0.6
4th class100% of the water usage measuring meters installed in all households are certified with the environmental label or are in compliance with the standards0.4

The 'Rainwater and runoff groundwater usage' is concerned with reduction of water consumption and suppression of storm drainage by using rainwater and runoff groundwater efficiently as alternative water resources. The active use of such alternative water resources can also reduce the energy required for water supply. Subcategory 'Water-saving equipment usage' evaluates a building based on environmental labelled products applied. It emphasized to reduce water and energy consumption by using saving equipment to tackle the increase in water demand due to urbanization and increasing costs of sewage treatment in the cities. The fourth subcategory of 'Water usage monitoring' aims to further reduce water consumption and to support efficient water management.

2.2 EEWH, Taiwan

The EEWH is the GBRS of Taiwan which was developed in 1995 and published in early 2000. It is the first certification system designed for building infrastructures in subtropical regions with high temperature and high humidity. It is also considered the first Asian certification and rating system for green buildings (Chuang et al., 2011). EEWH certification evaluates how green a building is using the following parameters: biodiversity, carbon emissions and construction waste reduction, daily energy conservation, greenery, indoor environment, water conservation, water content of the site, and sewage and waste disposal facility improvement. It is issued at the levels of certified, bronze, silver, gold and diamond. The categories of EEWH, their evaluating factors, and units are presented in Table 4. The 'Water Resource' indicator exists in 'Health' category and its evaluation criteria is given in Table 5 (Chen et al., 2011).

Table 4. Categories of EEWH, Taiwan*

CategoriesIndicatorsEvaluation factors and units
Ecology1. BiodiversityBiotope, green network system
2. GreeneryCO2 absorption (CO2-kg/m2)
3. Soil Water Content water contentment of the site (-)
Energy Saving4. Energy conservation ENVLOAD**, Req, PACS***, energy saving techniques
Waste Reduction 5. CO2 EmissionCO2 emission of building materials (CO2-kg/m2)
6. Waste Reduction waste of building demolition (-)
Health 7.I ndoor EnvironmentVentilation, daylight, noise control, Eco-material
8. Water Resource water usage (L/person), water saving hygienic instrument (-)
9. Sewer and Garbage sewer plumbing, sanitary condition for garbage gathering

* (From EEWH official website http://twgbqanda.com/english/index.php).

** Details can be found in (Wang et al., 2018).

*** PACS = Power Application Correction System. For details, see (Fan et al., 2014).

Table 5. Evaluation criteria of ‘Water Resource’ indicator of EEWH (Chen et al., 2011)

Usage rateWeighing factorScore
Water-saving toiletsa0~a4 = 0~1.0a0`~a4` = -2.0~3.0a = a0 × a0`
Water-saving urinalsb0~b2 = 0~1.0b0`~b2` = -1.0~1.0b = b0 × b0`
Water-saving taps for public usec0~c3 = 0~1.0c0`~c3` = -1.0~1.0c = c0 × c0`
Water-saving showersRatio of bathrooms where tubs are replaced with showersd1` = 0.0~1.0d = d1` + d2`
Water-intensive bathtubsRatio of bathrooms with personal massage bathtubs or luxury spa showersd2` = 0.0~-2.0
Rainwater/graywater recycling systems, water-saving irrigation systems and other mitigating measuresPresence/absence of water-intensive design/facilities and mitigating measures listed hereine1` ~e4` = -2.0~4e = Ʃei`
WI (Water resource Indicator) total score= a + b + c + d + e

2.3 BERDE, Philippines

The BERDE (Building for Ecologically Responsive Design Excellence) Program was established by the Philippines Green Building Council (PHILGBC) to develop market-based tools that can facilitate green building in the property and construction sector. The first version of BERDE for New Construction (BERDE-NC) was released in November 2010 to support local projects aiming for green building certification. To strengthen this program further, the council is establishing the BERDE National Research Agenda on Green Building (BERDE-NRA) which will provide the property industry insight on green building services, technology, knowledge, and methodologies (Ma et al., 2016). The assessment parameters used in BERDE with respective scores of each category are presented in Table 6. Its second category 'Water Efficiency and Conservation' is expanded in Table 7. This category assesses and assign score to a building based on the level a case is reported (Philippines Green Building Council, 2010). ‘Water Efficiency and Conservation’ category is subdivided into 3 subcategories, i) Water consumption reduction, ii) Water monitoring , and iii) Effluent quality improvement. All these subcategories has their certain assessment methods described in Table 7. A building is assigned a score based on the details of the report submitted to implement water consumption, water usage monitoring, and effluent quality monitoring measures.

