Water Efficiency in Green Building Assessment Tools

Dissertation for the Masters of Science in Environmental Systems Engineering

University College London

07/09/2012

Ziad Awad
Supervised by: Dr. Sara Bell

Abstract
There are great challenges facing the construction industry; water resources are becoming scarce, fossil fuel resources are running up, levels of air pollution in urban environments are rapidly increasing and pressure is growing to achieve high levels of vital and green urban areas. In the last years, a series of environmental assessment tools have been developed by commercial and governmental research organizations, aiming at assessing the performance of buildings and dwellings with regards to energy and water consumption, environment and ecology, considering technology as well as social aspects of projects based on a life-cycle perspective. The construction and operation of buildings are processes with substantial water footprints. This study targets the water standards incorporated in three residential building assessment/rating tools: the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design for Homes (LEED for Homes) in the United States, The Code for Sustainable Homes in the United Kingdom, and Green Star for Multi-unit Residential in Australia. The research shows how these tools measure and prioritize waterefficiencywithregardstotherespectivecountryswatersituation,andtheextenttowhich these measurement methods are able to account for behavioural as well as technical elements of domestic water consumption, trade-offs between water, energy efficiency and carbon footprint, and the need for regional flexibility to account for water resource availability. Based on internet available information, literature reviews, data from environmental and governmental agencies, as well as national statistics and past research reports, research showed that LEED for Homes and the Code for Sustainable Homes do not account for regional environmental variations and water availability throughout the country, in contrast with Green Star that sets different weighing factors for each major Australian State and territory when addressing water and energy efficiency. The study shows that it has nevertheless become necessary to adapt the rating tools used in the U.S and UK according to the different regions water availability and carbon footprint, especially since in these two countries, most areas with water availability tend to witness high carbon emissions, and areas with water scarcity have low emissions. Moreover, carbon emitting on-site rain water harvesting systems can be superfluous in regions rich with water, and can be side stepped as requirements in green building rating tools, whereas they are essential in dry and arid regions. Keywords: Water efficiency, energy efficiency, carbon emissions, green buildings, green building rating tools, green building assessment tools, per capita consumption.
1

Acknowledgements
I would like to gratefully and sincerely thank Dr Sarah Bell for her invaluable guidance and patience throughout this project as well as her supportive assistance throughout the academic year. I would also like to thank DEFRA, the Environment Agency and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency for providing helpful information as regards to this project.

Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................... 2 Chapter 1. Introduction and Scope ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1. 1.2. What are green buildings? ............................................................................................................ 7 Scope of Study............................................................................................................................... 8 Aims and objectives .............................................................................................................. 9

1.2.1. 1.3.

Project plan and structure .......................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 2. Green Building Rating Tools and Water Efficiency.................................................................... 11 2.1. International rating tools ............................................................................................................ 11 History ................................................................................................................................. 12

2.4.1. 2.2.

Water efficiency and green buildings ......................................................................................... 13 The water-energy nexus in green buildings ........................................................................ 14

2.2.1.

Water heating ................................................................................................................................. 16 Rainwater harvesting ...................................................................................................................... 17 Grey water recycling ....................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 3. LEED for Homes ......................................................................................................................... 19 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. 3.4. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 19 The water situation in the U.S .................................................................................................... 20 Overview of the LEED for Homes water efficiency criteria ......................................................... 23 The need for regional flexibility of LEED for Homes ................................................................... 25 Synergies and trade-offs between water, energy and carbon footprint ............................ 26 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................................................ 27

3.4.1. 3.5.

Chapter 4. The Code for Sustainable homes (U.K)...................................................................................... 28 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 28 The water situation in the U.K .................................................................................................... 29 Overview of the Code for Sustainable Homes water criteria ..................................................... 30 The need for regional flexibility of the Code for Sustainable Homes ......................................... 32 Synergies and trade-offs between water, energy and carbon footprint ............................ 34 3

4.4.1.

4.5.

Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................ 36

Chapter 5. Green Star for Multi-Unit Residential (Australia)...................................................................... 38 5.1. 5.2. Overview ..................................................................................................................................... 38 The water situation in Australia .................................................................................................. 41 Water shortages and drought ............................................................................................. 42

5.2.1. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5.

Overview of Green Star for Multi-Unit residential water criteria............................................... 43 Water shortages resulting in increased awareness and water savings ...................................... 45 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................ 47

Chapter 6. A Comparison of the Water Criteria in the three Green Building Assessment Tools ............... 48 Chapter 7. Conclusion and Recommendations ........................................................................................... 50 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 53 Appendix 1 .................................................................................................................................................. 57 Appendix 2 .................................................................................................................................................. 58

List of Figures
Figure 1: Rating Systems in the world (from Reed et. al, 2009) .................................................. 11 Figure 2: Timeline of the Development of Rating Tools in Different Countries (Reed et al. 2009) ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: CO2 emissions associated with water abstraction, treatment, conveyance, use and disposal (from Clark et al., 2009). ................................................................................................ 15 Figure 4: CO2 emissions from domestic water use in a home with gas heating (from Environment Agency, 2009) ......................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5: Indoor water use in the U.S (from EPA, 2009) ............................................................. 20 Figure 6: Per capita water consumption and expected population growth throughout the U.S (from EPA, 2009).......................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7: Precipitation in the U.S (from EPA, 2009) ................................................................... 22 Figure 8: Pathway through water efficiency (from LEED for Homes, 2008) .............................. 23 Figure 9: Areas of predicted relative water stress (from NRDC, 2010) ....................................... 25 Figure 10: Per capita carbon emissions in the U.S (from Mongabay, 2008) ................................ 26 Figure 11: UK domestic Water use (from Waterwise, 2010). ...................................................... 29 Figure 12: EU countries per capita water consumption (litres/person/day) (from Waterwise, 2006)............................................................................................................................................. 31 Figure 13: UK per capita water consumption (from Environment Agency, 2008) ..................... 32 Figure 14: Water availability in the UK (from DEFRA, 2008) .................................................... 33 Figure 15: Per capita carbon emissions in the U.K (from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2007)............................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 16: Areas of relative water stress in the UK (from Environment Agency, 2007) ............ 35 Figure 17: Areas of average domestic usage (Riverina Water, 2012).......................................... 41 Figure 18: change in amount of rainwater tank installed (from ABS, 2010) ............................... 45 Figure 19: change in the amount of houses with water saving products (from ABS, 2010) ........ 45

List of Tables
Table 1: Points required to achieve each level of the LEED for Homes rating system ................ 19 Table 2: Summary of water efficiency requirements in LEED for Homes .................................. 23 Table 3: : Minimum water requirements for each code level (from The Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007) ............................................................................................................................... 30 Table 4: Points awarded for different water standards (from the Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007)............................................................................................................................................. 30 Table 5: Minimum water and energy requirements to achieve each level of the Code (from the Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007) ............................................................................................. 34 Table 6: Points required to achieve each level of Green Star ....................................................... 39 Table 7: Green star for Multi-Unit residential water criteria (adapted from Green Star Multi-Unit residential rating tool) ................................................................................................................... 43 Table 8: Comparative table of the three building rating tools ...................................................... 48

Chapter 1. Introduction and Scope

The Brundtland report, published by the World Commission on Environment and Development, defines sustainable development as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Paradoxically, the world today is witnessing significant depletion of resources that will imminently be felt by future generations (Kothari, 2010). Buildings construction and operations currently account for approximately 45-50% of the worlds energy consumption (Wilmott Dixon, 2010), 43% of all emittedcarbondioxide(Kelly,2008),and20%oftheworldsavailable water(UnitedNations Environmental Programme, 2008) with a higher share in developed economies. As with the expected growth of the worlds population and modernization of infrastructures, the built environment will only expand further into the natural environment, and green efficient buildings are becoming increasingly crucial to cutting resource consumption and achieving a sustainable development. While there aredifferenttypesofgreenstructures(office,industrial,education) targeting the efficiency of all natural resources, this particular study aims at evaluating the water situation and domestic water consumption in the USA, UK and Australia, as well as the water criteria in the three green residential building assessment tools used in these countries: LEED for Homes, The Code for Sustainable Homes, and Green Star for Multi-unit Residential.

1.1. What are green buildings?

There are major challenges facing the construction industry; fossil fuel resources are running up, levels of air pollution in urban environments and drinking water resources are very scarce. These challenges imply that our built environments need to evolve to meet the increasing demand on land-use and natural resources, while simultaneously reducing their contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and resource consumption, along with improving environmentally safety, economically productive and socially inclusive environments. According to the green building index organization (2011),agreenbuildingfocusesonincreasingtheefficiencyofresourceuse energy, water, and materials while reducing building impact on human health and the environmentduringthebuildings lifecycle.
7

Green or sustainable buildings are structures using environmentally friendly and resource efficient processes throughout their life-cycle: from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation, and demolition. They are intended to use energy, water and other natural resources much more efficiently when compared to conventional buildings, as well as minimizepollution,wasteandanynegativeenvironmentalimpacts, whileassuringoccupants comfort , safety and well-being. There are minimum requirements that a building must meet in order to be given the green status. These requirements were set by green building councils worldwide, creating as a result green building assessment/rating tools that will be discussed in more detail in the following chapter.

