Sustainable Building Certification The Case of Hotel Buildings

Sustainable Building Certification The Case of Hotel Buildings Master Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the Degree Master of Science in Sustainable Development, Management and Policy Submitted to Dr. Sabine Sedlacek Philipp Redl 0811557 Vienna, 10 June 2013

AFFIDAVIT I hereby affirm that this Master s Thesis represents my own written work and that I have used no sources and aids other than those indicated. All passages quoted from publications or paraphrased from these sources are properly cited and attributed. The thesis was not submitted in the same or in a substantially similar version, not even partially, to another examination board and was not published elsewhere. Date Signature I

II

ABSTRACT The building sector is one of the main sectors in energy consumption and contributes up to 30% to the global greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP, 2009). The rising need for infrastructure and the incredible growth in new construction encourages the building sector to create a more sustainable construction through the implementation of green building certificates, which fulfill the tasks of monitoring and improving the energy efficiency. Whereas for office buildings these assessment tools have become quite common, this has not happened within the hotel industry. This research aims to detect obstacles in applying the DGNB certification scheme to hotel buildings and explore the main reasons for these barriers. The research methods consist of a review of relevant literature coupled with the analysis of green building expert interviews and secondary data. The findings from this research show that the main barriers are the lack of awareness of hoteliers as well as guests, the lack of experience of such initiatives in the sector, the diverse user groups of hotel buildings and the costs of such initiatives. This master thesis recommends pushing a clear and transparent communication about such initiatives through green marketing activities and additional incentives to increase awareness and additional market demand. Keywords: green building certificates, DGNB, hotel buildings, sustainable construction III

IV

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Though only my name appears on the cover of this thesis, many people have contributed to its production. First I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Sabine Sedlacek, Assistant Professor at the Department of Public Governance at the MODUL University Vienna, who has supported me throughout my MSc education with useful comments, remarks and engagement. Furthermore I would like to thank the following individuals and organizations for their time and contribution with their expert knowledge: MMAg. Philipp Kaufmann MMAS, President ÖGNI; Dipl. Ing. Thomas Gratzer, Project Manager at Michaeler & Partner; Dir. Walter Breg, General Manager Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden; Mag. Arch. Gabriel Kacerovsky, Founder of archisphere; Dipl. Ing. Sven Wünschmann Area Manager of CSD engineers Berlin and Stuttgart; Dipl. Ing. Slawomira Bukowska, Project Development Expert Porr Solutions Immobilien- und Infrastrukturprojekte GmbH; Dipl. Ing. Yvonne Brandenburger MSc, IQ Real- Estate GmbH; Angelika Bandke, DGNB Academy; Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Rühle, Intep GmbH. Also, I would like to thank my friends and colleagues for their help, encouragement and support. Most importantly, I would like to express my gratitude to my family for encouraging me, keeping me on track and supporting me when things were difficult. V

TABLE OF CONTENTS Affidavit... I Abstract... III Acknowledgements... V List of Tables... VIII List of Figures... IX List of Abbreviations... X 1 Introduction... 12 1.1 Problem Background... 12 1.2 Research aims and objectives... 14 1.3 Structure of the thesis... 15 2 Literature review... 16 2.1 Green Buildings and the World Green Building Council... 16 2.2 The Austrian Sustainable Building Council - ÖGNI... 18 2.3 Sustainable Building Assessment... 19 2.3.1 Sustainable assessment tools... 21 2.3.2 BREEAM... 24 2.3.3 LEED... 25 2.3.4 Green Globes... 27 2.3.5 DGNB... 28 2.4 Sustainable Construction in Tourism and its role in Austria... 31 3 Methodology... 36 3.1 Research instrument... 36 3.1.1 Qualitative data... 37 3.1.2 Secondary Data... 40 3.2 Conceptual Framework... 40 4 Analysis... 42 4.1 DGNB criteria analysis... 42 4.1.1 Building types... 42 4.1.2 Austrian DGNB criteria assessment... 43 4.1.3 Austrian DGNB criteria: Hotel buildings vs. Office buildings... 44 4.1.4 Adaptation of the system... 53 4.2 DGNB certification of hotel buildings... 55 4.2.1 Falkensteiner Hotel and Spa Bad Leonfelden... 57 VI

4.2.2 Interest and Market value... 58 4.2.3 Acceptance within the hotel sector... 61 4.2.4 Design and construction costs... 64 4.2.5 Summary of findings... 67 4.3 Document analysis...67 4.3.1 Triggers Driving Future Green Building Activity... 68 4.3.2 Challenges Increasing Green Building Activity... 69 4.3.3 Benefits of Using a Green Building Rating System... 72 4.3.4 Reasons for Not Using Green Building Rating Systems... 73 5 Conclusions...75 6 Limitations...80 7 Bibliography...82 Appendices...86 VII

LIST OF TABLES Table 1: New and old building assessment tools... 24 Table 2: Summary of findings... 67 Table 3: Recommendations... 79 VIII

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: The certification process (ÖGNI, DGNB Systembroschüre, 2012)... 30 Figure 2: Range of Certification Fees (ÖGNI, DGNB Systembroschüre, 2012)... 31 Figure 3: Hotel building structures (Ronning & Brekke, 2009)... 33 Figure 4: Conceptual Framework... 41 Figure 5: Assessment classification... 44 Figure 6: The adaptation process... 54 Figure 7: Stakeholder perceptions (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013)... 56 Figure 8: Values of Falkensteiner Michaeler Toruism Group (translated in English) (FMTG - Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group AG, 2010)... 57 Figure 9: Triggers Driving Future Green Building Activity (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013)... 69 Figure 10: Challenges to Increasing Green Building Activity (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013)... 70 Figure 11: Benefits of Using a Green Building Rating System (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013)... 72 Figure 12: Reasons for Not Using Green Building Rating Systems (McGraw Hill Construction, 2013)... 74 IX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS EPDB EU GHG KWh/m² ÖGNI DGNB GDP LEED BREEAM CO 2 US USGBC WorldGBC IPCC GBC CED LCA TQA SME UNWTO UV DIN ÖHT European Performance of Building Directive European Union Green House Gas Kilowatt-hour per square-meter Österreichische Gesellschaft für Nachhaltige Immobilienwirtschaft (Austrian Sustainable Building Council) Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen (German Sustainable Building Council) Gross Domestic Product Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design British Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method Carbon Dioxide United States US Green Building Council World Green Building Council Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Green Building Council Cumulative Energy Demand Life Cycle Analysis Total Quality Assessment Small and medium enterprises United Nations World Tourism Organization Ultraviolet Deutsches Institut für Normung (German Institute for Standardization) Österreichische Hotel und Tourismusbank (Austrian Hotel and Tourism Bank) GBCM PM GM ARCH Green Building Council Member Project Manager General Manager Architect X

XI

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Problem Background Growing greenhouse gas emissions, on-going climate change and the continuing increase in energy demand need a rethinking in order to avoid more global warming. According to the United Nations Environment Program, the building sector is one of the main sectors in energy consumption and adds up to 30% of the global greenhouse gas emissions (UNEP, 2009). The rising need for infrastructure and the incredible growth in new construction encourage the building sector to create a more sustainable construction through the implementation of green specifications. The potential for greater energy and pollution reduction of this sector is much higher than for any other. With the help of available technologies the reduction potential is estimated up to 30-80% in longterm costs. Nevertheless the building sector is a very complicated one as such a high number of stakeholders with different economic interests regarding energy efficiency are involved (Lam, Chan, Poon, Chau, & Chun, 2009). Therefore the role of governments in encouraging the building sector to move towards sustainability is of high importance. As a consequence, the European Union has formed a department working on actions, laws and regulations to reduce the energy consumption and therefore the energy demand within Europe (Hwang & Tan, 2010). As a key part of the legislation the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive (EPBD) was implemented in 2006. The EPDB prescribes the compulsory certification of buildings in the EU and tackles energy dependency via actions aimed at reducing consumption (Andaloro, Salomone, Ioppolo, & Andaloro, 2010). In addition it covers the energy needs for space and hot water heating, cooling and lighting. It is designed to take local requirements and conditions into account. However it is still not implemented in all European countries (EPBD Building Platform, 2008). Many companies in this sector wish to have room for flexibility. As a result the implementation of environmentally friendly measures still rely on many voluntary assessment schemes. Such building certification programs fulfil the tasks of monitoring and improving the energy efficiency in the construction sector (Kibert, 2008). A number of such certificates already exist all over the world and a few of them will be discussed and compared later. 12

