**2. Background**

The two aspects of the overall building purpose and operation are not necessarily always in sync as has been demonstrated to date by the way the industry has approached this problem in the form of split incentives [13]. Many organisations feel that just complying with the environmental norms or national regulations is enough to meet user needs, and their work is completed once they manage to deliver a building as per such guidelines. Examining the performance of a building is also mostly restricted to evaluating the operation of a building with respect to energy consumption and energy efficiency. Most initiatives taken by facility managers and

#### *Highlighting the Design and Performance Gaps: Case Studies of University Buildings DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102779*

senior management are to ensure that the utilities, that is, electricity, gas, and water consumption of the building meet the standards overlooking other key concepts of performance management, such as incorporating the occupant's perception and outlook in building management, performance evaluation through a building's life cycle, and other such social considerations beyond the environmental. However, a building in operation is a complex system and its management should not be restricted only to the knowledge of facility managers. It should focus on more integrated and holistic approaches, where the organisational objectives, knowledge of facility managers, review by the external stakeholders, and occupant perceptions should all be considered together to be satisfactory and present optimum results for these stakeholders.

As indicated earlier with green buildings, the assessments have generally been restricted to the measurement of energy being the key focus for most organizations when aiming to reduce the emissions or overall carbon footprints. When including other aspects of building performance, many studies [14–19] have discussed the significance of monitoring design and other internal building features, with a focus primarily on indoor environmental quality (IEQ ) and thermal comfort conditions. However, not much focus and practical exploration have been undertaken to consider occupant satisfaction for evaluating overall building performance and closing the loop between the occupants and building management to achieve holistic green outcomes [20, 21].

Tertiary education institutions have a critical role in the current decade to innovate, excel, and set an example in meeting the needs of the changing environment [22]. The strategic vision of universities needs to be one that accounts for the rapidly changing world, and to be flexible enough to recalibrate and refresh as conditions around them change. Universities globally are investing billions of dollars into building construction that showcases their sustainability commitment [23] designed for being used as science laboratories to incubate innovative green technologies facilitating academic and research activities. Universities are constantly upgrading to sustainable standards leading through design, innovation, and adapting to new reforms and requirements by the industry around the globe. Such reforms are formulated to cultivate a population that is knowledgeable and active towards their crucial role in sustainable development and combating climate change.

Over the last several years there has also been a shift away from a prescriptive approach to sustainable design towards the evidence-based evaluation of actual performance through life cycle assessments (LCAs). While LCAs are not yet a consistent requirement of green building rating systems and codes, there is a trend towards requiring LCAs and improving the methods for conducting them [24]. Here is where green building assessment tools play a role in guiding the design professionals towards green approaches and eliminating bad performing buildings from the building industry. Building assessment tools are in a continuous state of evolution and continue to be refined to reflect new standards and goals for achieving ever-higher levels of sustainability [24, 25]. Therefore, it is essential to investigate the most current versions of these tools to gain an understanding of the requirements that must be met to achieve optimal results.

Globally, sustainable building rating systems started about 30 years ago after the development of Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) in 1990. Since then, there is an emergence of several environment rating tools for buildings, such as Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) in the U.S.A, Eco-Quantum in the Netherlands, Promise in Finland, Eco-Pro in Germany, Haute Qualité Environnementale (HQE) in France,

Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environment Efficiency (CASBEE) in Japan, and Athena in Canada, to name a few. The assessment methods for these rating tools vary from the perspective of scope, structure, format, and complexity. Apart from the most commonly used rating tools, such as LEED and BREEAM, other assessment tools fall into the category of qualitative and life cycle assessments, including the Sustainable Building Tool; Green Star, Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method (HK BEAM) or tools adapted to specific countries, such as LEED adapted for Canada and Australian Green Star adapted for New Zealand and South Africa. In some instances, the tools have developed into a new tool, for example, the Building Assessment Tool (SBAT) influenced by BREEAM and LEED.

Although most of the existing building rating systems are voluntary, in some countries, such as Australia, it is a mandatory requirement for minimum energy requirements of new office buildings and major refurbishments as per the National Construction Code Building Code of Australia maintained by the Australian Building and Construction Board [26]. Development and uptake of such rating schemes are promoted in Australia at a national level, as the detrimental effects of buildings account for approximately a quarter of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions and twothirds of electricity consumption [27]. Currently, two voluntary national accreditation programs exist to measure and report on the environmental performance of office tenancies and assist in guiding best practice office fit-outs. These Australian building rating systems are mandatory requirements for minimum energy requirements of new buildings and major refurbishment [28]. The two rating systems, that is, NABERS and Green Star, currently available in Australia promote sustainable building development in the commercial space. Green Star is Australia's only national, voluntary, holistic rating system for sustainable buildings and communities [29]. The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) developed Green Star, which is a design-based rating system that provides no guarantee of, or commitment to, a specific level of performance and confines itself to the intent of the design and to some extent the provision of the process to achieve that intent [30, 31]. The Green Star rating system is a much broader rating scheme than NABERS and assesses both environmental and liveability factors throughout a building's lifecycle [29]. Green Star has now achieved sufficient market penetration and may be considered to be part of procurement practice by industry.

This study used Green Star rated buildings. Green Star started with three rating classifications, that is, "As Design," "As Built," and "Green Star Communities." Recently a fourth component of "As Performance" [32] has been added to the rating system, with each classification having versions as and when updated.

There are several versions of each Green-Star tool that have been updated since the tool was first created. Rating buildings as per the design and built outcome to interiors, performance, and communities, Green Star supports deploying innovative practices to optimise sustainability outcomes through an array of options [33]. All the versions of the Green Star rating scheme started with a pilot version to understand the limitations and continued refinements based on changing global, national, and industry requirements. As the evaluation of the case study buildings were conducted over the period 2014–2019, the buildings used were all Green-Star buildings certified for As Design (v1) at the start of the data collection period. A total of 86 academic buildings/projects in Australia were certified As Design (v1). Of which, 35 projects were in Victoria. 37 buildings/projects were certified following As Built (v1) with 6 projects located in Victoria.

Concurrently, what is also required is to constantly upgrade university governance models for long-term sustainability. The governance strategies for most universities

## *Highlighting the Design and Performance Gaps: Case Studies of University Buildings DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.102779*

are focused on shaping their respective campuses, creating innovative learning spaces, and a student precinct, which supports a rich and rewarding student experience. Universities aim at developing teaching and research facilities, which by their very nature, encourage interdisciplinary collaboration and industry engagement, and explore options for campus development to accommodate increasing scale in both teaching and research. Formulating appropriate strategic plans to incorporate such outcomes is crucial and provides a framework within which to develop, implement and modify practices, associated investments, and action plans.