1.2. Scope of Study

Building sustainability assessment tools, also known as green building assessment tools or rating tools, differ in how they measure and prioritize water efficiency. This project will review three methods for addressing water efficiency in green dwellings: LEED for Homes in the US, The Code for Sustainable Homes in the UK (hereafter referred to as the Code or CSH), and Green Star for Multi-unit residential in Australia, which are the most recent design assessment tools developed in each country. These particular schemes have been selected because CSH and LEED have been introduced by very well-known world leading organisations (BRE and USGBC) that have a proven record in the domain of sustainability development, and because Green Star was practically entirely built on both the BREEAM and the LEED rating systems. In addition, the three systems are related to three major developed countries with different environmental conditions and geographical locations. The study will evaluate the extent to which these measurement methods are able to account for behavioural as well as technical elements of domestic water consumption, trade-offs between water and energy efficiency, and the need for regional flexibility to account for water resource availability. Although each country adapts its own rating tool conforming to their relative environment, Green star is the only one that accounts for regional environmental variations within the country. Following an overview of the concernedcountryswatersituation,thestudy will evaluate the water criteria in the three rating tools mentioned, followed by an assessment of the rapport between water and carbon emissions, and the need for regional flexibility of the
8

assessment method within each country. A comparison of the water efficiency requirements of the three rating tools will be conducted, which will show differences and consistencies between them. Based on the analysis of each rating tools, recommendations to improve the applicability of each tool will be stated. The findings, data, and information compiled in this document were collected through internet available information, literature reviews, environmental and governmental agencies, as well as national statistics and past research reports.

1.2.1.

Aims and objectives

The aim of this study is to show to which extent is the water criteria in the three studied green building rating tools well suited for their specific countrys climate and water conditions, and what can be done to improve their applicability. The objectives of the project are as follows: Describe the areas in which energy and water consumption are interdependent in a domestic building. Clearly illustrate and describe each assessment tool and their relative water standards. Quantitatively and qualitatively assess thecountrys water situation. Establishalinkbetweenthecountryswatersituation,thewaterefficiencystandardsof the building assessment tool used in that country and the need for its regional flexibility. Compare the three rating tools and locate differences and consistencies. Create a preliminary set of recommendations for each rating tool that can help improve their application in each country.

1.3. Project plan and structure

To complete the studys objectives, this report was divided into 7 chapters. The following chapter will give an overview of the green building rating tools currently being used in the world, as well as explain the goals and components of water efficiency in green buildings, and the energy and carbon footprint related to water efficiency methods specified in green building assessment tools. Chapter 3, 4 and 5 will illustrate and evaluate the water criteria in the three green building tools concerned in this study: LEED for Homes, The Code for Sustainable Homes, and Green-Star for Multi-Unit residential. The individual analysis will comprise an overviewofthetoolswatercriteria,andtheextenttowhichtheyareflexiblewithinthecountry. Consequently, a comparison of the three rating tools will be done in chapter 6, summarizing the main findings in each part of the individual analysis. The last chapter will consist of a conclusion, outlining the main findings of the study, and discussing further research topics and recommendations for future development of each rating tool.

10

Chapter 2. Green Building Rating Tools and Water Efficiency

2.1. International rating tools
In order to classify a building as green, rating tools have been created containing a set of criteria that green buildings have to abide by. These sustainability assessment tools award credits for building features that support green and sustainable design, in categories such as location and maintenance of building site, waste and pollution prevention, conservation of building materials, energy and water efficiency, and occupant comfort and health. The number of credits typically determines the level ofachievementi.e.thehigherthelevelachieved,thegreenerthebuilding. While it is acknowledged that there are no identical parcels of land in the world (Australian Property Institute, 2007), the World Green Building Council concedes that one tool cannot fit all countries, with each country having different climate and environmental conditions, notably when it comes to water resources and availability. Green building councils for each country have implemented country specific rating tools as shown in the figure below:

Figure 1: Rating Systems in the world (from Reed et. al, 2009)

11

2.4.1. History
Building assessment/rating tools were primarily developed to evaluate specific aspects of a building pertaining to sustainability goals (McKay, 2007). They were meant to address key waste issues and inefficiencies in buildings, mainly focusing on three main areas; energy, water and material use in buildings (World Green Building Council, 2007). To develop green building assessment tools, authors used existing sustainable practices, such as increased day lighting, operable windows, improved efficiencies in energy and water use, and promoted biodiversity, material reuse, recycling, and urban infill or densification (McKay, 2007). The varying backgrounds and opinions of authors helped in providing a holistic approach to building design. The content of the tools was also influenced by political and corporate interest (incentives or interested directions), and environmental trends (recycling, oil crises) (Elisa Campbell Consulting, 2006). The tools aimed at providing a process that will allow the comparison of different building traits, and provide in the end a numerical value to compare with other assessed buildings. The birthplace of environmental assessment tools is considered by many to be UKs BREEAM (British Research Establishments Environmental Assessment Method), which is the first assessment tool everdraftedforgreenbuildingsin1990.Manyoftodaystoolsarebasedupon or were influenced by BREEAM (McKay, 2007). Once BREEAM was created, other assessment tools in different countries succeeded as shown below:

Figure 2: Timeline of the Development of Rating Tools in Different Countries (Reed et al. 2009)

12

Since 1998, national council representatives have met to review global activities and offer support for each other's efforts. Formal incorporation of the World Green Building Council took place in 2002, aiming to formalize international communications, help industry leaders access emerging markets, and provide an international voice for green building initiatives (World Green Building Council, 2007). A list of most of the worlds green building rating tools can be found in Appendix 1. LEED, BREEAM and Green Star are three of the most common rating tools used in the world (Reed et al, 2009), and initiated in three countries with significant differences in climate and environmental conditions. It has been reported that BREEAM, LEED, and Green Star, are seeking to develop common metrics that will help international stakeholders compare buildings in different cities using an international language (Kennett, 2009). In addition, most of the rating tools created in the world can be traced back to these three tools (Reed et al, 2009). As only green residential houses and buildings will be studied in this project, the concerned rating tools for this project are LEED for Homes (by USGBC), The Code for Sustainable Homes (by the Communities and Local Government, UK), and Green Star for Multi-unit residential (by GBCA) .

2.2. Water efficiency and green buildings

In 1999, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) reported that scientists in50 different countries had identified water shortage as one of the two mosttroubling problems for the new millennium, with the other being global warming. There are several reasons for water shortages, one being the simple rise in population, and the desire for better living standards. Another is the inefficiency of the way we use much of our water (Kirby, 2000). The issue in water consumption is that in many regions, the demands on the supplying aquifer exceed its ability to replenish itself. To compensate, facilities can increase their dependence on water that is collected, used, purified, and reused on-site, to the maximum extent feasible. Water conservation efforts can play a major role on sustainability by assuring that the rate of water replacement in the ecosystem is greater than that of which the water is being abstracted, consequently leading to water preservation.
13

Protecting water quality and reducing water consumption are essential elements in sustainable green buildings. Water efficiency measures in buildings are based on three criteria: Rainwater harvesting, water recycling and water-saving fittings. The protection, management and conservation of water throughout the life of a building may be achieved through several methods such as installing dual plumbing that recycles flushed water in toilets and utilizing water preserving fixtures such as low flush toilets and low-flow shower heads to minimise waste water. Besides, point of use water treatment and heating can improve both water quality and energy efficiency while reducing the amount of water in circulation, and the use of harvested rain water and recycled greywater for indoor use as well as on-site use such as site-irrigation can minimize demands on the local aquifer. Green building rating tools award credits for such applications leading to water savings. Further details will be discussed in the individual rating tools chapters. Nonetheless, it is important to point out that the value and cost-effectiveness of a water efficiency measure must be evaluated in relation to its effects on the use and cost of other natural resources and environmental implications such as energy use and carbon footprint. This can be done based on the environmental nature of a specific region. For instance, in humid and water profuse climates, where the aquifer is capable of quickly replenishing itself, it is necessary to evaluate whether it is more viable to install on-site water recycling systems for homes which can have weighty carbon footprints, or acquire water from local supply systems. To do so, numerical benchmarks must be set for a specific region to evaluate whether or not the water savings from on-site harvesting and recycling systems would compensate for their energy and carbon footprint.

2.2.1. The water-energy nexus in green buildings

Water and energy in buildings are intertwined, not only at the point of consumption, but at the point of generation as well. Providing households with safe drinking water and wastewater disposal is an energy-intensive process (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006). Reducing water consumption saves energy since less water needs to be treated and pumped to end users. The main energy consuming and CO2 emitting activities related to water in a home and regulated in building assessment tools are concerned with heating water, treating greywater and harvesting rainwater. It is important to evaluate how water efficiency can affect energy consumption and
14

carbon emissions, in order to state whether greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting can be sidestepped when constructing a green building, in regions where water is abundant. Given that buildings using harvested rainwater or treated greywater typically increase greenhouse gas emissions compared to using mains water (Parkes et al., 2010), it has become necessary to weigh the advantages, depending on the climate of the corresponding region, of harvesting rainwater and treating greywater against using mains water in homes. Figure 3 illustrates the carbon emissions that result from a typical home:

Figure 3: CO2 emissions associated with water abstraction, treatment, conveyance, use and disposal (from Clark et al., 2009).

