I find this credit extremely subjective. Or maybe we don't quite understand it... Our landscape architects have a hardtime in assuming what is the baseline case for "conventional landscape practices". Is there any sort of more accurate criteria to determine the baseline? How do you folks work on that?
And the other thing is that many projects here (Brazil) are manually irrigated with hose during the lifetime of the project. However the reference guide doesn't provide the efficiency for hose irrigation only for sprinklers and drip. So what's the efficiency to assumefor our hose irrigation? Ive submitted this question a few times before in this forum but no responses at all...
Any thought?
Thanks!
Dan LeBlanc
Senior Sustainability ManagerYR&G
86 thumbs up
March 25, 2013 - 7:09 pm
Yes developing the baseline is subjective. Most LA's I've worked with use plantings and irrigation system that are "typical" for the building type. In this, experience will be your best guide. It can be a bit of guesswork, and I'm not aware of a resource for this. Maybe others know of one?
In terms of hand watering, there is no assumption for manual irrigation, which in some cases would probably be the most efficient! The calculation assumes timed or sensored automatic sprinkler systems in all cases. If the landscaping plan relies on hand watering, then the project is likely not able to get the credit.
Melissa Merryweather
DirectorGreen Consult-Asia
245 thumbs up
July 17, 2013 - 8:11 pm
In my experience reviewers are recently not allowing the baseline case to vary much from average conditions. I've been asked in two cases to re-calculate species factors that were above average, even though it is common practice where we are to use high-water-requirement species. In fact we don't anticipate getting this credit in future without incorporating drip irrigation or other efficient irrigation means, even though we always have non-potable water use. (We would only gain 2/4 points). So do be cautious about applying unusual baseline values.