Also Austria faces the problem that heating and cooling energy accounts as the second highest greenhouse gas producer of the country. Therefore the Austrian Government established together with the Kyoto Protocol the Austrian Climate Strategy to reduce GHG emissions drastically (Lebensministerium V/4, 2012). The main issues in this strategy are: the renovation of buildings including installing improved insulation, the redesign of transportation (road pricing for trucks, the extension of train infrastructure), the promotion of renewable energies, reducing the Methane emissions of waste sites and reducing the use of synthetic GHG-active gases. Consequently in 2008 Austria implemented the EPBD based on nine different building codes in each of the nine provinces with different regulations regarding energy. In 2006 the development of a common calculation method was agreed upon and as a result implemented by the Austrian Institute of Construction Engineering. The energy performance certificate (Energieausweis) is based on calculated values and is assigned to residential and non-residential buildings or building units. It rates in 9 energy performance levels from A++ (high energy efficiency) to G (low efficiency) and measures the heat energy demand in kwh/m² and year as a key factor of the certificate. This certificate was mandatory for all newly constructed buildings and major renovations since 2008 (Jilek, 2011). As of 1.12.2012 the new Energy Performance Certificate Presentation Law requires every landlord or seller, but also every broker and agent to present the energy performance certificate, which is valid for ten years. Within these strategies the real estate and building sector plays an important role in order to create more sustainable construction processes. Also the Austrian climate strategy was updated in 2007 and new goals like the increase of renewable energy technologies or the improvement of energy intensity in the final consumption of buildings were formulated (Lebensministerium V/4, 2012). However Austria, as a small country, was not able to establish a pioneering role in the sector of green buildings and can now learn from other countries and include their experience. In order to increase the public awareness and the knowledge of green buildings within the industry, the Austrian Sustainable Building Council ÖGNI has been formed which made a contract with the DGNB certificate, an already very well established building certification scheme in Germany. This certification program focuses on awarding sustainable blue buildings. In comparison to green buildings, blue buildings differ in that they do not only focus on structures and processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout the building's life-cycle. They also include the socio-cultural factors, meaning the careful use of energy resources and the consideration of human needs. Blue 13

buildings focus more on the users of the building and not only on the usage of sustainable construction materials (ÖGNI, Nachhaltiges Bauen und Bewirtschaften. Etablierung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Nachhaltige Immobilienwirtschaft", 2009). This will be explained in more detail in chapter 2.3. Specific types of commercial buildings are characterized by a higher demand for energy and resources. These also include hotel and hospitality buildings, which consume much more energy and resources per guest than residential buildings per inhabitant. As the tourism sector is the second most important one in Austria, the development of sustainable concepts could contribute to the saving of resources. Additionally the alarming trends of climate change and global warming should provide motivation for more efficient use of energy resources in the accommodation industry. This need has been discovered by the Austrian Sustainability Building Council as well. As a result the DGNB certification program was adapted with the help of one pioneering project, the Falkensteiner Hotel and Resort Bad Leonfelden, to the needs of this special type of building in order to prepare the certification process for further projects in this building typology. 1.2 Research aims and objectives Currently in Austria there is only one hotel building certified with the DGNB certification and ten hotels in Germany. However there have already been three different versions of certification catalogues for the new construction of hotel buildings. As a result, assuming that there have been problems with applying the DGNB certification to hotel buildings, which is tailor-made for office buildings, the purpose of this master thesis will be to answer the following research question: What kinds of obstacles in applying the DGNB certification scheme on hotel buildings are evident and how can they be overcome? In order to better work out this short coming in the special case of hotel buildings, a document analysis of primary and secondary documents and reports will be performed, where the application of the DGNB certification scheme on hotel buildings will be then compared to the one on office buildings. So as to better accomplish these goals, a macro study of the Austrian hotel market will be needed. This will include the latest figures on how big the hotel market is in Austria, 14

which proportion it has on the GDP and most importantly how much it contributes to the emission amount of Austria in general. Most importantly, to better understand how this certification scheme is working, a detailed overview on the DGNB certification scheme will be provided and will be compared with other certification schemes like LEED, Green Globes or BREEAM. The comparison will include the certification process, the costs, the third-party verification and the certification criteria. In addition, the difference between the types of buildings and how the certification of a hotel building differs from an office or residential building will be discussed. The access to the internal database of the Austrian Sustainable Building Council will help to better identify and assess the differences within the versions of certification criteria catalogues. 1.3 Structure of the thesis This master thesis consists of five major sections. The first section provides the introduction to the study and includes a short overview on the main problem being addressed. In addition, it highlights the main objectives of the study and presents how the research has been conducted in order to provide an answer to the proposed research question. The second section provides an extensive background of the most important theoretical concepts. It describes the main theory of green building and green building certification schemes and compares the different systems. In the third section the entire research procedure, including the creation of the conceptual framework and the collection of data is described. The following section is devoted to the results and analysis of the data and the crosschecking of the expert interviews with secondary data. The master thesis ends with conclusions and recommendations, followed by the limitations of the study. 15

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Green Buildings and the World Green Building Council The concept of green building was developed in the 1980s as a consequence of the alarming trends of climate change, increasing CO 2 emissions and the scarcity of resources. As already mentioned, buildings are responsible for more than 40% of the global greenhouse gas emissions. At the present time China, the US, the European Union, India, Russia and Japan contribute to the majority of carbon dioxide emissions. The rapid growth of emissions especially in the rest of Asia, Brazil and other areas in the world and the fast development of urban civilization will put more pressure on the need for global reduction of the carbon footprint. According to Yudelson (2007) half of the new building over the next 30 years will occur in China alone. Therefore a focus on energy-efficient and green buildings will be major part of the fight against increasing climate change issues. Not only are emissions a major problem, the scarcity of water is another reason for adopting green building techniques. New technologies in water conservation and wastewater treatment will reduce the water use in construction by half and also the use of renewable energy technologies are very important for urbanizing areas. Additionally, green buildings can help to secure a fairer distribution of resources by providing affordable housing for the poor. Resource efficient buildings are on the one hand cheaper to operate and on the other hand many renewable energy technologies are ready to provide healthcare and education in developing and resource-poor communities. Moreover indoor quality, comfort health and safety issues are increasing through the use of more environmentally friendly building materials (Ding, 2008). As a consequence, the American Institute of Architects created the Committee on the Environment in the late 1980s. This association of architects had the main focus towards sustainable design. A few years later in 1993 the US Green Building Council (USGBC) was created, which tried to lead the building and construction industry into more environmentally responsible activity. The USGBC defines the term green building as buildings which incorporate design and construction practices that significantly reduce or eliminate the negative impact of buildings on the environment and occupants in five broad areas: Sustainable site planning 16

Safeguarding water and water efficiency Energy efficiency and renewability Conservation of materials and resources Indoor environmental quality (Yudelson, 2007). These ideas and concepts were then exported globally and Great Britain created their own Green Building Council at the same time. As a consequence many other countries like Canada, Australia, France or Japan developed their own Green Building Councils and certifications for green buildings which are now working together under the umbrella of the World Green Building Council (Makkie, 2010). The World Green Building Council (WorldGBC) was created in 1999 as a consequence of the development of national green building councils in the United States, Australia, Canada, Japan, Spain, Russia, United Arab Emirates and the United Kingdom. Its mission is to foster and support new and emerging Green Business Councils by providing them with the tools and strategies to establish strong organizations and leadership positions in their countries ( World Green Building Council, About World GBC, 2013). Green building councils are, according to the definition of WorldGBC (2013) memberbased organizations that empower industry leaders to affect the transformation of the local building industry towards sustainability. They are non-profit and non-government organizations formed by all members of regional sectors of the property industry. These include planners, policymakers, designers and developers, to building owners, managers and tenants. The actions of Green Building Councils are often concentrated to certain regions and climates. In addition the construction industry is a very complex industry including a high number of stakeholders. These include not only architects, designers, developers, government agencies, financial institutions but also the community as an interested and affected group of stakeholders. All of the stakeholders often have different interests when constructing a building (Cole, Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change, 2011). Whereas investors are mainly interested in the costs and economic performance, occupants are more interested in the indoor quality and health of the building and their own comfort within the building environment. Staff, who are working in the buildings, are essentially aware of the maintainability and the practical use of the building (Cole, Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods, 1998). However all of 17

the different stakeholders are strongly dependent on each other and interconnected within the construction process. In order to reach a more sustainable consensus within the construction industry the information exchange needs to be improved. According to Cole (2011) new forms of cooperation and information exchange need to be developed. In addition a more cooperative environment between the different stakeholders, academia and government needs to be established (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013). As sustainability includes next to the economy, the environment and society in its three pillars system, the socio-ecological system represents an important player in the shift toward more sustainable buildings. This has, according to du Plessis & Cole (2011), not a voice like the other stakeholders in the decision making process, however it is often represented through intermediaries like non-governmental or community-based organizations. It is also questioned if the role of natural environment needs an active voice, as the construction of buildings happens in it anyways. As a result the individual citizens guide the actions in the building of the environment as all the internal stakeholders of a construction project will be affected by the negative or positive impacts of the projects in the end, through asset value or operations costs (du Plessis & Cole, 2011). Through the formation of the green building councils mentioned above, the stakeholders are becoming increasingly aware of more resource consciousness within the construction sector. However the complexity within the sector and the natural environment of it, limits the further development of existing policies and regulations, subsidies or incentives to change. A multi-stakeholder consensus and cross-sectional approach, including all project- internal stakeholders, as well as the public in policy-making, would therefore promote more sustainable actions and solutions. This would potentially also be driver for creating new incentives and policy instruments to foster the move towards the sustainability paradigm (du Plessis & Cole, 2011). 2.2 The Austrian Sustainable Building Council - ÖGNI The Austrian Sustainability Building Council (ÖGNI) is the local partner organization of DGNB for Austria. It is a non-profit organization that collaborates closely with several universities, politicians, businesses, architects and other organizations. The goal of this organization is to strengthen and improve the position of green and especially blue 18