As shown in Figure 3, most CO2 emissions associated with the supply-use-treatment cycle of water related to thedomesticsectorareduringtheusephaseofwaterwith89%ofemissions attributable to water use in the home and the remaining 11% attributable to utility companies. The emissions from water use in households result mostly from water heating (Clark et al., 2009). Adding on-site water recycling and harvesting systems can increase net CO2 emissions in households. The next sections are based on three studies conducted by the Environment Agency in conjunction with the Energy Trust, and will briefly outline the relationship between water efficiency, energy efficiency and carbon footprint in three systems applied in residential dwellings.

15

Water heating

Figure 4: CO2 emissions from domestic water use in a home with gas heating (from Environment Agency, 2009)

The major CO2 emissions from heating water in homes are related to the volume of hot water used. Hot water use in new houses is higher in volume than in the existing housing stock, mainly because of increased ownership of showers, higher flow rates and more frequent use (Clarkes et al., 2009). According to the above graph, the CO2 emissions from water use in new houses almost equates to those in existing houses, despite increases in boiler efficiency and decreases in water use for flushing toilets in new homes. For that reason, water efficient fittings stated in building assessment tools might not be as effective when it comes to carbon footprint of water heating, if the amount of water used by the occupants is increasing. Although water efficient fittings will help occupants to reduce the amount of water needed for certain tasks, occupants awareness is necessary in order to decrease the use of hot water and hence the amount of carbon emissions resulting from heating water. Figure 4 clearly illustrates this fact by showing that a home built to code level 6 (highest level that can be achieved by the Code for Sustainable Homes) almost results in the same amount of carbon emissions from a regular dwelling (delivered hot water bar in dark blue).

16

Rainwater harvesting Rainwater harvesting systems use electricity to run pumps and control systems. This operational energy use, mainly for pumping, contributes a significant proportion of the carbon footprint of a system, with the remainder as embodied carbon in system materials, and arising from transport for system delivery and maintenance (Parkes et.al, 2010). The Environment agency reported after monitoring multiple systems that the energy intensity of a rainwater system is higher than mains waters. Pumping water from the rainwater tank to end uses gave rise to higher carbon emissions than those arising from the supply of mains water to buildings. The main factors determining the carbon footprint of a rainwater system are the type of tank used, the pumping arrangement and the amount of rainfall, given that increased rainfall results in higher carbon emissions from the system because more water is dealt with and pumped. Grey water recycling Different types of greywater systems, their scale and their different treatment levels make them suitable to specific applications. Low level treatment systems, such as, short retention systems are applicable to homes (Parkes et al., 2010). Short retention systems involve a very basic treatment. A proportion of the wastewater drained from the bath or shower is collected and stored. The storage vessels include simple treatment techniques such as particle settlement and surfaceskimmingto treatthewater.Thesestoragevessels provide asupplyof greywaterfor toilet flushing only. Systems are normally located in the same room as the source of greywater (or within close proximity), reducing the need for building wide dual-network plumbing. Short retention systems have negative net operation carbon emissions. The energy intensity required for such systems is found to be below the median intensity required by mains water (intensity being variable depending on many environmental factors). All other systems were found to have higher emissions than of the mains. Greywater recycling has a main advantage over rainwater recycling in that the water does not depend on rainfall and is more consistently available for use.

17

The Environment Agency asserts in these studies that water efficient fittings, grey water recycling and rain water harvesting systems do in fact result in water savings. The issue remains however in whether these savings actually compensate for the amount of carbon they emit in certain regions, especially in areas where water is plentiful. The previous findings can be summed up as follows: i. ii. iii. iv. Carbon emissions from heating water are highly due to the amount of water used, rather than the fittings and appliances used. Rain water harvesting systems typically have higher carbon footprints than mains systems. The main factors determining the carbon footprint of a rainwater system are the type of tank used and the pumping arrangement. Higher rainfall increases rainwater savings, and hence carbon footprint. Emissions associated with rainwater systems vary with rainfall, which depends strongly on regional location. Short retention systems for greywater are the only types of systems that have lower carbon footprints than mains systems. They are perfectly suitable for homes.

v.

Further research should be conducted regarding the effectiveness and efficiency of a central rain water harvesting system that can service multiple homes in a certain region, which can eliminate the need for installing a system for individual households.

18

Chapter 3. LEED for Homes

3.1. Overview
Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in 1998, the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is a rating system that targets the design, construction and operation of high performance green buildings, homes and neighbourhoods (USGBC, 2003). It is a building certification that provides third-party confirmation that a building, home or community was designed and built using approaches intended to achieve high performance in five key areas of human and environmental well-being: sustainable site development, water efficiency, energy efficiency, materials selection and indoor environmental quality. LEED for Homes, a part of the comprehensive suite of LEED assessment tools offered by USGBC, is a voluntary rating system promoting the design and construction of highperformance green homes. The LEED for Homes Rating System launched in 2008, measures the overall performance of a home in eight categories: Innovation & Design Location & Linkages Sustainable Sites Water Efficiency Energy & Atmosphere Materials & Resources Indoor Environmental Quality Awareness & Education

This study is concerned with the LEED for Homes rating system v.2008, applicable only to buildings with fewer than 4 above-grade stories. The rating System works by requiring a minimum level of performance through prerequisites in certain categories, and rewarding superior performance in each of the above categories. The level of performance is indicated by four performance levels; Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum as shown in the table below: LEED for Homes certification level Certified Silver Gold Platinum Total points available Number points Required 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-136 136
19

Table 1: Points required to achieve each level of the LEED for Homes rating system

3.2. The water situation in the U.S

The U.S has abundant water resources which comprise approximately 400 cubic miles 1 of annually renewable stream flow. 113 cubic miles of water is abstracted annually to support industrial, agricultural and domestic uses (NRDC, 2009). However, water resources and consumption levels are not evenly distributed across the country and their availability varies by season. There are several hot spot areas in the U.S. where a combination of water scarcity, increased consumption and population growth are likely to lead to problems in balancing demand and supply (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006). Homes use more than half of publicly supplied water in the United States, significantly exceeding the amount used by either business or industry (Watersense, 2009). The quantities used can increase depending on location; for instance, the arid west has some of the highest per capita residential water use because of landscape irrigation. The United States Geological Survey estimated that 29.4 billion US gallons (111,000,000 m3) per day in 2005 were allocated for domestic water use in the United States, which is mainly provided by public networks. The average domestic water use per person in the U.S. is 370 Litres/person/ day, which equates to about 2.5 times the figure in the U.K (150 Litres/person/day). The per capita domestic water use varies from 51 US gallons (190 Litres) per day in Maine to 189-US-gallon (720 Litres) per day in Nevada (United States Geological Survey, 2005), with a high share for outdoor use. Typically all over the U.S, 58% of domestic water is used outdoors for gardening, swimming pools etc. and 42% is used indoors such as:

Figure 5: Indoor water use in the U.S (from EPA, 2009)

The US measurement units are used in this chapter since they are the ones adapted by LEED.

20

In aggregate, the current situation with water demand, supply and distribution in the U.S. appears to be manageable. In the future however, the number of hot spots is likely to increase in response to several trends and uncertainties such as population and economic growth, aging water supply infrastructure, climate changewhichwillaffectbothlocalandregionalbalancesofsupplyand demand (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006). The increase in water use in the United States in the past five years has caused for nearly every region of the country to experience water shortages. At least 36 states are anticipating local, regional, or state wide water shortages by 2013, even under non-drought conditions (NRDC, 2009). Several states, particularly those in the Southwest, such as New Mexico, California, Nevada and Texas, are already struggling with shortages and the south is experiencing droughts at "exceptional" levels. The combination of little rain and searing heat drains reservoirs and increases water consumption, and there's simply not enough to go around (Gordy, 2012). The diversified domestic water consumption and amount of rainfall throughout the country can be illustrated in the following figures:

Figure 6: Per capita water consumption and expected population growth throughout the U.S (from EPA, 2009)

21

Figure 7: Precipitation in the U.S (from EPA, 2009)

The Environmental Protection Agency projects that the population growth will be higher in the western regions of the country than in the eastern regions. In addition, the west consumes much more water than the east (Figure 6), even though it witnesses much less rainfall during the year (Figure 7). This combined with the population growth and high water consumption can present a serious challenge to water availability and supply in the future in the western regions of the country (Figure 9 shows predicted levels of water stress in 2050) , and a necessity in better regulating the water consumption and footprint of the domestic sector is apparent.

22

3.3. Overview of the LEED for Homes water efficiency criteria

A minimum of 3 points must be achieved in the Water Efficiency category in order for it to be considered in the overall score. It comprises three issues:

Figure 8: Pathway through water efficiency (from LEED for Homes, 2008)

The following table summarizes the water efficiency standards stated in LEED for Homes: Rainwater harvesting system (Max. 4 points) And/or Graywater reuse system (water collected from sources exceeding 5000 gallons/year) (1 point) OR Use of municipal recycled water system (Applicable only in communities with a municipal recycled water programme) (3 points) High efficiency irrigation system (Max.3 points) And/or Third-party inspection (1 point) OR Reduce overall irrigation demand by at least 45% (Max. 4 points, depending on reduction amount) High-efficiency fixtures and fittings (1 point for each fitting and/or fixture, max. 3 points) OR Very high efficiency fixtures and fittings (2 points for each fitting and/or fixture, max. 6 points)
Table 2: Summary of water efficiency requirements in LEED for Homes

Water Reuse

Irrigation System

Indoor Water Use

23

Unlike the other categories, there are no pre-requisites instated for the water efficiency category in LEED for Homes, which makes this category more or less voluntary, and can be compensated by points from other categories. The amount of certified homes is growing in an encouraging rate. According to a recent study by McGraw-Hill Construction, more than 20,000 U.S. homes have achieved certification through LEED for Homes since the programs launch in 2008, with nearly four times that number currently registered and working toward certification. Green building is expected to account for about one-third of the residential market by 2016. However, as previously stated, homes can be certified without satisfying any of the water efficiency requirements.

