Building Environmental Assessment a useful tool in the future delivery of holistic sustainability?

Building Environmental Assessment a useful tool in the future delivery of holistic sustainability? Brophy, V., UCD Energy Research Group, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland Abstract: A study undertaken by University College Dublin (UCD) Energy Research Group for the Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) highlighted that the application of environmental assessment methods to a project does not guarantee the delivery of a sustainable project, and could in some instances, if used inappropriately, hinder the achievement of appropriate holistic sustainability strategies. The majority of existing environmental assessment methods, while often considered and referred to as design tools, were developed, and still largely function as voluntary, marketled certification mechanisms, and should only be used as such. If the intent is only to achieve certification, without a genuine commitment to sustainability, optimization may be diminished and the delivered project is likely to be less successful in reaching its potential. Environmental assessment methods, and the context in which they operate, are changing rapidly - do they have the potential to address future challenges and deliver true sustainability? Keywords; Environmental Assesssment Methods (EAMs), environmental design tools, Integrated Design Process, Irish Green Building Council. Context The IGBC wished to provide its members with guidance on the use of building environmental assessment methods in Ireland. The guidance provided was developed through the findings of the IGBC study, Building Environmental Assessment Method for Ireland, prepared by the UCD Energy Research Group (1), and the IGBC workshop Applying Building Environmental Assessment Methods. Both the study and workshop reviewed the application of current environmental assessment methods appropriate to commercial office buildings only. Development of environmental assessment methods While traditionally, legislation was viewed as the most appropriate means of dealing with environmental concerns, more innovative solutions, cooperative measures and voluntary agreements between industry and regulation bodies are increasingly employed to address emerging, and broader, environmental issues (2). 1

Building environmental assessment methods were initially conceived as voluntary, market place mechanisms by which owners seeking better environmental performance of their buildings would have an objective method for communicating the achievement. Their initial success (as measured by the large number of buildings assessed and of practitioner acceptance) can be seen to be either as indicitive of a proactive building industry, or response of systems to market demand. Either way, it is recognised that building environmental assessment has achieved the following: provided guidance to design teams in a structured and organised manner which gives focus to improved environmental building practice encouraged the formulation of performance based indicators redefined the design process to assist in the delivery of high performing buildings on time and cost effectively contributed to promotion of higher environmental expectations and both directly, and indirectly, influenced the performance of buildings (3, 4). Assessment methods provide quantitative performance indicators for design alternatives and a rating for the whole building performance. They offer a structure for environmental issues; a straightforward declaration of performance measures; a means to demonstrate commitment to environmental policy and an opportunity to brand innovative materials and products (5). They have assisted in shifting industry emphasis from conventional practice towards high performance, environmentally focussed building; and the introduction of Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Leadership in Energy and Emnvironmental design (LEED) and other methods resulted in noticeable change. Furthering sustainable building practice requires the development of information exchange and increased cooperation between stakeholders, and building environmental assessment methods have been proven to be very valuable in this regard (6). While primarily assessment tools, they can act as a roadmap for the integration of environmental issues in the design and construction process (7). They are often referred to as building design tools and building rating tools. Their early success has led to the development of a broad range of systems for differing countries, community infrastructure, differing building scales and functions, structures, restoration and interiors. More recently developed systems, or second generation systems, while still employing the scoring systems of earlier methods, collectively suggest a transition towards methods that may enable assessment of economic and social aspects of building and the extent to which they can contribute to supporting sustainable patterns of living. Environmental assessment methods today In more recent years, the growing general acceptance of building environmental assessment methods has moved them beyond voluntary market place mechanisms to adoption by public agencies and other bodies as performance specification requirements. Increasingly, the financial sector (banks and insurance companies) and the real estate sector (institutional investors, fund managers and project developers) are recognising them as indicators of 2