buildings in Austria. It works and operates under the umbrella of the World Green Building Council and includes the application of green building strategies from the planning through construction until the operation of the buildings. Especially the fact that people spend more than 94% of their lifetime in buildings should lead to more healthy and resource friendly construction and usage for future generations. In order to fulfill these goals the ÖGNI uses the German sustainable building certification scheme DGNB, which is already well established. With the ÖGNI organization the DGNB scheme has been established in Austria, which ensures for both building owners and operators, that the building was planned, constructed and built in a sustainable way and that it will meet all the requirements and wishes in the operation (ÖGNI, 2012). 2.3 Sustainable Building Assessment As already mentioned before, both commercial and residential buildings are consuming substantial portions of energy resources especially in developed countries. Additionally the construction sector as a whole is responsible for many other environmentally harmful issues. Therefore many governments have created laws to make the building sector greener and green building measures mandatory in creating new buildings (Hwang & Tan, 2010). According to the IPCC this sector has the highest potential in reducing emissions and energy saving. In order to better promote and gain a broader understanding and acceptance, green building assessment tools need to be designed and applied. Therefore a number of rating systems were created in order to better identify, measure and assess the sustainable construction of buildings. These systems also support many public and private developers to promote the aspects of resource efficiency, value retention and optimizing user comfort in green buildings and the sustainable construction sector. There is still confusion about the terms green building, blue building and sustainable construction. As there are many different definitions about green buildings, it is generally spoken a building that is energy and resource efficient and has minimal disruptions to the environment (Hwang & Tan, 2010). On the other hand, according to Kibert (2008) sustainable construction concentrates more on the ecological, social and economic issues of a building in the context of its community. Consistent with this definition green building is therefore a subdivision of sustainable construction. Blue buildings are more similar to sustainable construction and contain in addition to all the characteristics of green building, the life-cycle costs, market value, waste prevention or 19

waste management. Furthermore, blue buildings concentrate more on features like the quality of outdoor spaces, the micro conditions of the location, access to transportation or the ability for recycling and dismantling of the hotel building after time. Basically blue buildings include more than just energy and resource efficiency and take the user s role of the building also into consideration (Auinger, 2012). The same confusion exists with sustainable rating systems at the moment. They are used worldwide except in major parts of Africa and Latin America. However the growing number of certified buildings shows that the demand for rating system and sustainable buildings is increasing. Often these assessment tools are accompanied by third-party verification. These third parties are in the majority of the cases the Green Building Councils (GBCs). As they are non-governmental organizations they are supported by the private industry, either in the form of sponsorship or membership fees. The use of third party verification secures on the one hand the transparency of the assessment process and eliminates the chance of cheating. As GBCs want to be seen by the public as reliable and valuable institutions they are highly interested in forming standards and practicing them. Therefore they can establish themselves as essential governance institutions (Sedlacek & Maier, 2012). However GBCs are market driven organizations by the private industry. On the other hand there are also policies and regulatory instruments which are used for assessing sustainable construction. Especially at larger scales, assessment methods are directed by legislation or by strategic planning needs of local governments. Especially in these cases the multi-stakeholder participation and cooperation of all stakeholders in the legislation process is of essential importance (du Plessis & Cole, 2011). In addition the assessment tools are often divided into qualitative and quantitative measures. Especially quantitative measures have their source in larger scaled problems and are downsized in order to make the assessment easier. Examples would be the carbon emissions per square meter or the bicycle tracks per occupant of the building. However these indicators are very much criticized. Therefore a more integrative approach of assessment methods is necessary where all related impacts, multiple perspectives and the significant linkages between the ecological, technical and institutional systems are taken into account. These should be secured through a stronger engagement of an ex- 20

panded consulting team beginning in the design phase of a project (du Plessis & Cole, 2011). 2.3.1 Sustainable assessment tools Differentiation is possible between three main groups of sustainable assessment tools: Cumulative energy demand (CED) systems, which focus on energy consumption, Life cycle analysis (LCA) systems, which focus on environmental aspects, Total quality assessment (TQA) systems, which evaluate ecological, economic and social aspects (Berardi, 2011). Cumulative energy demand systems focus more on the energy consumption of a building. Usually only the energy for heating and hot water is measured with these systems. The weakness of CED systems is that they do not capture other sources of energy within a building like air conditioning, lighting, ventilation, entertainment and telecommunications. Essentially the energy demand is measured over a certain period of time, mostly one year. What is only considered at a small stage is the energy used for the construction, the transportation of the material and the manufacture of the building material (Berardi, 2011). In comparison to CED systems, a life cycle analysis system focuses on the particular products and processes in detail. It measures the environmental impact of a building over its whole life cycle from manufacturing to deconstruction and recycling. Strength of this analysis is that certain criterions are measured with every building and therefore it is quite easy to compare the different products. It describes the quality of durability of a project over its entire usage. However there are different building materials required during the construction phase in every country. Although databases for LCA systems in certain geographic areas were designed already to make the evaluation easier, there is still lack of information in the building sector. In addition these LCA systems often contain very complicated chemical and specialist terms and it is commonly very hard to understand by the different stakeholders and actors of the construction sector. Besides LCA systems just focus on the environmental aspects of sustainable construction and completely ignore the social and economic impacts of the building (Berardi, 2011). 21

The third type of sustainable rating systems is total quality assessment systems which focus on the three pillars of sustainability. The following chapters will focus on this group of assessment tools. Generally the evaluation with the help of these systems is based on a number of indicators which help to compare the real performance with norms and reference ones. Each of the indicators is weighted with points which are summed up and represent the level of sustainability in the end. The demand for these systems is increasing in the last years, as they focus both on the market interests but also on the stakeholder s interests. In addition they are quite easy to understand and to comprehend, as the different indicators are well explained and do not contain many specialist terms. Another advantage of the TQA systems is that they can be applied at several stages of construction. Usually there are different versions for the different building types and the different stages, from conception through the construction process to the final building (Berardi, 2011). After the creation of the first environmental building assessment method BREEAM in 1990, many other similar assessment tools have been developed all over the world. The basis for most of the environmental building assessment tools are life-cycle assessment databases (Ding, 2008). In addition green building assessments create a verifiable and comparable set of indicators to enable building owners pushing for higher environmental standards a means of demonstrating that aims. Moreover they gather detailed information for building owners about increasing occupancy rates, lower operating and maintenance costs and an increased marketability and as a result reduced vacancies. Likewise assessed buildings increase the corporate image and prestige values, lower transaction costs and refurbishment costs for developers, owners as well as tenants. Furthermore they guarantee higher sales prices and quicker sales and therefore a more rapid return on investment. Especially since the economic crisis such buildings guarantee a higher future value on the real estate market. Also the risk of extreme weather events and changing weather patterns are reduced as the insurability of real estate is increased through this means of communicating a green building (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013). Finally green building assessment tools support the creation of know-how and expertise within the building design team and the industry as a whole to ease the adaptation of environmental issues into practice. 22

Table 1 list the different the old and new building assessment methods used in different countries. AGBR BREEAM CASBEE DGNB GHEM Green Globes HKBEAM Assessment methods Origin Characteristics References Australian Greenhouse Rating Building British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method Comprehensive assessment system for building environmental efficiency Deutsches Gütesiegel für Nachhaltiges Bauen Green home evaluation manual Hong Kong building environmental assessment method Australia UK Japan Germany China Canada Hong Kong performance-based accredited assessment tool one to five star rating scale national approach to benchmarking greenhouse performance of buildings and tenancies Based on 12 months of energy consumption First and most widely used 9 different criteria categories 4 levels of achievement Evaluation by a trained and licensed third-party assessor co-operative project between industry and government Applicable in accordance with the stages of a development in pre-design, new construction, existing building and renovation based on the concept of closed ecosystems to determine the environmental capacities Consideration for regional character Developed by the German Green Building Council developed to create an industrial standard third-party verified assessing system awards rating of bronze, silver and gold For 18 new and existing building typologies 5 +1 areas of sustainability Voluntary tool Used in 16 countries worldwide Introduced by the Science and Technology Development Promoting Centre and Ministry of Construction The first environmental standards and design guidelines related to performance standards Only relates to residential projects Simple rating that without explicit weighting system to address resources allocation and indoor environmental quality 4 levels of certification 5 areas of sustainability Existing and new commercial and multifamily residential projects separate assessment methods for new and existing office buildings criticized as assessing the quantifiable criteria but not the nonquantifiable social and environmental issues Assessing new building as built rather than as designed process not transparent categorized under the global, local & indoor scales Emphasis on life-cycle impacts (Seo, Tucker, Ambrose, Mitchell, & Wang, 2006) (Reeder, 2010) (Yau, Cheng, & Yin, 2006) (Cole, Building environmental assessment redefining and roles, 2005) (DGNB, 2013) methods: intentions (Yau, Cheng, & Yin, 2006) (Reeder, 2010) (Yau, Cheng, & Yin, 2006) (Reeder, 2010) (Davies, 2001) 23