24

3.4. The need for regional flexibility of LEED for Homes

The United States is facing serious threats regarding water availability and supply in the near future, especially in the western and southern regions where in some states the situation will become exceptionally severe, as shown in the figure below:

Figure 9: Areas of predicted relative water stress (from NRDC, 2010)

If climate warming continues to increase, it is expected that the risks of water shortages will increase with it (NRDC, 2009). The Environmental Protection Agency and the Natural Resources Defence Council predict that in the coming decades, climate change will have major impacts on water supplies throughout the country, with over 1,100 counties facing greater risks of water shortages due to the effects of climate change and population growth (Watersense, 2009). It is necessary to adjust the requirements in LEED for Homes in order for the system to be more adaptive to local environmental conditions. While receiving praise for its thoroughness and merchantable cachet, most of the LEED for Homes criticism revolves around its scoring system and the fact that it does not adapt to local environmental circumstances. Peter Pfeiffer, principal of Barley & Pfeiffer Architects states in an interview with Residential Architect magazine, that the points in this LEED system do not necessarily relate to what's effective in a specific climate. He gives an example that a point for graywater reuse and a point for rainwater harvesting is awarded, when rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling can provide 10 times the amount of water per dollar spent in the state of Texas (Weber, 2007).
25

3.4.1. Synergies and trade-offs between water, energy and carbon footprint
Energy-related CO2 emissions account for the majority of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. The following figure illustrates the per capita carbon emissions in the U.S:

Figure 10: Per capita carbon emissions in the U.S (from Mongabay, 2008)

Figure 10 clearly shows that the highest per capita carbon emissions are resulting from the eastern parts of the country. On the other hand, figures 7, 8 and 9 show that water related stresses exist mostly in the western parts of the U.S. Evidently, water stresses exist in the parts of the country with relatively low carbon emissions (with the exception of the states of Florida in the south east and Oklahoma in the mid-south where both problems seem to persist). In addition, despite the carbon footprint of rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling, these on-site systems seem to be essential in the western and south-western regions of the country, in order to reduce pressure on local water resources as much as possible, as stated previously by architect Peter Pfeiffer. The types of systems however need to be taken in consideration, bearing in mind that they play an important role in the amount of emitted carbon. The U.S Environmental Protection Agency and other committees recognize greywater recycling and rain water harvesting as good options for dry and arid regions, where the temperature can spike and there is the possibility of long periods without rain. This allows for the reuse of water and an effort for conservation (Watersense, 2009).
26

3.5.

Conclusions and recommendations

LEED for homes encompasses all the categories impacting the environment. It dictates some mandatory requirements for certain categories, however none for water efficiency. Studies show that the United States will imminently face water shortages, particularly in the western and southern regions of the country. In these regions, severe water related problems are very likely to occur soon, whereas in the eastern parts, although water does not constitute much of a problem, high per capita carbon emissions are witnessed, which are likely to increase with population growth (Stanton et al., 2010). The following recommendations could improve the applicability of LEED for homes in the U.S: A first step can be done to adjust LEED for Homes, by creating 2 versions: one to be used in regions of the west and south-west (with emphasis on water efficiency) and the other for the east and northeast (with emphasis on energy efficiency and carbon emissions). Similarly to LEED New Construction, LEED for Homes can award credits for regional flexibility, and adjust requirements to individual states, through a collaboration of the USGBC with local state governing organisations and agencies. A weighing factor could be assigned to each state depending on climate, and can be multiplied by theactualcategorysscore(asdone by Green Star shown in chapter 5) Include rain water harvesting and/or grey water recycling as mandatory requirements or prerequisites in states of the west and the south-west.

27

Chapter 4. The Code for Sustainable homes (U.K)

4.1. Overview
The UK based Building Research Establishment (BRE) launched in 1990 the BRE Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), a sustainability measuring tool and rating system for new non-domestic buildings in the UK. BREEAM targets performance measures related to energy and water use, the internal environment (health and well-being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology and management processes. Since its inception, BREEAM has evolved in scope and has grown geographically, being exported in various guises across the world. A domestic version of BREEAM was established in 2000 under the scheme EcoHomes which was replaced by its successor the Code for Sustainable Homes in April 2007, with collaboration with the Department of Communities and local Government. While BREEAM is the foundation of all UK green building assessment tools, this study is only concerned with ones targeting residential homes and buildings, which in the U.K, is the Code for Sustainable Homes, an environmental assessment government-owned scheme and national standard for rating and certifying the environmental performance of newly built dwellings in England and Wales. The code measures the overall performance of newly built dwellings in 9 categories: Energy and CO2 Emissions Water Materials Surface Water Run-off Waste Pollution Health and Well-Being Management Ecology

A home can achieve a sustainability rating from one () to six () stars depending on the extent to which it has achieved Code standards, with one star () being the entry level and six stars () the highest level. Credits are awarded for meeting the criteria of each category and the total credit score is translated to an overall percentage that dictates the level rating (from 1 to 6). The current requirement for publicly funded housing in England and Wales is to attain level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes.
28

4.2. The water situation in the U.K

There are four main uses of water in the UK: Domestic (public water supply), power generation, industrial and agricultural. Household water demand has been increasing since the 1950s, due to population growth and changes in the way water is used at home, and is now more than half of all public water supplied (DEFRA, 2008).Reduced domestic demand through more efficient use of water in the home would reduce the extent of abstraction needed for public supply, and help alleviate new and existing pressures on water resources. The water availability status in England and Wales varies from one region to another. In the southern and eastern regions of England, rainfall is relatively low, yet per capita water consumption tends to be higher than elsewhere and abstraction is above its sustainable level in some areas (Figure 13 and 14). Combined with projections for rainfall and demand, this has led to the classification of all south-eastern areas as seriously water stressed (DEFRA, 2008). The current governmental water consumption target per capita stated by DEFRA in their report Future Water is 130 Litres/person/day by 2020. The average per capita domestic water use in the UK, as well as in England and Wales today is 150 Litres/person/day (Water UK, 2008). Over the past decade, there has been little change in the average amount of water each person uses at home in England and Wales (Environment Agency, 2008). The Total water supplied in England and Wales is 16.5 billion litres/day, of which approximately 9 billion litres/day for domestic use (Water UK, 2008) distributes as shown in Figure 11. The Environment Agency predicts that if no action is taken to increase water efficiency, the per capita consumption will remain at 150 Litres/person/day by 2020. The most effective action in order to reduce the per
Figure 11: UK domestic Water use (from Waterwise, 2010).

capita consumption is to increase the amount of water efficient dwellings. A brief simulation is conducted in the following section showing the optimal number of houses that need to be certified, including the amount that needs retrofits, given that most households that will be in use in 2020 have already been built.
29

4.3. Overview of the Code for Sustainable Homes water criteria

Within the Code are challenging water use requirements that necessitate the installation of very low flow taps and showers and may also need non-potable water supplies from collected rainwater or wastewater from baths and showers. The tables below show the minimum standards and number of points awarded for achieving each of the per capita water consumption targets:

Table 3: : Minimum water requirements for each code level (from The Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007)

Table 4: Points awarded for different water standards (from the Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007)

Reduction in potable water consumption can be achieved by e.g. using flow restrictors, low flush toilets, and by collecting and recycling rainwater. 1.5 points can be acquired by using rainwater for irrigation. The Code gives more flexibility to the owner than LEED for Homes in terms of what measures can be taken, as long as the per capita water consumption requirement for a specific level is met.