desireable performance and risk mitigation (8). The perceived long-term economic benefits, based on reduced life cycle costs and increased workplace productivity and health have been well documented. A Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors (RICS) Research Report in 2012 documents a study undertaken at Maastricht University which indicates that in the developing market of BREEAM certified commercial buildings in London there are substantial premiums to be commanded for certified buildings over non-certified properties with similar basic building charistics. Rental rates attract at best a 28% and transactions a 26% premium; however, building clustering, location, size, storey height, can all reduce these premia. Significant decrease is possible as the market for certified buildings and national standards increases (9). The RICS study results are supported by a recent examination of the impact of LEED and Energy Star certification in the US commercial markets (10). While the premiums documented were lower, 6% and 16% respectively, this was investigated and accounted for by the inclusion of Building Owner and Managers Association (BOMA) building quality control class definitions. The RICS study tested the Eichholtz analyses with the removal of the building quality controls and compared the results with those of New York, Chicago and Washington DC using the Eichholtz data. The results for these three cities indicate that when control for building quality is removed the results are comparable with the London specifications, suggesting that standardization of building quality measures is required to provide more comparable data, which may in the future find substantially lower premiums for green buildings in London. While real estate agents continue to debate about the level of premiums, if any, it is fair to say that some level of premium is currently evident in the rental and sale of BREEAM and LEED certified buildings. However, it is the high performance and low risk aspect of certified buildings that is driving assessment today, as property investors seek to reduce risk by lending to those that are perceived to be socially responsible. As yet, there is little understanding about the equivalence of the methods being used internationally and with increasingly global financial and property markets, assessment methods need to be benchmarked in a clear and transparent manner (11). There is a growing practice of environmental assessment methods aligning themselves with particular corporate targets, addressing regional commitments, using locally defined benchmarks and assessment criteria, applying differing weightings, providing little transparency and with all of these systems vying for market share. The main emphasis of the four methods reviewed in the IGBC study: BREEAM 2009 Europe Commercial; DGNB 2009 New Construction for Offices and Administration Buildings and LEED 2009 New Construction and Major Renovation and LBC 2011 Building, is on evaluation of environmental aspects, although all address societal aspects to some extent, and DGNB also addresses economical value. The complexity of comparing methods, the knowledge needed of the development context, varying baseline assumptions, assessment criteria and weightings combine to result in many research-based and commercial studies being of limited value. Image 1 illustrates the depth of consideration of defined topics, based on assessment criteria and weightings, in the four systems reviewed. 3

Image 1: Source: based on Alinghizadeh, Khezri, 20011, (amended to include LBC). It is not surprising that the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) and the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) have focussed attention on the harmonisation of assessment methodologies (8), (12). A set of core criteria were developed suitable for use by contracting bodies with minimal additional verification effort or cost increases, and a set of comprehensive criteria were developed for those who wish to purchase the best products on the market, which may require additional verification or a slight increase in cost (13). The criteria are based on scientific assessment of the environmental impacts of the building for each part of the life-cycle and consider environmental aspects consistent with commercial environmental assessment methods, incorporating emerging CEN standards and encompassing existing legislation, including the EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings (EPBD) (2002/91/EC) (14) and its recast in 2010 (2010/31/EU) (15). The criteria are the basis for EC Green Public Procurement requirements and the EU Ecolabel for buildings. Environmental assessment methods of the future A survey undertaken by the International Real Estate Business School, University of Regensburg, of thirty national Green Building Councils worldwide found that 66% of GBCs saw the potential of creating a global assessment system and 75% of those saw the framework of that system coming from a system already in the market, within five years (16). An important advantage of an agreed approach would be the comparability of assessment results 4

due to the standardised assessment procedures and world wide availability, and the benefits of objective assessment for property and financial markets. This would suggest that the focus should be on incorporating the standards that are under development into existing methodologies, making the performance baseline for evaluation more consistent and providing greater transparency to facilitate comparability. However, in harmonising the approach, if not internationally at least Europe-wide, variation and flexibility is required to allow for regional and local differences that reflect stakeholder values (17). UK GBC Members recommended to BRE Global, as part of a consultation process on the update of BREEAM 2011, that BREEAM should be aligned with European and International standards, but that care should be taken to ensure flexibility of approach and reference to local context (18). Engagement with industry stakeholders was seen as integral to the process. Stakeholders with an interest in sustainable development principles, both on the supply and demand sides, whose decisions and actions determine the quality of the built environment and influence its contribution to sustainable development, are growing in number and becoming more diverse (19). Sustainable development achievement depends on the interaction of public policy in the form of regulation; incentives and disincentives; involvement of the real estate, finance and insurance industries; the influence of education and training institutions, professional institutes and construction industry bodies and including the wide range of stakeholders in this complex sector of the built environment (20). Some environmental assessment methods are perceioved to have become too prescriptive, and often strategies are selected because associated credits are inexpensive and easy to apply, rather than developing appropriate design solutions. A study by Wallhagen and Glaugmann concluded that differences between assessment methods can influence the design direction of a sustainable building, and in promoting differing strategies, it is relevant to question the extent of their contributions to decreasing substantially the overall environmental impact of buildings and the shift towards more sustainable architecture (21). Happio and Viitaniemi question what the impact would be if all new buildings were sustainable buildings according to the requirements of building assessment methods (22). Stakeholder influence on the evolution of building assessment may see the development of integrated building performance assessment methodologies that are transparent and accessible, include stakeholders values and knowledge, consider not only environmental issues but also social and economic matters in the complete lifecycle of buildings, and a move from predictive and analytical data to actual building performance (23), (24). The communication of economic advantages and reduced risks of high performance buildings into mainstream investment analysis will effect transformation and growth in the usage of environmental assessment. 5

