The LEED(TM) system awards points for prescriptive and performance
based environmental strategies; rightly giving more weight to decisions affecting
building operations, since environmental impacts over the life of a building exceed
the one-time environmental impacts affected by the building s construction.
The environmental benefits of LEED(TM) strategies are considered implicit and
the point system is not a metric of environmental performance. Thus, guideline
strategies that achieve the same points may not have analogous environmental
performance. This paper draws from our LEED(TM) project experience
as certified consultants to a number of design teams. We applied analysis to
those experiences and argue that -The relative environmental value of the same
LEED(TM) strategy may vary by geographical region and by building type.
-Scoring successive LEED(TM) points beyond a ‘standard practice design’ significantly
increases design effort and capital costs for construction. -Without
comparative analysis of the costs of alternate LEED(TM) strategies and their
corresponding environmental benefit, designers will not necessarily invest capital
in strategies that most profoundly minimize the environmental impacts of
a building. -For design teams and owners interested in the least expensive
LEED(TM) certification, gaming the point system could drive investment away
from sound environmental performance strategies such as energy efficiency. Using
these arguments, this paper makes a case to enhance the LEED(TM) system
by -Categorizing LEED(TM) strategies by their direct or indirect value
towards Environmental Benefit, Healthy Buildings (Places), and Profitability.
-Reformulating prescriptive requirements into performance based requirements
wherever possible. -Customizing LEED(TM) guidelines by region.