LEED SBAT Leadership in energy and environmental design Sustainable building assessment tool USA South Africa of environmental issues ranging from fair to excellent Developed by the US Green Building Council developed to create an industrial standard Self-assessing system awards rating of certified, silver, gold and platinum Use simple checklist format to rate building performance For new and existing commercial, institutional, high-rise residential & major renovation 5 areas of sustainability voluntary tool Performance criteria that acknowledge social and economic issues Divide 15 performance areas into 5 performance criteria Integral part of building process based on the typical life cycle of a building (Reeder, 2010) (Cole, Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles, 2005) TABLE 1: NEW AND OLD BUILDING ASSESSMENT TOOLS In the following chapters the four most commonly used rating systems in Europe and Austria will be further explained and compared. 2.3.2 BREEAM The first multi-criterion assessment scheme for buildings was designed and launched in the United Kingdom in 1990. The British Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) was designed and implemented by the British Research Establishment. It was implemented before the topic was discussed in the Rio Conference in 1992 and serves as a basis for many international policies on green buildings. Since its implementation it has developed to the world s leading assessment tool with over 250,000 certified buildings in more than 50 countries. This trend emerged in 2008, when global attention was paid to the system and an international version has been released. It concentrates on the sustainable performance of buildings and includes evaluation indicators at a broad range from ecology to economy. These include energy and water use, the internal environment (health and well-being), pollution, transport, materials, waste, ecology and management processes. It offers several versions for different stages of construction, reaching from the planning stage of communities, over the new construction of buildings, the new construction of residential buildings, an in-use assessment, up to refurbishment and renovation of existing buildings. In addition the system differentiates between 12 building types including residential, educational, industrial, retail, office buildings but also prisons, healthcare institutions, datacenters, 24

courts, community buildings, entertainment and leisure buildings and other buildings and mixed use developments. The system is designed to start using it in the design stage. An assessor or auditor will be then contacted and will help the project developer from registering for the assessment to getting certified. The assessor or auditor is a qualified and licensed person who understands the process and technical issues covered by the scheme. Their responsibility is to understand each issue and requirement to the scheme and communicate them to the client and project team. Generally BREEAM is used not only by private clients, planners, development agencies, funders and developers but also by property agents and managers to promote the benefits of a rated building or to reduce costs and ensure a more efficient use of the buildings. The evaluation of the system is expressed as a percentage of successful over total points as follows: 25% for pass classification, 40% for good, 55% for very good, 70% for excellent and 85% for outstanding. The costs for BREEAM depend on the requirements and services required from the licensed BREEAM project assessor. The assessor will the base the price on the assessment of the building and will add extra services like consultancy advice or guiding the client through the whole assessment process. Besides, these costs vary with project size, complexity and other factors (BRE Global, 2010-212). 2.3.3 LEED The second big international rating system is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) released by the US Green Building Council in 1998. It is a voluntary, third party evaluation of green buildings for building owners and operators. It is one of the TQA systems, as it considers all three aspects of sustainability. The system is the US s biggest rating tool for sustainable construction and green buildings and is spread over 135 countries worldwide. Basically LEED differentiates between commercial and neighborhood buildings and home buildings. In total it is currently available for 10 different building typologies including residential buildings, commercial, retail, neighborhood development, schools, healthcare buildings, existing buildings, core and shell development, and refurbishment and renovation. As already mentioned, LEED differentiates basically between two major assessments, one for home and residential 25

buildings only and one other for the rest of typologies (Reeder, 2010). Within the two programs the buildings have to meet certain standards and earn points for them. The rating standards are categorized in five main groups including sustainable site credits focusing on the impact on the ecosystem and water resources. Secondly, it includes water efficiency to reduce water consumption; thirdly, energy and atmosphere credits, which concentrates on the energy performance of the building. Another category is material and resources, which includes the use of sustainable materials and waste reduction. The last of the main categories focuses on indoor environmental quality, where the assessment includes the indoor air quality and the access to daylight. In addition LEED offers criteria for location and linkage, neighborhood pattern and design, awareness and education and two optional categories in innovation in design and operations and in regional priority (USGBC, 2013). For home buildings a project must meet all the prerequisites and earn at least 45 points out of 136. Commercial and neighborhood buildings on the other hand need to reach 40 out of 110 points. Certified (minimum 45 points for home and 40 for commercial buildings), silver (60-74 points for home and 50-59 for commercial buildings), gold (75-89 points for home and 60-79 for commercial buildings) and platinum (90+ points and above for home and 80+ for commercial buildings) are the four different reachable performance levels. The rating scheme consists of 67 credits, which describe in more detail the main categories mentioned above. It is organized as a third-party verification including project providers and Green Raters. Providers are members of the USGBC, the US green building council and are responsible for providing certification services in their geographical market areas. Additionally their duties include the recruitment and registration of projects for LEED, the coordination of the Green Raters team and the certification of LEED projects. Green Raters are individual persons which are part of the provider team, but are working closely together with the specific project teams, project designers and construction professionals. In addition they are helping the project teams during the construction process and conduct regular inspections and performance tests. The participation in the LEED program generally consists of five steps. The first is to choose the specific rating system to use dependent on the building type. This step is followed by the registration of the project, where the project is then listed in LEED online. LEED online is a management tool for all the team members, where responsibilities, prerequisites and all progresses are tracked. It helps to consider all the credits for 26

the design and construction phase. The next step is to submit all the documentation online, which is then reviewed either only at the end of construction or at the end of both design and construction phase. The last step is then the certification decision, which can be accepted or appealed. The costs for the assessment are very difficult to specify as they vary in terms of project complexity, size, and construction market but also in terms of membership and the phases assessed (USGBC, 2013). 2.3.4 Green Globes Green Globes was established by a private Canadian non-profit organization in 1996. Basis for this assessment scheme was the United Kingdom s BREEAM system, when BREEAM Canada was established. In 2000 the system was further developed, becoming an online-tool named Green Globes for Existing Buildings. In 2004 it was spread throughout the borders of Canada to the United States by the Green Building Initiative, which is still the awarding organization (Reeder, 2010). Until now more than 480 buildings are certified in Canada and the United States and more than 5000 are registered. It can be used for a large variety of building typologies, from existing buildings to newly constructed ones. It is only used for commercial buildings of all sizes, institutional buildings like hospitals, courthouses or universities and multi-family structures (GBI T. G.). The assessment is based on a 1000 point scale available online in a comprehensive online assessment protocol. The indicators used are in the categories of energy (380 points), water (85 points), resources (100 points), emissions (70 points), indoor environment (200 points), project management (50 points), and site (115 points) for new construction. For existing buildings, the categories project management and site are not considered, instead there are available criteria in the area of environmental management. There are four levels of certification available, which are scored as a percentage of points achieved. At least 35% of the 1000 points are necessary to be eligible for the certification of one, two, three or four Green Globes. The first stage (35-54%) demonstrates a commitment to environmental efficiency practices (GBI, 2013), followed by the second (55-69%) which shows an excellent process in the reduction of environmental impacts and use of environmental efficiency practices (GBI, 2013). Receiving the three Green Globes certificate (70-84%) means that the project demonstrates lead- 27

ership in applying best practices regarding energy, water and environmental efficiency (GBI, 2013). The best and last category (85-100%) proves national leadership and excellence in the practice of energy, water and environmental efficiency to reduce environmental impacts (GBI, 2013). The assessment process is divided into five main stages. The first one is to purchase the Green Globes online evaluation tool. The online building assessment as well as the construction documents survey needs to then be completed. The next step consists of the request for a third-party assessment and certification (if meeting the 35% minimum threshold). Subsequently, the third-party assessment starts with the review of the construction documents, landscape designs, the energy analysis and a life-cycle analysis documentation. The second part of the third-party assessment contains an on-site building evaluation, the review of additional documentation and interviews with the key team members. This stage is carried out by independent and Green Globes licensed experts in green building design, engineering and construction. They interact with the different project teams and building owners during the whole period of assessment and on-site building tours. After successfully completing the third-party assessment, the last stage is to receive a Green Globe rating and certification for the building. The Green Globes certificate is, compared to other systems, relatively cost-saving. Just the registration and the software need to be bought in the beginning. The third-party assessment depends on the size of the building and is a fixed amount of money. There are no costs for membership, or any extra fees added to the above mentioned expenses (GBI, 2013). 2.3.5 DGNB The DGNB certification scheme was first established by the German Sustainable Building Council (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen) in cooperation with actors from the construction and real estate industry in 2007. Their main aim was to assess environmentally-friendly, resource and economically efficient buildings. Another important issue was to transfer know-how and raise public awareness on sustainable construction. Today the council counts more than 1200 members worldwide. As already mentioned this system was first available in Germany, until it was adapted to Austria s construction and green building requirements by the ÖGNI in 2009. Compared to LEED and BREEAM, the DGNB certificate is a very flexible certification scheme as it can be easily adapted to country-specific requirements and to various 28

building typologies. Therefore it is used at the moment for 18 typologies including existing and new office (31 in Austria), administrative, educational (3 in Austria), commercial (9 in Austria), residential and mixed-use buildings (5 in Austria), but also hospitals, industry buildings (3 in Austria) and hotels (2 in Austria, one being planned) and entire city districts. The certification is based on European norms and standards. An authorized DGNB auditor then concentrates on geographically specific requirements, which allows the system to be applied in more than 20 countries worldwide (ÖGNI, DGNB Systembroschüre, 2012). Generally the DGNB certification is based on the six key aspects of sustainable building: environmental, economic, sociocultural and functional aspects, technical quality, process quality and site quality with more than 60 criteria in total, which will be described and analyzed in more detail later. Based on the three pillar system of sustainability the first four aspects have equal weight (22, 5%) in the certification. This highlights the equal importance of the economic and the sociocultural criteria with the environmental and technical quality criteria. The remaining 10% pay attention to the process quality. What is measured separately is the site quality. Not only is the equal importance of the criteria, but also the whole life cycle of a building a main focus of the DGNB certificate. Three levels of certification can be received with the DGNB system. Each criterion is allotted up to ten points, which are then condensed in a partial score. As already mentioned above, the site quality is considered separately, however it can increase the final level of certification. The three levels are bronze (50-64%), silver (65-79%) and gold (80-100%). In addition to the total score, it is necessary to reach a specific minimum level in each of the assessment sections. For example a gold certificate necessitates at least 65 % in the first five assessment sections (DGNB, 2013). The DGNB certificate should be implemented as early as possible in the planning phase. A pre-certification ensures that the targets are clear for each member of the planning team and improves the transparency and risk management of the whole project. In addition, the pre-certificate runs alongside all the other processes and it helps to save money in the construction. The DGNB system ensures assistance from the planning stage throughout the entire construction to the accomplishment of the building. 29