Table 6. Categories of BERDE, Philippines (Philippines Green Building Council, 2010)

CategoryPoints
Energy Efficiency and Conservation16
Water Efficiency and Conservation14
Waste Management10
Management4
Use of Land and Ecology16
Green Materials8
Transportation14
Indoor Environment Quality10
Emissions8
Total Points 100

Table 7. Water Efficiency and Conservation Criteria in BERDE (Philippines Green Building Council, 2010)

CategoryAssessment Method
WT-01 WATER CONSUMPTION REDUCTION8 Submitted a water base case report, and policies and procedures for water efficiency and conservation strategies to reduce water consumption by twenty-five percent (25%) or more.
5Submitted a water base case report, and policies and procedures for water efficiency and conservation strategies to reduce water consumption by fifteen percent (15%) to less than twenty-five percent (< 25%).
3Submitted a water base case report, and policies and procedures for water efficiency and conservation strategies to reduce water consumption by ten percent (10%) to less than fifteen percent (< 15%).
2Submitted a water base case report, and policy on the target percentage of the water consumption reduction of the project.
0Submitted a water base case report.
WT-02 WATER MONITORING2Submitted records on the implementation of the monitoring system, and report on the final assessment.
1Submitted records on the implementation of the monitoring system.
WT-03 EFFLUENT QUALITY IMPROVEMENT4Submitted the initial assessment report, and the policies and procedures to improve the effluent quality of the project to two (2) classifications higher, or to achieve the highest classification.
2Submitted the initial assessment report, and the policies and procedures to improve the effluent quality of the project to one (1) classification higher.
1Submitted the initial assessment report, and the policy for the target effluent quality of the project.
0Submitted the effluent quality base case report.

3. Application for Watershed Evaluation

The typical components of watershed projects are mainly (1) flood control, (2) potable water availability, (3) pollution control, and (4) soil conservation (Kerr and Chung, 2002). Many methods, techniques, and approaches are adopted to counter these problems with an overall objective to come up with goal of sustainable management of watershed. An ideal comprehensive rating system which can evaluate a watershed project must have mechanisms built into its framework to quantify and rate these categories. The GBRS discussed above are distinguished certification systems to quantify and rate various aspects of a structure. Certain categories of GBRSs and watershed management projects are common (Fig. 1).

http://static.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/ksce/2018-038-06/N0110380625/images/Figure_KSCE_38_6_25_F1.jpg
Fig. 1.

Categories of GBRSs and Watershed Management Projects

The water resource management categories of G-SEED, EEWH, and BERDE are enlisted in Fig. 2. They cover three components of a watershed project, runoff distortion, potable water availability, and wastewater pollution, as shown in Fig. 2. G-SEED certification methodology is concerned with on-site inspection and calculations to sort a building into one of the four classes. EEWH emphasizes on application of water-saving equipment and graywater recycling because they are vital for hot and humid climate. The BERDE certification system underlines the significance of water usage monitoring and submission of regular reports on water consumption of a building. Following the same lines, a rating system for evaluation of watershed and watershed management projects can be developed.

http://static.apub.kr/journalsite/sites/ksce/2018-038-06/N0110380625/images/Figure_KSCE_38_6_25_F2.jpg
Fig. 2.

Water Resource Management Categories of G-SEED, EEWH, and BERDE

4. Conclusion

The watershed projects all over the world are applied for soil and water conservation. The watershed management projects lack proper evaluation and a comprehensive rating system is missing. Such a rating system is required which can provide a history on water management practices applied in a watershed, present condition of a watershed, and can suggest future strategies. In this study, three GBRSs from the field of Architecture were selected and studied because of the rich history of Architecture domain in certifications. The water management categories of selected GBRSs were discussed in detail to gain perception of their rating mechanism.

It is concluded that water efficiency and conservation practices quantification is part of three GBRSs. If a comprehensive documentation is developed to integrate the techniques and methodologies of these GBRSs, these can be applied on watershed scale to rate the watersheds by quantifying water management practices applied. This paper is intended to provide technical insight into GBRSs. It is recommended to project the scope of this work to the development of rating system methodology for watersheds. Potential hazards of watershed include flooding, shortage of potable water, pollution, and soil erosion. Quantification of watershed practices by rating system application can reduce these hazards as planners have broader view of spatial and temporal history of applied practices and their deficiencies.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant [MOIS-DP-2014-02] through the Disaster and Safety Management Institute funded by Ministry of the Interior and Safety of Korean government.

본 논문은 2018 CONVENTION 논문을 수정·보완하여 작성되었습니다.

References

1 

Ballio, F., Molinari, D., Minucci, G., Mazuran, M., Arias Munoz, C., Menoni, S., Atun, F., Ardagna, D., Berni, N. and Pandolfo, C. (2015). "The RISPOSTA procedure for the collection, storage and analysis of high quality, consistent and reliable damage data in the aftermath of floods." Journal of Flood Risk Management, Vol. 11, No. S2, pp. S604-S615.

2 

Buckley, M. (2014). "On the work of urbanization: Migration, construction labor, and the commodity moment." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Taylor & Francis Vol. 104, No. 2, pp. 338-347.

10.1080/00045608.2013.858572
3 

Carter, J. G., Handley, J., Butlin, T. and Gill, S. (2018). "Adapting cities to climate change - exploring the flood risk management role of green infrastructure landscapes." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Routledge Vol. 61, No. 9, pp. 1535-1552.

