Hi!
We have a site in Nairobi which we try to define as a greenfield or previously developed site. The site is 2km south from the City Center, on the Campus Area,between two residential areas, bordering the national park. There is no hard surfaces on the site, no roads, buildings or parking. The habitat is that of open grassland predominant with natural vegetation of grassland community with scattered saplings of bushes and small trees.
The area is not directly used by people, like a park or a urban forest, but seems not like "natural land" that never been affected by human activity at all.
We used the definitions of greenfield site and previously developed as:
- "Greenfield sites" are those that are not previously developed or graded and remain in a natural state. For projects outside the U.S. only: For the compliance path described by Case 1, rural landscapes are considered the same as greenfield sites. A rural landscape is a natural area modified by agro-forestry-pastoral activities, with environmental, aesthetic, cultural and historical values resulting from the interrelationship between its physical and biological aspects and traditional human activities.
- "Previously developed areas" are those that previously contained buildings, roadways, parking lots or were graded or altered by direct human activities.
The ecologist define the area as "greenfield site" and the local landscape architects define it as "previously developed".
What to do?
Jon Clifford
LEED-AP BD+CGREENSQUARE
LEEDuser Expert
327 thumbs up
December 26, 2014 - 7:19 pm
Ulrika—I would ask your ecologist and your landscape architect both why each of them classified the site differently. Are they using the same definitions and criteria? Does either of them know something about the site’s history or ecology that has led them to opposite conclusions? If they work from the same definitions and information, their conclusions should agree.
Also, make sure that you are using the correct definitions for the version of LEED that you are using. The current “Global ACP” supplement for LEED-NC 2009 says to use the definitions from the LEED-2009 BD+C Reference Guide:
.. Greenfield sites are not previously developed or graded that could support open space, habitat, or agriculture.
.. Previously developed sites are those altered by paving, construction, and/or land use that would typically have required regulatory permitting to have been initiated (alterations may exist now or in the past). Previously developed land includes a platted lot on which a building was constructed if the lot is no more than 1 acre; previous development on lots larger than 1 acre is defined as the development footprint and land alterations associated with the footprint. Land that is not previously developed and altered landscapes resulting from current or historical clearing or filling, agricultural or forestry use, or preserved natural area use are considered undeveloped land. The date of previous development permit issuance constitutes the date of previous development, but permit issuance in itself does not constitute previous development. (http://www.usgbc.org/leed-interpretations?clearsmartf=true&keys=100001040)
The definitions that you cite appear to come from another version of LEED.
Finally, these same definitions apply to various LEED Credits. Make sure that you classify your site consistently across all credits.
Jason Hercules
Manager, LEED DepartmentUSGBC
4 thumbs up
January 15, 2015 - 2:03 pm
Ulrika, from the description you've provided, it sounds as though the site would be considered a greenfield. Given the credit intent, the site description more closely aligns with that of a greenfield, since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of the site being altered to the extent that it would be considered previously developed.