FIGURE 1: THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS (ÖGNI, DGNB SYSTEMBROSCHÜRE, 2012) 30

As figure 1 shows, the DGNB certification process is divided into four stages: the preparation and registration, submitting documents, compliancy testing and awarding of the certificate (DGNB, 2013). In the preparation and registration stage the client contacts an independent DGNB auditor, who supports the project and client throughout the whole process. In addition the client needs to register the project with the DGNB system and sign the certification contract. In the second stage, the submitting documents stage, the auditor creates all the necessary documents for the assessment of the sustainable building according to the DGNB system criteria. Subsequently the documents are submitted to the DGNB office for compliancy testing. This is done by independent DGNB auditors and sent back to the project auditor. After that additional documents are added if necessary and the second compliancy testing follows. If all parties agree on the second test report, the results are confirmed by the DGNB Certification Committee. In the last stage the pre-certificate or certificate for the project is awarded to the client at one of the DGNB events or the official building opening to increase public awareness (DGNB, 2013). As with many of the other certification schemes the costs for the certification differ from building to building depending on size, complexity and other factors of the project. However figure 2 below gives an overview of the estimated costs of certification. Costs for the independent auditor are not included in this overview (DGNB, 2013). FIGURE 2: RANGE OF CERTIFICATION FEES (ÖGNI, DGNB SYSTEMBROSCHÜRE, 2012) 2.4 Sustainable Construction in Tourism and its role in Austria About 2/3 of the total GHG emissions within the building sector can be associated to residential buildings, as they dominate the green business market. Nevertheless there are 31

specific types of commercial buildings, which are often characterized by a high energy and resource demand. The hospitality industry including hotel buildings is one of them. The energy use in hospitality buildings and the resulting environmental impacts are generally greater than those produced by comparable buildings of a similar size. This happens due to the 24-hour based operation and the high comfort level demanded by many travelers (Filimonau, Dickinson, Robbins, & Huijbregts, 2011). Hotel buildings aim to provide the best service possible to guests to desire experiences and enjoy their holidays and free time at certain levels of luxury (Schuetze, 2012). However there is also a demand of guests to feel that their actions are environmentally responsible, so a stay in a hotel, which ensures hospitality both to the guests and the environment (Sloan, Legrand, & Chen, 2009). According to a guest questionnaire at the Austrian Falkensteiner Hotels and Resorts, which will be part of the analysis, 59% of their guests would be willing to pay more for an environmentally friendly hotel in order to show a positive commitment for the environment (Maly, 2012). However within the hospitality industry the opinion of a decrease in comfort, ambience and the guest s enjoyable experience when applying more sustainable and environmentally friendly alternatives is present. Through the fast development of technology and greater environmental awareness this can be changed. When integrating concepts of energy efficiency and resource conservation already in the planning and designing of a hotel building, no advanced expertise and excessive investments are necessary (Sloan, Legrand, & Chen, 2009). 32

FIGURE 3: HOTEL BUILDING STRUCTURES (RONNING & BREKKE, 2009) Figure 3 shows the complex building typology of hotel construction. The figure does not only contain the construction, but the whole life of a hotel building including operation, maintenance and demolition. It tries to display the multi-functional characteristics of the building and clearly demonstrates the different sources of environmental impacts during the whole life-cycle of the building and its operation. Nevertheless all the environmentally responsible actions are strongly dependent on the hotelier s attitude and knowledge. Especially small and medium sized enterprise (SME) hotels can hardly be targeted through a labeling initiative. On the other hand chainaffiliated hotels often integrate environmental issues in their company policies, which are then applied in every single property. According to Hotel Energy Solutions (2011) the main barriers for implementing such solutions are concerns about the costs of such initiatives depending on the geographical location and the lack of awareness of many hoteliers. In contrast, the reduction of operational costs, customer demand, the improvement of the hotel s image and the wish to diminish the environmental damage are the four most prominent drivers for more sustainable activities within the hospitality industry (Hotel Energy Solutions, 2011). As a result the application of sustainable building assessment tools is highly feasible in the hospitality industry, as multiple goals can be achieved. Green hotel buildings provide built environments that provide guests good service and high comfort levels as well 33

as support the workers with ideal conditions for productivity. In addition such tools work as a transparent communication tool of realized sustainability actions to guests. Furthermore these certificates can still be used as unique selling propositions and can work as a competitive advantage to attract not only conventional tourists but also guests looking for sustainable tourism, which finally results in higher occupation and related income (Schuetze, 2012). As the analysis later focuses mainly on the first DGNB certified hotel in Austria and a few other examples in Germany, an overview of the Austrian tourism industry is provided here. The tourism industry plays a major role in the Austrian economy. Tourism satellite accounts were implemented on the recommendation of EUROSTAT and the UNWTO in order to better monitor the relationship between the tourism activities and the economy in Austria. The high economic importance affects not only direct economic data like GDP/capita but can be realized in the employment numbers as well. Consequently 7.3% of Austria s workforce is employed in the tourism industry, which generates a percentage of 5.5 of direct value added to the whole GDP of Austria in 2011 (Statistik Austria, Tourismus, 2013). As the tourism industry is such a big one, all the tourism facilities contribute to the overall emissions in Austria. In order to measure those trends the National Accounting Matrix including Environmental Accounts was created. The aim of this matrix is to measure the impacts of societal action on the environment. To find out how the tourism industry in Austria contributes to the overall emissions, the Air Emissions Account was taken into account. This measures all air emissions caused by private households, enterprises and institutions residing in Austria. According to these figures, enterprises working in the sectors Hotels and similar establishments" and "Restaurants and similar establishments accounted for 392,187 tons of CO 2 emissions, corresponding to 0.562% of the whole CO 2 emissions in the Austrian economy. However it needs to be considered that this number represents just the direct emissions and does not include the indirect emissions like passenger transportation or tourism connected products, culture, recreation or other entertainment facilities. In addition these numbers only count for the total CO 2 emissions excluding other greenhouse gases like Sulphur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO x ), non-methane volatile organic compounds (NMVOC), methane 34

(CH 4 ), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), ammonia (NH 3 ) as well as particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) (Statistik Austria, NAMEA, 2013). 35

3 METHODOLOGY This chapter explains the methodology used to conduct the research. A mixed-methods approach was used as the appropriate tool to analyze the evidence of the problem and answer the research question. Through intensive in-depth research on the available literature and the analysis of the different certification schemes a conceptual framework as a tool for the evaluation and observation of the empirical study was established. This is described at a later stage. It lays the basis for the analysis in chapter 4 and includes an analysis of the criteria catalogues. Two main drivers and the DGNB assessment tool were analyzed to answer the research question. These drivers include the sustainable construction industry, the government and the DGNB assessment criteria on the case of hotel buildings. 3.1 Research instrument A mixed methods approach is the appropriate tool to analyze the evidence of the problem and answer the research question. The mixed methods approach combines quantitative and qualitative data in a single study in order to merge findings from different data sources. The implementation can be done by the researcher either in collecting both the quantitative and qualitative data sequentially in phases or they gather it concurrently. When data is sequentially collected, either qualitative or quantitative data comes first. For the following study a sequential exploratory strategy was used. This strategy was conducted in two phases the initial phase of qualitative data collection and analysis. This was done through a comprehensive research of articles and literature to analyze the problem background and construct an analytical framework including quantitative data collection. The next step was the collection of secondary quantitative data from a number of online databases and official reports in order to assist the interpretation of the qualitative findings. This cross-validating of data and triangulation approach is generally used to offset the weaknesses inherent within one method with the strengths of the other method (Creswell, 2009). With this type of analysis the priority of research is given to the qualitative aspect, which makes it possible to create a conceptual framework based on background information on the research problem. 36

In addition the sequential exploratory method makes it easy to straightforwardly and easily explore and describe a phenomenon expanding on the qualitative findings such as expert interviews, literature and data collected through official databases of national and international organizations (Creswell, 2009). 3.1.1 Qualitative data The first step of the study was a broad research of the literature and a short description of the DGNB criteria in general. The aim of this step was to gain a holistic understanding of the concept of green building and sustainable construction and the different certification schemes. Due to the topicality of the subject it was aimed to include the most recent and complimentary literature. The material used covered the topics of sustainable construction, green buildings, sustainable building development, green building initiatives the history of sustainable certification schemes and energy policies in the EU and Austria, and the factors affecting the implementation of sustainable certification schemes in order to become familiar with the basic concepts. Interviews In order to fill the gaps in the literature and collect additional information from experienced experts on the topic and the developed research findings and recommendations, interviews were considered as a useful tool. For the selection of experts it was very important to choose people from different backgrounds including architects, auditors of DGNB and operators of the certified hotel projects in Austria and Germany. This careful selection should avoid a negative influence on the results of the study. With the help of the interviews the personal experience with the DGNB certification scheme and their personal ideas about improvements of the scheme according to hotel buildings was added to the analysis. In addition the conceptual framework was tested based on their perception of the implementation of sustainable certification schemes on hotel buildings. The author used structured interviews, as this type of interviews provides the same order in which the questions are asked and the same wording of the questions from one interview to another. The interviews were conducted either face-to-face, or electronically via e-mail discussions (Silvermann, 2010). The questions were open-ended questions. 37