10.1080/09640568.2017.1355777
4 

Chen, J. N., Lin, H. T. and Ho, M. C. (2011). "The green factory building evaluation system in taiwan: an introduction to EEWH-GF." Applied Mechanics and Materials, Trans Tech Publ, pp. 480-483.

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.71-78.480
5 

Chuang, H. W., Lin, H. T. and Ho, M. C. (2011). "The eco-community evaluation system of Taiwan: An introduction to EEWH-EC." Applied Mechanics and Materials, Vol. 71-78, pp. 3466-3469.

10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.71-78.3466
6 

Eisenstein, W., Fuertes, G., Kaam, S., Seigel, K., Arens, E. and Mozingo, L. (2017). "Climate co-benefits of green building standards: water, waste and transportation." Building Research & Information, Routledge Vol. 45, No. 8, pp. 828-844.

10.1080/09613218.2016.1204519
7 

Fan, Y., Kameishi, K., Onishi, S. and Ito, K. (2014). "Field-based study on the energy-saving effects of CO2 demand controlled ventilation in an office with application of energy recovery ventilators:" Energy and Buildings, Elsevier, Vol. 68, pp. 412-422.

10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.09.043
8 

Imperial, M. T. (2005). "Using collaboration as a governance strategy: Lessons from six watershed management programs." Administration & Society, Sage Publications Sage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA, Vol. 37, No. 3, pp. 281-320.

10.1177/0095399705276111
9 

Jeong, J., Hong, T., Ji, C., Kim, J., Lee, M. and Jeong, K. (2016). "Development of an evaluation process for green and non-green buildings focused on energy performance of G-SEED and LEED." Building and Environment, Elsevier, Vol. 105, pp. 172-184.

10.1016/j.buildenv.2016.05.041
10 

Kerr, J. and Chung, K. (2002). "Evaluating watershed management projects." Water Policy, Elsevier, Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 537-554.

10.1016/S1366-7017(02)00016-8
11 

Li, X., Fang, X., Li, J., KC, M., Gong, Y. and Chen, G. (2018). "Estimating time of concentration for overland flow on pervious surfaces by particle tracking method." Water, Vol. 10, No. 4.

10.3390/w10040379
12 

Ma, Z., Jørgensen, B. N. and Billanes, J. D. (2016). The Overview of Smart Building Market and Potentials in Philippines.

13 

Nguyen, T. H., Toroghi, S. H. and Jacobs, F. (2016). "Automated green building rating system for building designs." Journal of Architectural Engineering, Vol. 22, No. 4, p. A4015001.

10.1061/(ASCE)AE.1943-5568.0000168
14 

Park, J., Yoon, J. and Kim, K. H. (2017). "Critical review of the material criteria of building sustainability assessment tools." Sustainability, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 1-24.

10.3390/su9020186
15 

Philippines Green Building Council (2010). BERDE for New Construction Version 1.0 First Edition., Philippine Green Building Council.

16 

Roh, S., Tae, S., Suk, S. J., Ford, G. and Shin, S. (2016). "Development of a building life cycle carbon emissions assessment program (BEGAS 2.0) for Korea's green building index certification system." Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Elsevier Vol. 53, pp. 954-965.

10.1016/j.rser.2015.09.048
17 

Sabatier, P. A., Focht, W., Lubell, M., Trachtenberg, Z., Vedlitz, A., Matlock, M., Kraft, M. E. and Kamieniecki, S. (2005). Swimming upstream: Collaborative approaches to watershed management, MIT press.

10.7551/mitpress/6577.001.0001
18 

Shan, M. and Hwang, B. (2018). "Green building rating systems: Global reviews of practices and research efforts." Sustainable Cities and Society, Vol. 39, pp. 172-180.

10.1016/j.scs.2018.02.034
19 

Singh, V. P. and Woolhiser, D. A. (2002). "Mathematical modeling of watershed hydrology." Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 4, pp. 270-292.

10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2002)7:4(270)
20 

Wang, J. J., Kim, J. H., Lee, K. S. and Park, I. S. (2014). "G-SEED: The revised Korean Green Building Certification System." 30th International Plea Conference, Cept University, Ahmedabad.

21 

Wang, M., Zhang, D. Q., Su, J., Dong, J. W. and Tan, S. K. (2018). "Assessing hydrological effects and performance of low impact development practices based on future scenarios modeling." Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 179, pp. 12-23.

10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.01.096
22 

Weber, L. J., Muste, M., Bradley, A. A., Amado, A. A., Demir, I., Drake, C. W., Krajewski, W. F., Loeser, T. J., Politano, M. S., Shea, B. R. and Thomas, N. W. (2018). "The iowa watersheds project: iowa's prototype for engaging communities and professionals in watershed hazard mitigation." International Journal of River Basin Management, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 315-328.

10.1080/15715124.2017.1387127
페이지 상단으로 이동하기