30

Because The Code for Sustainable Homes states per capita requirements for water consumption in a dwelling, a brief simulation was conducted using Microsoft Excel Solver, to calculate the optimal housing stock that needs to be certified in order to reach the 130 litres/person/day water target by 2020. The calculations and input data used in the programme, based on data provided by the UK national statistics, are shown in Appendix 2. The simulation involved only two different scenarios; the first included houses built to level 3, and the other included houses built to level 3 and 6. The calculations lead to the following results: At least 8 million dwellings must achieve level 3 of the code in order to reduce the per capita water consumption to 130 Litres/person/day, which equates to approximately 31% of the projected housing stock in England and Wales in 2020, comprising approximately 26 million houses (UK national statistics, 2010). This means that approximately 6 million houses already built will need to be retrofitted for efficient water use. In the second proposed scenario, the best way of action is to retrofit 5.5 million houses to meetthecodeslevel3requirements,andhave1millionhousesbuilttocodelevel3and 1 million houses built to code level 6. In either of the proposed situations, the UK water targets can be achieved and even exceeded with the development of new water efficient technologies by the year 2020, in addition to increasingthepeoplesawarenessandminimisingwaterleakageswhich constitute nowadays a major problem, contributing greatly to the resulting per capita water consumption. Other scenarios can also include building and/or retrofitting houses to code level 4 and 5, which include water standards that meet the governmentswatertargets.
Current Scenario Target scenario

Figure 12: EU countries per capita water consumption (litres/person/day) (from Waterwise, 2006)

31

4.4. The need for regional flexibility of the Code for Sustainable Homes
The Code does not account for regional variations concerning water availability. Regional discrepancies in water availability do not match closely with demand. In southern and eastern England, rainfall is relatively low yet population and consumption levels are higher. Six suppliers reported water deficiencies in some supply zones of the east and southeast, two of which were acute (Water UK, 2008). The following figures illustrate the water situation and availability in England and Wales, as well as the water consumption per capita in different regions of the country:

Figure 13: UK per capita water consumption (from Environment Agency, 2008)

32

Figure 14: Water availability in the UK (from DEFRA, 2008)

Based on the information provided in the previous figures, it is evident that the balance between water supply and demand, as well as water availability, varies between the northern-western regions, and the eastern-southern regions, where water availability and consumption constitute a challenging issue. These regions witness water scarcity along with high per capita water consumption, which is leading to challenges in the water supply and can lead to problematical shortages.
33

4.4.1. Synergies and trade-offs between water, energy and carbon footprint

Table 5: Minimum water and energy requirements to achieve each level of the Code (from the Code for Sustainable Homes, 2007)

The current requirement for publicly funded housing in England and Wales is to attain level 3 of the Code for Sustainable Homes. To achieve a 3 star rating, a residence must have a per capita consumption of 105 litres/person/day, concurrently with a 25% better percentage in carbon emissions stated in part L of the Building Regulations (2006), which matches up to: 2,969 kgCO2/year for a detached house, 2,373 kgCO2/year for a semidetached house, and 2,139 kgCO2/year for a 2 bedroom flat (Environment agency, 2009). Nevertheless, The Code does not state how to best distribute these carbon emissions amongst the main carbon emitting systems used in a home (stated in chapter 2). For instance, it was established from chapter 2 that the carbon emissions resulting from water heating relate more to the amount of water used by the occupant rather than the water efficient fittings, and can only be controlled by reducing the
34

amount of water used. Therefore, it would be best to allocate more carbon emissions to water heating, than to rain water harvesting systems and grey water recycling systems, in regions rich with water and with high carbon emissions, and acquire water from the mains, which in the UK has an operational energy and carbon intensities around 40% less than these on-site systems (Environment Agency, 2009). In arid regions of the east and the south however, on site water reuse systems are essential. The following figure shows the domestic carbon emissions per capita (Figure 15) in contrast with the areas of relative water stress (Figure 16) throughout England and Wales:

Figure 15: Per capita carbon emissions in the U.K (from the Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2007)

Figure 16: Areas of relative water stress in the UK (from Environment Agency, 2007)

From the previous figures, it can be reasoned that, similarly to the situation in the U.S, many areas where water is abundant (mainly in the western parts) tend to have higher carbon emissions than areas with water scarcities (in the eastern parts). The western regions with enough water for abstraction and lower per capita water consumption as well as low levels of water stresses, have high carbon emissions. On the other hand, the eastern regions where both water stress levels and per capita consumption are high, lower carbon emissions are detected. Consequently, it can be affirmed that rain water harvesting and grey water recycling systems are crucial in the regions of the east, whereas they can be side-stepped in regions of the west, where high rainfall will increase carbon emissions resulting from rain water harvesting systems (Parkes et.al, 2010).
35

4.5. Conclusions and recommendations

The water situation throughout England and Wales is evidently much diversified. The current per capita water consumption is 150 litres/person/day. The governments target is to reach 130 litres/person/day by 2020. By implementing the Code for Sustainable Homes to achieve this target, the current mandatory requirement stating that all publicly funded houses must achieve level 3 of the Code will not be enough even though level 3 dictates a 120 Litres/person/day (less than government target). The issue remains with the momentous size of existing building stock not built to code. Many houses must be built to achieve higher levels, in order to minimize the amount of houses that would need to be retrofitted. In addition, the Code for Sustainable homes does not account for regional variations when it comes to water availability and consumption. The requirements are the same in all regions, given that in the northern and western regions of the UK, water does not constitute a problematic issue such as in the eastern and southern regions. Based on the findings of this chapter, it appears that rain water harvesting systems should constitute a requirement in the eastern and southern regions of England, where rainfall is low and per capita water consumption is relatively high. Grey water recycling should be implemented in all dwellings built to code, with short retention systems predominantly, because they have lower carbon emissions and energy intensities than of the mains (Parkes et. al, 2009). The following recommendations could improve the applicability of the Code for sustainable homes in England and Wales: Including different requirements for different regions of England and Wales. For instance, to achieve a level 3 of the code, a home would be required to have lower per capita water consumption than of a home built in Wales or the western regions of England. A weighing factor could be assigned to the regions of the east that can be multiplied by the actualcategorysscore. The Code could take into consideration that, as mentioned in chapter 2, the higher the rainfall the higher the carbon emissions of rainwater harvesting system, and not include in its requirement rainwater harvesting systems in areas of Wales and western England, where water is available, rainfall is high and per capita consumption is low, but redirect points to
36

the energy and atmosphere section of the code. In areas where water availability is limited, it is important to have rain water harvesting systems, in order to reduce the pressure on local water sources, and to benefit as much as possible from water reuse and rain water, despite the resulting operational carbon footprint, especially since in these areas, water consumption is higher than in regions where water availability does not constitute as much of a predicament, and carbon emissions are relatively low.

37

Chapter 5. Green Star for Multi-Unit Residential (Australia)

5.1. Overview
Two rating tools are in common use in Australia: the design assessment/rating tool Green Star and the performance rating tool NABERS (National Australian Built Environment Rating System). Albeit both expressed in number of stars, the two tools are different in what they measure. Green Star rates the potential environmental impact of building design at design phase and/or once built, whereas NABERS rates the actual environmental impact by performance of a building in use. The two rating systems have been an issue of confusion among people and many have suggested the integration of both into one holistic system. Another commonly used tool is the Building Sustainability Index BASIX, an online programme that determines how a building scores against specific Energy and Water targets. The web-based tool is designed to assess the potential performance of new homes against a range of sustainability indices: landscape, storm water, water, thermal comfort and energy. This study is concerned with assessment tools, evaluating the impact of both design and performance of residential buildings and so is targeting the Green Star rating tool. Developed by Sinclair Knight Merz and the U.K based Building Research Establishment in 2003, the tool was then taken up and further adapted by the non-profit Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) (Saunders, 2008). The Australian Green Star rating system evaluates the environmental design and performance of Australian buildings against a number of criteria that encompass energy and water efficiency, indoor environment quality and resource conservation. Green Star has built on existing systems and tools in overseas markets (Mitchell, 2009), including the BREEAM system and the LEED system, by establishing individual environmental measurement standards relevant to the Australian marketplace and environmental context.

38

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) launched the Green Star for Multi-unit residential v.1 rating tool in 2009 with a goal to promote the design and construction of highperformance green residential developments. The tool addresses only residential buildings containing two or more dwellings with over 80 per cent of floor area for residential uses (GBCA, 2009). Green Star - Multi Unit Residential v1 evaluates the environmental initiatives and/or the potential environmental impact of new or refurbished multi-unit residential buildings in nine categories: Management Indoor Environmental Quality Energy Transport Water Materials Land Use & Ecology Emissions Innovation Green Star rating systems use six stars to measure performance. Only projects that obtain a predicted 4 Star rating or above are eligible to apply for formal certification: Star rating 4 stars 5 stars 6 stars Weighted score 45-59 60-74 75-100 Recognition Best practice Australian excellence World leadership

Table 6: Points required to achieve each level of Green Star

Calculating rating points in Green Star in Green Star differ from LEED for Homes and the Code for Sustainable Homes. Green Star actually accounts for regional environmental variations, and assigns different weightings among states and territories to reflect the differing importance of some environmental issues across Australia, as a large and climatically diverse continent.
39

The overall score of a project is determined in 4 steps: 1. Calculating individual category score; o Each categorysscoreis based on the percentage of points achieved:

2. Applying an environmental weighting to each category (except Innovation); o The weighted category score is calculated as follows:

Weighting factors vary by geographical location, to reflect issues of importance in each state or territory. For instance, potable water has a larger significance in South Australia than the Northern Territories, and thus a larger weighting is given in South Australia for the water category. 3. Adding all weighted category scores together 4. Adding any innovation points that may have been achieved

40

5.2. The water situation in Australia

Water is essentially made available to society from surface water in the form of rivers, lakes, reservoirs, dams and rainwater tanks, and from underground aquifers in the form of wells and bores (Australian Bureau of statistics, 2010). As an island continent, Australiaswatersupplyis entirely dependent on precipitation (rainfall and snow). Because Australia is the driest inhabited continent, man-made water storage is vital in maintaining society's water supply. The use of alternatives to conventional water supply such as effluent reuse, rainwater harvesting and greywater use are also being encouraged through state-based rebates and the national not-forprofit Smart Watermark label. Mains water was the most common source of water for Australian households in 2010, with 93% of households being connected to this source (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). Despite the majority of Australians having mains/town water supply, many households also rely on other sources to supplement their water supply. Grey water was the second most common source of water for households (28% of households) followed by rainwater tanks (26%) (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The current average daily water consumption is 340 litres per person or 900 litres per household (Riverina Water, 2012). The water consumption levels vary however throughout the country, ranging from as little as 100 Litres/person/day in some coastal areas, to 800 Litres/person/day in drier inland areas (Adams, 2010).Water is predominantly consumed by the agricultural industry which is estimated to use approximately 65% of all water available for consumption. While domestic households only account for around 14% of water consumption, distributed as shown in Figure 17, this fraction is susceptible to an upsurge, as the population continues to escalate and rainfall decreases (Australian Bureau of Statistics Water Account, 2010).