Nine experts on green building certification from different organizations were contacted. These include: MMAg. Philipp Kaufmann MMAS: Philipp Kaufmann is real-estate trustee, entrepreneur and expert in Linz and at the Research Institute for Spatial and Real Estate Economics, WU Vienna. After years in working in the real estate industry, he became research assistant at the newly founded Institute for Spatial and Real Estate Economics, WU Vienna in 2007. Additionally Philipp Kaufmann is provincial office manager of the ÖVI Upper Austria, board member of the FGW and a member of ULI Austria. In 2009 he co-founded with the 124 initiators the Austrian Society for Sustainable Real Estate (ÖGNI). Since 29.09.2009 he is the founding president. Dipl. Ing. (FH) Thomas Gratzer: Dipl. Ing. Thomas Gratzer is project manager at Michaeler & Partner, a company specialized in the consulting, development and realization of projects in the international tourism industry. In addition he was responsible for the certification of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden and is one of the ÖGNI auditors. Dir. Walter Breg: Dir. Walter Breg is the General Manager of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden. He worked for Sheraton and Hilton and many other Austrian and German hotels and manages since October 2008 the first DGNB certified Hotel building in Austria. Mag. Arch. Gabriel Kacerovsky: Mag. Arch. Gabriel Kacerovsky is founder of the architecture company archisphere which specializes in corporate architecture, especially hotel architecture and medical offices, industry buildings and offices for freelancers. He was also responsible for the design and planning of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden. Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Rühle: Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Rühle is a civil engineer and works for Intep in Munich since 1998. His work focuses on sustainability concepts, construction and material ecology, life cycle assessment, building physics, building climatology and sustainability certifications. Since 2008, he accompanied the development of the German sustainable building label (DGNB) and is since 2009 an auditor and member of the Certification Committee and the Expert Group "construction and pollutants" of the DGNB (German Society for Sus- 38

tainable Building). This interview is based on another interview, which was conducted earlier and published in WEKA Praxischeck (Hlousek, 2012). Dipl. Ing. Sven Wünschmann MSc: Dipl. Ing. Sven Wünschmann is a specialist on architecture and environment and is the area manager of CSD engineers for Berlin and Stuttgart. CSD offers consultancy services and develops costefficient solutions to improve quality of life and the environment. These activities encompass the fields of construction, environment and natural resources. He is auditor of the DGNB and was responsible for the Etap Hotel Köln Messe and the Ibis Budget hotel, but is also expert for the certification of many other building typologies. Dipl. Ing. Slawomira Bukowska: Dipl. Ing. Slawomira Bukowska is a project development expert at Porr Solutions Immobilien- und Infrastrukturprojekte GmbH. Additionally she acts as an auditor for ÖGNI and DGNB and is an expert on the certification of office buildings as well as Hotel buildings. Therefore she was responsible for the certification of the Hotel & Office Campus Berlin and the Hotel Steigenberger am Kanzleramt. Dipl. Ing. Yvonne Brandenburger MSc.: Dipl. Ing. Yvonne Brandenburger is an expert on the certification of DGNB for hotel buildings and other building typologies and works for IQ real estate GmbH. This company has focused for many years on the development, planning and implementation of real estate projects with quality. As DGNB auditor she was, among other projects, also responsible for the certification of the Hafenspitze Düsseldorf. Angelika Bandke: Angelika Bandke works for the DGNB academy in Germany, which is the DGNB s educational and training center. It provides basic and specialized knowledge in the sustainable construction sector. The interviews were conducted as semi-structured interviews based on an interview guide to gather information about the general opinion of sustainable building certifications and then the special cases of hotel buildings. The interview guideline was established before as an orientation for the interviewer. The questions were asked openended in order to allow room for the specific, personal views of the interviewees and also avoid influencing them. The expert interviews were chosen in order to retrieve their specific expertise on the field of sustainable building certification especially the case of the DGNB certification for hotel buildings (Flick, 2011). 39

After the review of the interviews and the literature, all data was analyzed. This analysis was supported by the use of quantitative primary and secondary data, in order to be able to answer the research question. 3.1.2 Secondary Data The following official documents and databases were used in order to gather further data to support the findings of the qualitative analysis: The comparison of the evaluation indicators is based on the profile library of the Austrian Sustainability Building Council (ÖGNI). In order to compare the findings of the expert interviews and the literature, which were cross-checked with a report from McGraw Hill Construction (2013) on world green building trends. This should help to show if the findings are supported and follow a common trend within the worldwide green building industry. 3.2 Conceptual Framework The basis for the conceptual framework were the arguments and concepts found in the literature, which help to answer the research question, what kinds of obstacles in applying the DGNB certification scheme on hotel buildings are evident and how can they be overcome? In this framework, two main drivers for green building certification and assessment have been identified: the market, including both demand and supply side, and the governments as legal bodies. It can be assumed however that the major input comes from the market, as the creation of several Green Building Councils also shows. For many building typologies the market already has recognized the additional value of green building activities, and its demand of the end-user. These drivers together with incentives and regulations from the governments are addressing future green building activities; however they are very specific according to the region and the building type. 40

FIGURE 4: CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK In the case of hotel buildings, a diverse user group can be detected. Allthough the operators would be the tenants, the guests as end-users also play a relevant role. As they are often changing, all the responsibilities for maintenance are given back to the operators. However the guests play a major role regarding the demand for these assessment tools. Many of them already wish to feel that their actions are environmentally responsible, so a stay in a hotel, which ensures hospitality both to the guests and the environment. Relevant drivers and triggers derived from the three market attendees, the governments and the barriers towards green building certification will be determined in the analysis and linked in a comprehensive manner to the concept of green building assessment and certification. 41

4 ANALYSIS This chapter will analyze how the different drivers from the conceptual framework may contribute to the further development of green building certification. The first part will explore the differences between the certification criteria. Here the difference in building types and how each indicator is evaluated and calculated will be analyzed to see if the prerequisites for the hotel building are met. The second part of the chapter will concentrate on the recent performance of the DGNB certificate on hotel buildings. The collected and analyzed data from all the interviews will be compared with each other. The information will be split up in important key areas, interest and market value, acceptance within the hotel sector and design and construction costs. As most of the key areas are closely connected, arguments and topics repetitions occurred in regards to the content. In addition it will strongly focus on the pioneer project of Austria, the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden. 4.1 DGNB criteria analysis 1 In this part the DGNB criteria for hotel buildings will be analyzed in detail. The author will compare the criteria for hotel buildings with the ones for office buildings, which have been the basis for the creation of the hotel building certification. It will be argued that the specific building and operation characteristics of hotel buildings require special attributes, which differ from the ones of office buildings. In addition it will describe the differences by having a look at each of the criteria profiles of ÖGNI and relevant articles. 4.1.1 Building types Office and administration buildings are all buildings which are mainly used for office and administrative activities. Hotel buildings are all buildings that offer central services of a hotel. These are: Lodgement / reception: with reception, housekeeping and reservations 1 Chapter 4.1 and all subchapters of 4.1 are based on the DGNB assessment criteria profiles 201 1 for Austria, provided by the ÖGNI (ÖGNI, 2011). 42

Catering services (F & B): kitchen, restaurant, bar, room service and banquet service Logistics: Purchasing office, goods inspection, warehousing Administration: management, accounting, controlling, sales and marketing, human resources and maintenance Additional services: telephone/fax, internet access, TV, laundry service, fitness and spa services, rental of meeting rooms, entertainment programs It is differentiated between spa and wellness hotels, holiday and sport hotels, as well as business, convention and conference hotels. When it comes to the location of the hotel it is distinguished between three categories: Country Hotel in rural areas City hotel in urban areas Hotel at an infrastructure hub, like an airport or railway station. A special form is the resort, which is not considered in the certification. Usually the certification considers the classical star category classification according to the Austrian Professional Hotel Association. 4.1.2 Austrian DGNB criteria assessment As already mentioned above the DGNB certification is done with the help of more than 60 criteria divided into the six key aspects of sustainable building: environmental, economic, sociocultural and functional aspects, technical quality, process quality and site quality. For the evaluation of office buildings and hotel buildings 49 indicators are used. The evaluation of the building is done in three steps: Determining the degree of fulfillment of the individual criteria taking into account the importance factor Determining the degree of fulfillment of each of the main groups of criteria (qualities) Determining the overall performance level (certification level) taking into account the weighting of the main groups of criteria. 43

The individual criteria are described in profiles, which contain, in addition to general information, also information on the assessment methodology, the assessment scale, and norms. Three different assessment classifications are used: Qualitative, through a checklist rating Quantitative, through the fulfillment of certain computable ratings Or both, qualitative and quantitative through meeting the computable targets combined with a checklist rating. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Assessment classes Qualitative Quantitative Combination Office Buildings 26 14 8 Hotel Buildings 26 15 7 FIGURE 5: ASSESSMENT CLASSIFICATION As figure 5 shows, the two versions for office and hotel buildings show mainly the same amount of indicators in each class. The hotel buildings version shows one quantitative indicator more, whereas the office building version includes one combined indicator more. 4.1.3 Austrian DGNB criteria: Hotel buildings vs. Office buildings In the following subchapters the Austrian DGNB criteria will be explained in detail. In addition the differences between the two versions will be pointed out and the assessment tools will be evaluated. Basically, 23 criteria of the 49 criteria used in both versions are analogously assessed. The office building version includes one more criterion in the environmental quality aspect group, whereas the hotel building version additionally evaluates the family-friendliness of the building. 44