Role for environmental assessment? Cole has written extensively about the role of building environmental assessment methods (3, 4, 5, 25, 6). He has compared and contrasted the initial intention and current focus with the increasing emphasis on the wider sustainability, and in particular social and economic sustainability. He questions the extent to which methods can address complex issues while remaining simple and practical, and their capacity to enhance dialogue among stakeholders and frame sustainability within the political and social debate. He draws distinctions between the product (the recognizable technical assessment framework within the method) and the process (issues related to the use of assessment methods) to emphasize that an assessment framework is only a means to an end and not an end in itself. The development of the Integrated Design Process (IDP), bringing together client, design and technical services professionals, building team and occupants, has assisted in the delivery of high performance, quality architecture; and has increased pressure on building developers and designers to deliver buildings that achieve measurable high levels of performance over their lifecycle, in a cost effective and environmentally friendly manner (26). IDP is based on the well-proven observation that a whole-system approach must be applied by a knowledgeable, integrated design team; backed by robust commissioning, effective management and collaboration between building managers and occupants, if optimised building performance is to be delivered. The IGBC Workshop, in which an integrated design team applied a number of environmental assessment methods to a large urban commercial office project with significant environmental targets at design stage, had as its main objective to see how the differing assessment methods might be used as tools to influence the design and to assess their impact on the integrated design decision-making process. The team comprised client, architect, structural, mechanical and electrical engineers, quantity surveyor, waste and water consultant and qualified environmental assessors for each system applied. BREEAM was the most easily applied by the design team, mainly because Irish construction methods, building regulation standards and energy assessment methods are similar to those in the UK. DGNB was the most thorough system and included Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing; however, these mandatory requirements were seen as difficult and costly when not required by national regulation and unfamiliar to a current design team. The client, however, was impressed with the method and considered that the application of life cycle analysis and costing provided a route to better decision making from the client perspective. DGNB is best aligned with EU CEN standards, which reflect the recast Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD). LEED is not aligned with EU standards, and falls well behind the energy standards required for compliance with the recast EPBD. While alternative compliance paths for Europe are being developed for the future, including the use of metric units and European standards, currently its value lies mainly in facilitating the international comparison of US corporate LEED certified buildings. LBC, which was included in the 6

exploratory study but not applied to the workshop project, was alluded to in discussion on post occupancy evaluation. LBC is recognized as an ambitious framework for achieving holistic sustainability and is the only method based on achieving operational performance standards (following a twelve month operational period) for certification, rather than design and construction standards. The participants agreed that environmental assessment methods offer a good framework for a design team, particularly if unfamiliar with the principles of sustainable design, and could assist in encouraging better performance in poorer performing buildings. They highlighted that the application of an environmental assessement method to a project could in some instances, if used inappropriately, hinder the achievement of appropriate holistic sustainability strategies, and if misused could provide a mask of sustainability for a poorly performing building. They concluded that none of the methods could guarantee the delivery of a sustainable building and it depended on the commitment and expertise of the design team to derive appropriate sustainable design solutions. Conclusions Environmental assessment methods have in the past been seen as a driver for sustainability, however, both the methods and the context in which they operate, are changing rapidly. The drive in Europe to achieve near zero energy or carbon neutral buildings within this decade, and the growing emphasis on the production of low environmental impact products and the impact of construction practices on national policy and the construction industry supply chain, may suggest that some methods are more future proofed and appropriate than others for wide application in the future and have greater potential to deliver future requirements and to assist in the delivery of life cycle evaluated environmental, social and economical sustainability. However, it is the understanding by the client and design team of the principles and practice of sustainable architectural design that is imperative to the achievement of cost-effective, high-performance, architectural quality. If the intent is only to achieve building certification, without a genuine commitment to sustainability, optimization may be diminished and the delivered project is likely to be less successful in reaching its true potential. References (1) Brophy, V. (2012). Building Environmental Assessment Method for Ireland. UCD Energy Research Study for Irish Green Building Council. Internet: IGBC. Available at: http://www.igbc.ie/ (2) Aggeri, F. (1999). Environmental Policies and Innovation a knowledge-based perspective on cooperative approaches. Research Policy, 28, pgs. 699-717. (3) Cole, R. (2003). Building environmental assessment methods: A measure of success. IeJC. May 2003. (4) Cole, R. (2004). Changing context for environmental knowledge. Building Research & Information, 32(2), March-April, pgs 91-109. 7