Figure 17: Areas of average domestic usage (Riverina Water, 2012)

41

5.2.1. Water shortages and drought

AustraliaisthedriestinhabitedcontinentonEarth,andamongtheworldshighestconsumersof water (CSIRO, 2005). Numerous regions have imposed restrictions on the use of water in response to chronic water shortages resulting from the droughts, which have long plagued the Murray-Darling, Australia's longest river system and main water resource. At irregular intervals of two to seven years, the waters of the central Pacific warm up, indicating extreme weather throughout the southern hemisphere. As a result, torrential rains flood the coast of Peru, while south-eastern Australia wilts in drought. These periodic weather patterns are known as El Nio. The duration of these episodes can range from a few months to several years. Consequently, the flow of the Darling, the longest tributary of the Murray, varies wildly, from as little as 0.04% of the long-term average to as much as 911% (The Economist, 2007). Water supply is thus highly vulnerable to droughts, since in most parts of Australia, surface water stored in reservoirs is the main source for municipal water supply. The Murray-Darling Basin, is currently officially listed as ''at risk'' by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (Sheehan, 2012). On the bright side, long-term droughts in many parts of Australia have changed the way Australians regard water, which is demonstrated in section 5.4 of this chapter.

42

5.3. Overview of Green Star for Multi-Unit residential water criteria

Credit points are available for water efficiency and reuse initiatives such as those listed below: Occupant o Up to two points are awarded for efficient fixtures and fittings; and Amenity Water o Up to three points are awarded for the collection and re-use of non-potable water (Max. 5 points) Landscape One point is awarded where: Irrigation o Potable water consumption for landscape irrigation has been reduced by 90%; (Max. 1 point) OR o A xeriscape garden has been installed. Heat Rejection One point is awarded where: Water o Potable water consumption of water-based heat rejection systems is reduced by (Max. 2 points) 50%. Two points are awarded where: o Potable water consumption of water-based heat rejection systems is reduced by 90%; OR o No water-based heat rejection systems are provided. OR o The building is naturally ventilated; OR o The building is Mechanically Assisted Naturally Ventilated (MANV). Fire System One point is awarded where: Water o There is sufficient temporary storage for a minimum of 80% of (Max. 1 point) the routine fire protection system test water and maintenance drain-downs, for reuse on-site; and o Each floor fitted with a sprinkler system has isolation valves or shut-off points for floor-by- floor testing; OR o The fire protection system does not expel water for testing. Water One point is awarded where: Efficient Applia o Dishwasher and clothes washers are installed as part of the base building works; nces and (Max. 1 point) o All dishwashers and clothes washers are at or within one point of the highest available rating under the Australian Government's WELS rating system as per the WELS Standard AS/NZS6400:2005 Water-efficient Products Rating and Labelling. Swimming Two points are awarded where it is demonstrated that: Pool/Spa Water o A pool blanket is included to prevent water loss from evaporation; and Efficiency o The potable water consumption has been reduced by at least 70% through any of: (Max. 2 points) Efficient swimming pool filtration system compared to traditional sand filtration; Backwash water is collected and treated for reuse on site; and The pool makeup water is non-potable water.
Table 7: Green star for Multi-Unit residential water criteria (adapted from Green Star Multi-Unit residential rating tool)

43

With regards to water standards, the Green star rating tools is well equipped for efficient water use. It accounts for regional variations regarding water availability and assigns a specific weight for each of the eight major states and territories in Australia. The weights assigned are as follow: West Australia 15% Southern Australia 18% Northern Territory 13% Victoria 18% Queensland 13% New South Wales 15% Australian Capital Territory 15% Tasmania 18%

The regions with the highest levels of water stress, in the southern parts of Australia (Southern Australia, Victoria and Tasmania2) are given the highest factors.

Although there is a perception that Tasmania's water resources are plentiful, the fact is the distribution of water

resources there is extremely uneven, as the highest rainfall occurs in the West, whilst conditions are far drier in many of the farming regions and populated areas (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010).

44

5.4. Water shortages resulting in increased awareness and water savings

Because Australia witnessed a devastating drought that went from 2000 to 2010 (sometimes known as the millennium drought), an increase in population awareness and efficiency in the use of water has been recorded. In March 2010, 32% of households with dwellings suitable for a rainwater tank had a rainwater tank installed compared with 24% in 2007 (Figure 18). South Australia continues to have the highest proportion of households with rainwater tanks followed by Queensland (57% and 42% respectively of households in 2010). The largest increases between 2007 and 2010 occurred in the Australian Capital Territory (more than doubling from 8% to 18%), Victoria (from 21% to 36%) and Queensland (from 26% to 42%).

Figure 18: change in amount of rainwater tank installed (from ABS, 2010)

Since the introduction of water restrictions, increasing numbers of households have installed water conserving devices, including dual-flush toilets and reduced-flow shower heads. In 2010, 86% of households had at least one dual-flush toilet, up from 55% in 1998. At least one waterefficient shower head was installed in the dwellings of two-thirds of Australian households (66%), up from 32% in 1998 .

Figure 19: change in the amount of houses with water saving products (from ABS, 2010)

45

When the South Australian Government introduced the Permanent Water Conservation Measures in 2003 and the tighter Level 3 Enhanced Water Restrictions in 2007, the result in South Australian households was a reduction in their daily household water consumption by 16% between 2003 and 2004, and by 21% between 2007 and 2008 (Australian Bureau of statistics Water Account, 2010). For the period 2001 to 2010, South Australia's households also became more active in taking measures to save water indoors and in their gardens, which, according to a survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2010 census), included: In the bathroom: Takingshorter showers:36% of South Australia's households compared with 37% nationally. Turningoff tap while cleaning teeth/shaving: 23% of households compared with 24% nationally. Installed water saving product:13% of households - compared with 11% nationally. Collecting grey water: 12% of households - compared with 9% nationally.

In the laundry: Operating washing machine only when fully loaded: 25% of South Australia's households compared with 27% nationally. Collecting grey water: 14% of households compared with 11% nationally. Buying a water efficient washing machine: 14% of households compared with 11% nationally.

In the kitchen: Dontleavetaprunning: 15% of South Australia's households compared with 14% nationally. Wait until sink full before washing dishes, 15% of households compared with 13% nationally. " Operating dishwasher only when fully loaded: 11% of households compared with 12% nationally.

The fact that these measures have been taken by the South Australian community show that governmental policies and regulations are actually influential and can greatly help raise awareness. The per capita water consumption in Australia remains high (340 L/p/d), however this is mainly due to the agricultural and landscaping water requirements. Domestic water consumption however seems to be relatively manageable.
46

5.5. Conclusions and recommendations

When it comes to managing water consumption, green star comprises reliable standards. Water being one of the most crucial and threatening issues in Australia, it is important that it is given as much attention as possible. Nevertheless, the tool provides no incentive for efficient management when the building is in use. Performance in practice may not be as good as the potential, particularly in relation to on-going energy and water use where building management and occupant activity play an important role (Hes 2007). While South Australia's households are mainly reliant on mains/town water supplies, they have led the way nationally in rainwater harvesting and other water conservation measures. The following recommendations can be made based on the findings in this chapter: Concerns have been expressed about the tendency for voluntary standards to become part of mandatory regulation (Mitchell, 2009). Further studies should be conducted on the effectiveness of Green Star constituting a compulsory requirement for all newly built residential buildings, in the same way that the Code for sustainable Homes has become in the UK. The combination of all rating tools used in Australia in one strategic and comprehensive rating tool, appropriately adjusted for each state, similarly to Green Star state weighting factors, can increase awareness, decrease confusion and help manage water in buildings. Once the standards in each of Green Star, Nabers, and Basix are integrated into one holistic effective tool, an improved management of resource consumption when the building is in use can be achieved across the continent, and water and energy consumption can be better tracked and observed. A design rating tool for homes is important and opportune because of the relatively low number of homes nowadays. There are about 8 million households in Australia and the number will increase with population growth (CSIRO, 2010). NABERS for homes rates the performance of built homes, however, there is no actual design assessment tool to be used.