4.1.3.1 Environmental quality aspect The environmental quality aspect consists of 12 criteria summarized in six main topics. These criteria refer to the effects on the local and global environment and focus on the resource use and waste generation of a building. The first criteria group is the lifecycle assessment including global warming potential (the potential contribution of a substance to the warming of the surface air, the socalled greenhouse effect), ozone depleting potential (level of destroying the ozone layer, which is responsible for protecting the earth s surface from UV radiation and excessive heat), photochemical ozone creation potential (potential for formation of ground-level ozone through harmful gases, such as Nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons together with UV radiation), acidification potential (potential of acid rain through an increased concentration of sulfuric and nitric acid in the air) and eutrophication potential (transition potential of water and soil from a nutrient-poor in a nutrient-rich condition through supply of phosphor or nitrogen) (Makkie, 2010). The assessments of these five criteria are done at the end of construction and evaluate the manufacture, use and disposal of the building over the entire life-cycle in accordance with ÖNORM EN ISO 14040 and 14044. The next criterion in this category is the local environmental impact. The objective is to reduce or avoid building materials which are risk factors for the groundwater, surface water, soil and air during use, transportation and construction on the site. This criterion is measured during the whole construction process. The third criterion is the environmentally friendly material production. The aim of this criterion is the exclusion of timber and timber products from uncontrolled mining in endangered tropical, sub-tropical and boreal forest regions of the world. They are only allowed to be used if the products are certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). Fourthly the primary energy demand is assessed. Here the average yearly amount of non-renewable primary energy over the life cycle of construction, operation and disposal of the building is used as a benchmark. Also the percentage of renewable energy is considered in this calculation. 45

The next assessment point is the drinking water demand and wastewater volume. The basis for this assessment are preconditions, which are created in the planning phase and contribute to the water usage independent from the user behavior. The value necessary can then be determined by the users behavior and the handling of grey water and rainwater. The last point of the environmental quality assessment is the land use. Here it is assessed whether and to what extent the type of land used by the construction project changes. The project can be assessed positively if no area has to be additionally converted. The majority of the criteria in this group are evaluated via quantitative methods. These include comprehensive calculation methods and the use of additional software including reference values from the Austrian Standards Institute. The differences between the two versions are in the limits for criteria 1-5, 10 and 11. The hotel buildings version shows higher limits than the one for office buildings. Regarding the drinking water demand and the wastewater volume, the specifications for hotel buildings are considered, like the average number of guests, the hotel stars, the net floor area or planted surfaces. Specifications like the spa-area are classified separately. 4.1.3.2 Economic quality aspect The economic quality aspect includes just two criteria. These criteria refer to the life cycle costs from the beginning (construction of a building) to the end (demolition of the building), the process chain and show the suitability of a building for third party use. In the first criterion, the life cycle costs including the construction costs and the expected service costs that have a direct connection with the building are assessed. Until now, the conventional planning and construction process focused mainly on minimizing the construction costs of a building. In order to get a more economically sustainable building the minimization of the life cycle costs of buildings and the relative cost reduction of remodeling and maintenance investments compared to the new building are assessed. 46

The second criterion measures the level of adaptability of buildings under low resource use and consumption of the main supporting structure. The lower the costs for adaptability are the higher the suitability for third party use. In this criterion group the evaluation is based on one quantitative and one qualitative method. The second criterion is assessed with the support of a checklist. The first one is again based on the norms of the Austrian Standards Institutes. The main difference is the consideration of the hotel category, as the life-cycle costs are raising with the hotel category. Besides some special categories are considered, including spa-areas, conference facilities, or restaurants. With the help of the comparative values these criterion can be assessed and checked easily. 4.1.3.3 Socio-cultural and functional quality aspect The socio-cultural and functional quality aspect consists of 15 criteria, which represents the quality aspect with the highest number of criteria. These criteria refer to the user convenience and examine the functional and design characteristics of buildings. The first two assess the thermal comfort in summer and winter. Therefore a checklist including the operating temperature, draught, radiant temperature asymmetry, floor temperature, relative humidity and vertical temperature gradient was created and will bring a final result. Besides 80% of the rooms need to meet the requirement of living according to ÖNORM 15251. For the assessment of the next criterion, the indoor air quality, again a checklist was created. This measures the indoor hygiene with the help volatile organic compounds: the perceived air quality, the microbiological situation and the personal ventilation rate. This is done in the planning phase and after the final completion of the project. The aim of the fourth criterion, the acoustic comfort, is to ensure a proper room acoustic quality according to the respective use of the rooms. The room acoustic quality determines the acoustic comfort and has a significant impact on the performance in the workplace. The evaluation for this criterion is based on the ÖNORM 8115-3. The assessment of the fifth criterion, the visual comfort, is based on the visual connection to the outside, glare, daylight availability, light distribution and color rendering. 47

Basis for this evaluation are the DIN 5034 Part 1-3: Daylight in interiors and the ÖNORM 12464 Part 1: Lighting of work places. The next assessment criterion is called user influence on the building operation and includes ventilation, sunscreen, temperatures during the heating season, temperatures outside the heating season, the control of daylight and artificial light and the ease of use of the rooms. The quality of outdoor spaces is the seventh criterion and assesses the creative planning of technical constructions, roofs, courtyards, atriums and open spaces in the facade like balconies. Another aspect of the socio-cultural and functional quality is safety and security. These include clearly laid out paths, illumination of paths, routes to security-enhanced parking, evacuation plans, technical safety devices, gas fire risk, escape routes and operating instructions. The evaluation of those aspects is based on several ÖNORMs. The ninth criterion is handicapped accessibility and is completely based on Austrian norms for the Austrian construction sector and on the norms for accessible tourism facilities established by the Austrian Chamber of Commerce. The efficient use of floor area is based on the proportion of effective area on gross floor area and is calculated by interpolation between the key values. The higher the amount of effective area, the higher is the result of the assessment. Another point of this quality area is the suitability for conversion and consists of three main criteria: the modularity of the building, the electrical and utility supply and the heating, the water supply and sanitation. The less effort it is to convert the building, the better its capacity to judge a high suitability for adapting the building to another type. The next criterion, the public access, again uses a checklist for the assessment. This varies with building types and, in the case of hotel buildings contains the opening of the outdoor facilities to the public, the opening of building internal facilities such as cafeterias, restaurants, swimming pools and gyms to the public, the possibility of renting space within the building by third parties next to the hotel rooms and the diversity of use of the public and depends on number of hotel rooms. The main aim of this criterion is to increase the acceptance of the building in the neighborhood and community and 48

the integration of the building into the existing urban space, which is eased by the public and mixed use of the building. Another point in the assessment is the cycling convenience. It evaluates the establishment of a bicycle infrastructure including the location and distance of the parking to the entrance of the building, corresponding service levels which offer staff and guests to bring their own bicycle and allows the switch to a more environmentally friendly way to work, for example showers, changing rooms and drying facilities for bicycle clothes. The fourteenth criterion is design and urban planning quality through competition. It includes the implementation of planning competitions, the competition proceedings, the execution of an award-winning design and the commissioning of the planning team or an architectural award. These competitions allow the clients to find the appropriate contractor in a clearly structured and transparent manner. The last criterion of the socio-cultural quality aspect is the integration of public art. This criterion should be used to establish a direct relationship between the public, the building and its use. They should each have a special place- and object-reference and help to strengthen the acceptance and the identification of users with the building, to attract attention and to give locations a unique profile. In this criterion, art and architecture refers to the building or the plot, paintings for guest rooms and corridors are not meant. The majority of these criterions are based on a qualitative or the combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, so they are evaluated with the help of comprehensive checklists. In addition these criteria focus on the comfort and functionality of the building, which requires the consideration of the building specifications of hotel buildings. These include for example the temperature in hotel rooms, the room layout (including conference rooms, hotel rooms, restaurants, lobby, lounges, but also the offices), the ceiling height, or the location of the hotel building. In addition the checklists were adapted to the operation and usage of hotel buildings, thus they often include a higher number of checklist items. Only five criteria are checked with the same procedures within the two versions. Due to the increased use of checklists for this aspect an easy and understandable evaluation of the criteria is possible, however some contain subjective assessments. Another difference to the office building is the criterion of family friendliness, which is also based on a checklist. 49

4.1.3.4 Technical quality aspect The aspect of technical quality consists of five criteria. These criteria refer to the quality of the technical implementation. A set of criteria is still in development. The criteria have influence on the ecological, economic and socio-cultural quality of the building. The first criterion of the technical quality aspect is fire prevention. The aim of this criterion is an increase in the quality of fire protection measures. The main cause of deaths in fires in buildings is poisonous smoke. Therefore installations which go beyond the basic fire protection requirements may be assessed as a positive performance. The second criterion attends to the indoor acoustics and sound insulation. The goal is to improve the sound insulation. Minimum requirements for sound insulation in buildings are defined in DIN 4109, which does not necessarily exclude unreasonable harassments. As a consequence additional investments in noise control in office buildings are avoiding loss of concentration and maintaining confidentiality. In order to minimize the energy demand for climate control of buildings the criterion of building envelope quality is formulated. It should ensure high thermal comfort and should avoid structural damage during construction. The fourth criterion, the ease of cleaning and maintenance, addresses the high economic and environmental impact of a building during its operation phase. Thus specific cleaning and maintenance processes and surfaces that can be cleaned easily which lower the costs and secure the longest possible life are assessed. The last criterion of this quality aspect covers the ease of dismantling and recycling. The avoidance of environmentally harmful waste and the reduction of waste is generally a key objective for sustainable construction. The aim of the ease of dismantling and recycling is the prevention of waste, particularly the amount and harmfulness, as more than 50% of the total waste are attributable to the construction sector in Austria. Due to the comparatively high average life expectancy of structures and components of todays installed materials, they only accrue in 50 or 100 years as demolition materials and potential waste. This criteria group consists of two quantitative and three qualitative criteria assessments. In this group almost every criterion differs in the two versions due to the legal 50