(5) Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and Information, 33(5), pgs 455-467. (6) Cole, R. (2011). Motivating Stakeholders to deliver environmental change. Building Research and Information, 39(5), pgs 431-435. (7) Brophy, V. (2005). Current building design procedures in Ireland a potential barrier to sustainable design and construction. MArchSc thesis in the School of Architecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering, University College Dublin. Available in UCD Architectural Library. (8) Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (RICS). (2011). Going for Green. Sustainable Building Certification Statistics Europe. Internet: RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.org/ (9) Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P. and Kok, N. (2012). Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Report for RICS Research. Internet: RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.org/research. (10) Eichholtz, PMA., Kok, N. and Quigley, JM. (2010). Doing Well by Doing Good: Green Office Buildings. American Economic Review, 100, pgs 2494-2511. (11) Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, K-W. (2009). International Comparison of Sustainable rating Tools. JOSRE, vol 1, no 1, 2009. Internet: Costar. Available at: http://www.costar.com/josre/ (12) Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A. and Schulte, K-W. (2011). A Comparison of International Sustainable Building Tools An Update. In Newell, G. (Ed) Proceedings 17 th Annual Pacific Rim Real Estate Society Conference, 16-19 January 2011. Gold Coast, Australia. Internet: PRRES. Available at: http://www.prres.net/ (13) Joint Research Centre s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC IPTS). (2011). Green Public Procurement Office Buildings Technical Background Report. Report for EC, DG Environment. Internet: JCT. Available at: http://www.susproc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/ (14) European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU), (2002). Directive 2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings. [Internet]. EU. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ (15) European Parliament and the Council of the European Union (EU), (2010). Directive 2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and the Council on the Energy Performance of Buildings (Recast). [Internet]. EU. Available at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ (16) International Real Estate Business School (IREBS). (2011). Potential of Creating a Global Certification System for Sustainable Buildings. ED Batna, S. Internet: IREBS. Available at: http://www.irebs.de/ (17) Poston, A., Emmalual, R. and Thomson, C. (2010). Developing holistic frameworks for the next generation of sustainable assessment methods for the built environment. In Egbu, C. (Ed) Proceedings 26 th Annual ARCOM Conference, 6-6 September 2010. Leeds, UK. Association of Construction Management, pgs 1487-1496. 8

(18) UK Green Building Council. (2011). The Ecolabel for Buildings: A proposal for effective implementation. UKGBC Draft Publication. (19) Lutzkendorf, T., Fan, W. and Lorenz, D. (2011). Engaging financial stakeholders: opportunities for a sustainable built environment. Building Research and Information, 39:5, pgs. 483-503. (20) Kibert, C. J. (2007). The next generation of sustainable construction. Building Research and Information, 35:6, pgs 595-601. (21) Wallhagen, M. And Glaumann, M. (2011). Design consequences of differences in building assessment tools: a case study. Building Research and Information, 39 (1), 16-33. (22) Haapio, A and Viitaniemi, P. (2008). A critical review of building environmental assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28, 469-482. (23) Lutzkendorf, T. and Lorenze, D. (2007). Using an integrated performance approach in building assessment tools. Building Research and Information, 34:4, pgs 334-356. (24) Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P. and Hill, R. (2006). Advancing key outcomes of sustainability building assessment. Building Research and Information, 34:4, pgs 308-320. (25) Cole, R. (2006). Shared Markets: coexisting building environmental assessment methods, Buildig Research and Information, 34(4), pgs 357-371. (26) Larsson, N. and Poel, B. (2002). Solar Low Energy Buildings and the Integrated Design Process An introduction. International Energy Agency (IEA) Task 23. Arnhem: IEA. 9