47

Chapter 6. A Comparison of the Water Criteria in the three Green Building Assessment Tools
In tool design, Green Star is similar to BREEAM and LEED, since both Green Star and LEED were originally based on the BREEAM model. All three are principally design rating tools that combine points (credits) for specific design features across an analogous range of environmental categories. Although BREEAMwasusedasthebasisforGreenStars approach, the GBCA has since adaptedGreenStarsassessmentmethodssuchthattheyare currently more similar to the LEED approach (Saunders, 2008), as demonstrated in the table below by the close proportion of credits awarded to each of water and energy efficiency in both. The following table outlines the main differences and consistencies between the three studied rating systems: The Code for Sustainable Homes 1 to 6 stars Indoor water use External water use Green Star for Multi-Unit Residential 4, 5 or 6 stars Occupant Amenity Water Landscape Irrigation Heat Rejection Water Fire System Water Water Efficient Appliances Swimming Pool/Spa Water Efficiency 12% of total credits (although multiplied by state specific weighing factors) 28% of total credits (although multiplied by state specific weighing factors)

LEED for Homes Rating Certified, Silver, Gold, Platinum Water reuse Irrigation system Indoor water use

Water efficiency requirements

Percentage of credits awarded for the water efficiency category Percentage of credits awarded for the energy efficiency category Mandatory requirements for water efficiency Regional flexibility within the country

11.1% of total credits 28% of total credits

10.1 % of total credits 19.5% of total credits

Table 8: Comparative table of the three building rating tools

48

Evidently, the water conservation standards in Green Star are the highest compared to the other schemes, given the record-breaking drought conditions in Australia. Overall, the schemes promote standards reflecting local sustainability issues and environmental conditions. However; Green Star is the only tool that adapts to variations in environmental conditions within its country of application, not only regarding water, but the tool also assigns state specific weighing factors to all categories except innovation. LEED for Homes and The Code are very much similar when it comes to water requirements. They both award credits for limiting usage of potable water indoors by restricting the flow rate of water, and for collecting and storing rainwater for irrigational purposes. LEED takes this slightly further and awards credits also for collecting greywater, and for using water efficient irrigation systems. LEED assumes that re-used water might be used for indoor uses as well. On the other hand, the code is more flexible in terms of what measures need to be taken in order to reach the per capita consumption target. It also awards credits for minimizing water consumption during construction in the Construction site impacts section. The Code and Green Star both include minimum requirements for both water and energy for each level of the rating system, while LEED only includes pre-requisites for the energy category and none for water efficiency. The higher share given to the energy efficiency category is clear in all three tools, although Green Star assigns state specific weighing factors that balances the inherent weighting that occurs through the number of available points in each category (Taylor, 2011). A study conducted by the British Research Establishment (2004) showed that there are high levels of variation between the systems forthesamegradeorratingthanmightbeexpected, and that none of the systems they examined which included BREEAM, LEED, and Green Star, travelled well in terms of comparison. The study showed that BREEAM Excellent, LEED Platinum, and a 6-Star Green Star building are not equivalent in terms of sustainability traits or environmental impact. When applied to U.K. buildings, both Green Star and LEED rated those buildings higher than the U.K. BREEAM assessment method (BRE, 2004).Yet, in another study comparing building rating tools, Green Star was assessed to be the most comprehensive and rigorous tool (Campbell and Hood, 2006).

49

Chapter 7. Conclusion and Recommendations

Sustainable urban environments projects such as green buildings are quite complicated projects. They require highly specialized teams working in a well cooperative and integrated way. To assess and facilitate those complicated planning and design process, sustainable assessment tools have been developed, of which three have been outlined in this report : LEED for Homes used in the U . S , The Code for Sustainable Homes used in the U K , and Green Star for Multi - unit Residential used in Australia . The fact is that much of the world ' s water today is used for construction and domestic purposes . However , water efficient methods have, to some extent, controlled the domestic water intake , but evidently , not enough to compensate for the high carbon emissions in some areas in developed countries . The study targeted only the water criteria in residential assessment tools , which are the most recently established tools and least updated in each country, and showed the contrast between water consumption, energy consumption and carbon emissions. The following main points and recommendations were deduced:

In the U.S and the U.K, many regions, if not most, that are rich with water, tend to have low
per capita water consumption but high per capita carbon emissions. On the other hand, arid and dry regions are witnessing high per capita water consumption, but low carbon emissions. One way to offset this imbalance can be through building assessment tools: More credits from the energy and carbon emissions category should be diverted to the water sections when the tools (LEED and CSH) are used in arid and dry regions. On the other hand, more points should be diverted from the water category to the energy and emissions sections when the tools are used in regions with water profusion. Green Star for Multi-unit Residential accounts for regional flexibility while LEED for Homes and the Code for Sustainable Homes do not. Include mandatory requirements in LEED for Homes water section, especially in states witnessing severe water shortages, high water consumption and an increase in number of households, such as California, Nevada, and Texas. Allocate more credits to the water category in CSH in the eastern and southern parts of the UK.
50

 Rain water harvesting systems can have a higher carbon footprint than the local supply systems. Also, the higher the amount of rainfall the greater the water savings and hence the greater the carbon footprint. Given the current additional carbon emissions and energy requirements of greywater recycling and rainwater harvesting systems, policies that strongly encourage these systems could be emphasized more in areas where the water and wider benefits are of most value. Rainwater and greywater recycling systems increase net carbon emissions, and effective checks should be done on these systems applicability in a given situation and climate, to ensure that they have wider environmental and social benefits that bridge the gap resulting from the net additional carbon emissions. To do so however, further research is needed in order to come up with benchmarks that can clearly and quantitatively state the regions water conditions, in which water savings from rain water harvesting would compensate for carbon emissions resulting from these systems. Rainwater harvesting and greywater recycling systems should constitute mandatory requirements in LEED for Homes and the Code for Sustainable Home, or be allocated more points, in arid and dry regions such as the western regions of the U.S, or the eastern regions of the UK. With regards to this recommendation, it is important to consider the type of systems to be used, given that the type of system play a major role on the energy requirement for the systems operation, and hence the resulting carbon footprint. In fact, it is important to note that for greywater recycling, the most efficient systems to use are short retention systems, as they are the only ones that have lower energy intensity than of the mains, and are well-suited for homes (Environment Agency, 2008). The water and energy conditions in these three countries vary. In the United States, the situation is roughly split between two regions: The western areas suffering from water shortages and high water consumption, but low carbon emissions and the eastern areas witnessing water abundance, low water consumption but high carbon emissions. A similar observation can be done for England, where the western and northern regions are rich with water but have high carbon emissions, and the eastern and southern areas note water shortages as well as high water
51

consumption, but lower carbon emissions. As for Australia, after witnessing a devastating drought, the countrys awareness and precautionary measures concerning water consumption have become evident, with one aspect being the state specific weighing factors implemented in Green Star for all types of construction, that depend on climate and water conditions of the region the tool is used in. Although the per capita water consumption in Australia is very high, most of it is attributable to agriculture and outdoor use, while the water intake from within the house remains properly manageable. Further research should be done on the effectiveness and efficiency of a central rain water harvesting system that can service multiple homes in a certain region. In addition, it is necessary to study the possibility of making LEED for Homes and Green Star certifications mandatory requirements when constructing a residential building. The evaluation of the water conditions in the U.S, the U.K and Australia has shown that because Australia has witnessed a severe drought and water shortages, the peoples awareness and governmental precautions concerning water consumption have significantly increased, contributing to controlling the populations water intake, without compromising the countrys economy. It is essential for the U.S and the U.K to start taking similar measures soon, before they experience imminent severe water shortages, starting with better regulating domestic water consumptions.

52

Bibliography
Abdalla, G et al., 2011. Criticism on Environmental Assessment Tools. 2nd International Conference on Environmental Science and Technology IPCBEE, [Online]. 6. Available at: http://www.ipcbee.com/vol6/no2/98-F30037.pdf [Accessed 24 July 2012]. Adams, D., 2010. Australiaa desert and biggest per capita user of water in the world [Online]. The University of Newcastle. Available at: http://www.newcastle.edu.au/Resources/Research%20Centres/TFI/Publications/1%20Daniel%20 Ada ms.pdf [Accessed 07 August 2012]. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010. State and Territory Statistical Indicators [Online]. Available at: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by+Subject/1367.0~2011~Main+Features~Water+ Use~9.37. [Accessed 14 August 12].

BRE (2004) Assessment of Sustainability Tools [Online] Report number 15961, BRE, Glasgow; Available at: http://download.suemot.org/envtooleval.pdf [Accessed 22 July 2012].
BREAM, 2008. The Code for Sustainable Homes [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=86. [Accessed 09 June 12]. BREAM, 2011. What is BREEAM [Online]. Available at: http://www.breeam.org/about.jsp?id=66 [Accessed 03 June 12] Mongabay, 2010. Carbon footprint ranking for 100 U.S. cities [Online]. Available at: http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0530-footprint.html [Accessed 03 August 2012]. Clark, A et al., 2009. Quantifying the energy and carbon effects of water saving. Available at: http://www.animate- eu.com/eco/news/EST_EA_Water_summary_report.pdf [Accessed 12 July 2012]. ommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO),2010. Urban Water C Theme [Online]. Available at: http://www.csiro.au/science/Urban-Water. [Accessed 07 August 2012 .] Communities and Local Government, 2006. Code for Sustainable homes: A step-change in sustainable home building practice [Online]. Available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sust_homes.pdf Communities and Local Government, 2009. Household Projections to 2031, England Housing Statistical Release [Online]. Available at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/statistics/pdf/1172133.pdf [Accessed 01 August 2012].
53

Communities and Local Government, 2010. Code for Sustainable Homes: Technical Guide [Online]. Available at: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/code_for_sustainable_homes_techguide.pdf [Accessed 30 June 2012]. DeOreo, W.B. et al., 1999. Residential End Uses of Water, American Water Works Association Research Foundation [Online]. Available at: http://li215-232.members.linode.com/sites/default/files/pub/Mayer-(1999)-Residential-End-Uses-ofWater-Study-Executive-Summary_0.PDF [Accessed 02 August 12] Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2012. Meeting Energy Demand [Online]. Available at: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/meeting_energy/meeting_energy.aspx. [Accessed 02 September 12] Elisa Campbell Consulting, 2006. Assessment of Tools for Rating the Performance of Existing Buildings: A Report on the Options [Online]. Available at: http://www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/ebbuildingratingtoolsrepfinal1.pdf [Accessed 19 June 2012]. Gordy, C., 2012. Water Shortage: 6 Things to Know. The Root [Online]. Available at: http://www.theroot.com/views/america-s-water-shortage [Accessed 04 August 2012]. Green Building Council Australia, 2009. Green Star - Multi Unit Residential v1 / Fact Sheet & Business Case [Online]. Available at: http://www.gbca.org.au/uploads/138/1930/Factsheet_MURTv1.pdf [Accessed 11 August 2012]. Green Building Council Australia. 2009. Green Star - Multi Unit Residential v1 [Online]. Available at: http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/rating-tools/green-star-multi-unit-residential- v1/1930.htm. [Accessed 25 July 12]. Green building index, 2011. What is a green building? [Online] Available at: http://www.greenbuildingindex.org/why-green-buildings.html [Accessed on 16 April, 2012] irby, A., 2000. Dawn of a thirsty century, BBC news Science & Environment, [Online] Available K at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/755497.stm [Accessed 11 April 2012] Kothari, R., 2010. Environment, Technology, and Ethics, Chapter 36 in Hanks, C. (ed.) Technology and Values Chichester, Blackwell, pp. 431-437. Mckay, J., 2007. Green Assessment Tools: The Integration of Building Envelope Durability. 11th Canadian Conference on Building Science and Technology [Online]. Available at: http://bricksand-brome.net/19c11.pdf [Accessed 28 July 2012]. Memon, F., Butler D., 2006. Water Demand Management [Online]. Available at: http://www.iwapublishing.co.uk/pdf/contents/isbn1843390787_contents.pdf [Accessed 21 August 2012].
54

Mitchell, L., 2009. Green Star and NABERS: Learning from the Australian experience with green building rating tools. Cities & Climate Change URS [Online]. Available at: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTURBANDEVELOPMENT/Resources/3363871256566800920/6505269-1268260567624/Mitchell.pdf [Accessed 17 July 2012 .] Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), 2009. Climate Change, Water, and Risk: Current Water Demands Are Not Sustainable. Water Facts [Online]. Available at: http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/watersustainability/files/WaterRisk.pdf [Accessed 09 August 2012]. Parkes, et. al, 2010. Energy and carbon implications of rainwater. Evidence [Online]. Available at: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/PDF/SCHO0610BSMQ-E-E.pdf [Accessed 27 June 2012] Reed, R., et al. 2009. International comparison of sustainable rating tools. Journal of Sustainable Real estate. 1 (1) Riverina water, 2012. Average water use [Online]. Available at: http://www.rwcc.com.au/savewater/average-water-use/. [Accessed 14 August 12]. Sheehan, P., 2012. Energy use sucking up a precious resource [Online]. Available at http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/energy-use-sucking-up-a-precious-resource-201201081pq0i.html [Accessed 17 July 2012]. Speers, A., 2007. Water and cities overcoming inertia and achieving a sustainable future, Chapter 3 in Novotny, V. And Brown, P. R. Cities of the Future London, IWA Publishing, pp. 18-32. Stanton, E. et al., 2010. Why Do State Emissions Differ So Widely? Economics for Equity and Environment [Online]. Available at: http://www.e3network.org/papers/Why_do_state_emissions_differ_so_widely.pdf[Accessed 19 July 2012]. Taylor, D., 2011. Assessment tools for the Construction Industry [Online]. Cardiff University. Available at: http://www.wfbp.co.uk/woodknowledgewales/files/270745_BRE%20report_Assessment%20too ls%20for%20the%20Construction%20Industry_final.pdf?&lang=en_us&output=json&sessionid=e83c74bae0ce4a5b8e2d779bb36f2bd5 [Accessed 17 August, 2012]. The Economist, 2007. The Big Dry. The Economist [Online]. Available at: http://www.economist.com/node/9071007 [Accessed 27August, 2012]. U.S green building council, (2010). What is LEED [Online]. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988 [Accessed 03 July 2012]

55

United States Geological Survey, 2005. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005: Domestic Supply, p. 19.

UN-Water Statistics - Water Resources, 2012. UN-Water Statistics - Water Resources [Online]. Available at: http://www.unwater.org/statistics_use.html. [Accessed 03 September 2012]
US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. U.S. Water Demand, Supply and Allocation: Trends and Outlook. Water Resources Outlook [Online]. Available at: http://www.iwr.usace.army.mil/docs/iwrreports/2007-R-03.pdf [Accessed 07 August 2012]. US Green building Council, 2008. LEED for Homes rating system [Online]. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=3638 [Accessed 03 July 2012] Water UK, 2008. State of the Water Sector report. Sustainable Water, [Online] 1, 1. Available at: http://www.water.org.uk/home/news/press-releases/sustainablewater/stateofsector2008.pdf [Accessed 03 July 2012]. WaterSense, 2009. Water Supply in the U.S [Online]. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/watersense/pubs/supply.html. [Accessed 07 August 12]. Weber, C., 2007. Random harvest picking through the current crop of green building programs. Residential architect [Online]. Available at: http://www.residentialarchitect.com/architects/random-harvest_1.aspx [Accessed 10 August 2012] Wilmott Dixon, 2010. The Impacts of Construction and the Built Environment [Online]. Available at: http://www.willmottdixongroup.co.uk/assets/b/r/briefing-note-33-impacts-of-construction-2.pdf [Accessed on 09 April, 2012] World Green Building Council, 2008. Green Building rating tools [Online]. Available at: http://www.worldgbc.org/site2/green-building-councils/rating-tools/ [Accessed on 15 April, 2012]

56

Appendix 1
The major building environmental assessment tools currently in use include (Abdalla et al., 2011):

Australia: Nabers / Green Star Brazil: AQUA / LEED Brasil Canada: LEED Canada / Green Globes / Built Green Canada China: GBAS Finland: PromisE France: HQE Germany: DGNB / CEPHEUS Hong Kong: HKBEAM India: Indian Green Building Council (IGBC) Indonesia: Green Building Council Indonesia (GBCI) / Greenship Italy: Protocollo Itaca / Green Building Council Italia Japan: CASBEE Korea: KGBC Lebanon: Al Arz Malaysia: GBI Malaysia Mexico: LEED Mexico Netherlands: BREEAM Netherlands New Zealand: Green Star NZ Philippines: BERDE / Philippine Green Building Council Portugal: Lider A / SBToolPT Republic of China (Taiwan): Green Building Label Singapore: Green Mark South Africa: Green Star SA Spain: VERDE Switzerland: Minergie United States: LEED / Living Building Challenge / Green Globes / Build it Green / NAHB NGBS / International Green Construction Code (IGCC) / ENERGY STAR United Kingdom: BREEAM United Arab Emirates: Estidama / Pearl Rating System Turkey : Yesilbina Thailand : TREES Vietnam: LOTUS Rating Tools Czech Republic: SBToolCZ

57

Appendix 2
As of 2012: The housing stock in England and Wales as of 2012 is 24.2 million, with an average occupancy of 2.4 people per home. The total population in England and Wales is approximately 56.5 million people

Projections for the year 2020: 26 million households in England and Wales, with an average occupancy of 2.2 people per home. Total population in England and Wales will be 59 million people.

Current scenario (data from UK national statistics): 178000 dwellings are certified achieving a 3 star rating, with 105 litres/person/day water consumption. (Calculations exclude dwellings with higher than 3 stars rating because they are relatively insignificant) 24.32 million Dwellings non-certified, with 150 litres/person/day water consumption.

Amount of water supplied per day:

Average per capita water consumption:

58

The previous calculations were done to show how the current per capita water consumption is reached. The following calculations will show two scenarios that will allow achieving the 130 litres/person/day target by 2020:

a. Target scenario (2020): This scenario only incorporates non-certified houses and houses built to code level 3.

At least 8 million dwellings must achieve level 3 of the code in order to reduce the per capita water consumption to 130 litres/person/day, which equates to approximately 31% of the housing stock in England and Wales in 2020. This means that approximately 6 million houses will need to be retrofitted for efficient water use. b. Target scenario (2020): This scenario will incorporate non-certified houses, houses built to code level 3 and to code level 6. Given that houses built to code level 3 are more feasible tan those built to level 6, the calculations are aimed at minimising the amount of houses built to code level 6.

In this proposed scenario, the best way of action is to retrofit 5.5 million houses to meet the codeslevel3requirements,andhave1millionhousesbuilttocodelevel3and1millionhouses built to code level 6.
59