requirements for hotel buildings including different norms. The two values of cleaning and maintenance and dismantling and recycling are evaluated in the same way as office buildings. 4.1.3.5 Process quality aspect The process quality aspect consists of eight criteria which refer to the quality of the planning and construction phase of the building and are backed up by detailed documentation. A set of criteria is still in development. These criteria again have influence on the ecological, economic and socio-cultural quality of the building. The first criterion in this criteria group is the comprehensive project definition. This should include demand planning, goal-setting discussions, goal setting itself, the preparation of an architectural competition and the influence of the use-related energy expenditure. The next one refers to the integrated planning. The aim of this criterion is to improve the quality of planning and to optimize the planning process in order to ensure the realization of sustainable buildings. This can be reached through an improved coordination of all parties involved over the entire life-cycle of the building. In order to reduce energy and resource consumption and increase comfort and efficiency at the same time, an interdisciplinary planning team develops together with the client a holistic approach in terms of sustainability oriented strategy. The third criterion addresses the issue of comprehensive building design. This includes the creation of a safety and health plan, the creation of an energy concept, the creation of a water concept, the creation of a waste concept, the creation of a measurement concept that supports the convertibility, deconstruction and recycling friendliness, the establishment of a management concept, the examination of the documents by third parties and the implementation of variant comparisons. In order to create a high-quality construction process, which fulfills all the product and technology requirements for the achievement of all sustainability goals, the criterion of sustainable aspects in the tender phase is added to this list. Another aspect in the process quality is the documentation for facility management. This includes the creation of a building pass to establish more market transparency, the 51

creation of building-related maintenance, inspection and operations instructions. In addition, it requires the detailed design and planning documents and calculations and the creation of a user manual. The sixth criterion covers the environmental impact of the construction site and process. This assessment includes a low amount of waste, low noise, the environmental protection of soil and groundwater and dust-arm handling and processing of materials on the construction site. The next criterion addresses the construction quality assurance and quality control measures. In this criterion the expertise and quality of the contractors are described and assessed. A very important aspect is the prequalification of the company. Besides the documentation of materials, auxiliary method and material safety data sheets are essential for the assessment. The last criterion of the process quality is the systematic commissioning. This criterion contributes significantly to long-term and efficient use of the building. Here the individual components of the technical building system are adjusted and the readjustment after 10-14 months is specified in a contract. The process quality aspect just includes qualitative assessments. The whole process of building a hotel is equally evaluated as the one of the office buildings. So the criteria described do not show any differences with the other version. The only thing that is adapted is the inclusion of a manual for the hotel guests in the documentation criterion. Due to the use of checklists, the assessment is easily executable, however for the modification of existing buildings, the assessment can be difficult, if the planning documents are not or only partly available. 4.1.3.6 Site quality aspect The site quality aspect consists of seven criteria, which evaluate the micro-conditions and macro- conditions of the site. The assessment of these criteria is not added to the overall rating of the building and is mentioned separately. The first criterion assesses the site location risks, such as threats of terrorism or natural risks. It also concentrates on unpredictable human-induced disasters and risks from nature or weather. 52

The next criterion addresses the site location conditions, like air quality, ambient noise level, soil conditions, soil pollution, electromagnetic fields and presence of radon. Another aspect of the site quality is the public image and social conditions. This includes the image and attractiveness of the location, the crime rates in the area and the conservation status of the district. What is also very important for the site quality is the access to transportation. Desirable qualities for this criterion are the connection to public transport and consequently the reduction of transportation. The fifth criterion is the access to use-specific facilities, which should include food and beverage facilities, local grocers shops, public administration, health care and sports and leisure facilities. Part of the site quality is also connections to utilities, which includes the access to conducted energy, solar energy, broadband connection and the opportunity for infiltration of rainwater. In the last criteria group again only qualitative methods with the help of checklists are used for the assessment of the building. Five of the seven criteria in the hotel building version do not differ from the one of office buildings. In the criterion of access to transportation the location of the hotel building is considered, which is essential especially with hotels in urban areas. Also the access to use-specific facilities is suited to hotel buildings, as they are often looking for different facilities than office users. 4.1.4 Adaptation of the system The special requirements of hotel buildings, that have been mentioned in the literature as well, have to be taken into account for the assessment criteria of the DGNB system. Therefore it was very important that the comfort of the hotel guest is paid special attention, as this is the major concern of the hotel guest when staying in the hotel. Also the star category and the occupancy type need special consideration. The accessibility issues for urban hotels differ from those for remote country hotels and should therefore be therefore considered in the evaluation. Another crucial aspect with hotel buildings are operating and maintenance costs, as occupancy of a hotel room differs completely from 53

those of an office building or a residential building, although it is more similar to the latter. The system tries to consider these special requirements in all of the criteria profiles. This was also mentioned in all of the interviews. Basically the certification process and the criteria do not significantly differ from each other. They were adapted specifically to the building requirements. GBCM 1 described the adaptation process in much detail. The basis for each adaptation was the DGNB certification scheme for new office buildings in Germany. All alterations regarding building typology and country-specific requirements were then performed with the help of parallelogram. FIGURE 6: THE ADAPTATION PROCESS Figure 6 shows the exact adaptation process as described by GBCM 1. He argues that the first step was to take the certification criteria profiles for new office buildings and adapt it to the Austrian standards and requirements for a sustainable building. Then the DGNB in Germany designed a version for hotel buildings. The main aim for ÖGNI and the Austrian DGNB certificate is to understand all the adaptations from the office buildings version to the hotel buildings version and as a result to consider the local requirements and norms of the Austrian market. Besides he stressed that in the Austrian version for hotel buildings the problems which occurred in the German market will be already considered in the Austrian version. These adaptations can be noticed in the descriptions above, where several changes were pointed out. However what was mentioned in every interview were the different needs of the target groups for the certification. Here GM 1 mentioned that the quality of the building itself contributes significantly to the economic success of the hotel building. 54

4.2 DGNB certification of hotel buildings As reviewed in the literature, green building activities are driven by many different factors and views. According to the report of McGraw Hill Construction (2013) a green building is seen as business opportunity. Client demand and market demand were stated as the dominant drivers in the market. However these two factors can be noticed within the whole market and also on the supply side. Both demand and supply side become more concerned and increase their knowledge about the environmental, social and economic aspects of green buildings. All of the stakeholders: developers, constructors, clients, operators, tenant or guests profit from the development of more green building activities in the market. Another report by the World Green Building Council (2013) tries to point out the benefits for each of the stakeholders very clearly. It mainly summarizes the key findings into the asset value, design and construction costs, operating costs, workplace productivity and health and risk mitigation. These five key areas include benefits and costs for all of the stakeholders. These can also be recognized with all certification schemes of green buildings independently from the building typology and the location of the building. Therefore figure 7 below shows the different stakeholder perceptions of the value of green buildings in general. It clearly presents the benefits and costs for each stakeholder group, in this case developer, tenant and owner. In addition it points out the benefits that the groups are sharing amongst each other. Furthermore it describes very well the market structure of the construction industry, with its different linkages and conjunctions. 55

FIGURE 7: STAKEHOLDER PERCEPTIONS (WORLD GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL, THE BUSINESS CASE FOR GREEN BUILDING, 2013) As the market structure is seen in the literature as the main driver for green building development and as a result for the development of certification schemes within this field, this figure is very helpful for further analysis of the findings of the different interviews. Besides it supports the derivation of the aspects on the hotel building market. The single attributes will now be discussed further with the interpretation and comparison of all the analyzed data from the expert interviews. It is again split up into the important key areas interest and market value, acceptance within the hotel sector and design and construction costs of the DGNB certification of hotel buildings. The findings for the special case of the pioneer project in Austria, the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden, will be compared with the findings and opinions of the experts for the German market. As most of the key areas are closely connected, arguments and topics 56

repetitions occurred in regards to the content. The first part of the chapter will include a short description of the Falkensteiner group and the Falkensteiner Hotel and Spa Bad Leonfelden. 4.2.1 Falkensteiner Hotel and Spa Bad Leonfelden The Falkensteiner Hotel and Spa Bad Leonfelden is part of the Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group. This is a family-run company and offers its tourism products and services in Central Europe. These include all areas of tourism development, from planning to construction of hotels to the operational management and marketing activities for their projects. At the moment the main business division is hotel management. They operate 31 hotels and residences in six European countries under the name Falkensteiner Hotels and Residences ( FMTG - Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group AG, 2010). tradition & innovation people at the center & dynamic company family-run & goal oriented sustainable & bold FIGURE 8: VALUES OF FALKENSTEINER MICHAELER TORUISM GROUP (TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH) ( FMTG - FALKENSTEINER MICHAELER TOURISM GROUP AG, 2010) Figure 8 shows the main values and aims of the Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group. As a family-run company they try to integrate traditions into modern innovation with a focus on business results and sustainability. One of their main aims is to become one of the most successful providers of complete tourism solutions in the long term ( FMTG - Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group AG, 2010). 57

As the tourism industry is strongly focusing on people, this aspect is also part of the company s values. There a strong relationship can be seen to the sustainability model, as it also considers the social aspects and the DGNB certificate also concentrates on the comfort and the well-being of the users. This also includes their next value, the familiarity and the attention to the results. This is met by being still a family-run company. Their last value concentrates completely on the sustainability issue. They describe this value as We develop bold ideas and always take the sustainability of our decisions into consideration when implementing them ( FMTG - Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group AG, 2010). They have also shown this with the development of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden, which was the first DGNB certified hotel in Austria and also played a major role in the adaptation of the DGNB certification criteria profiles. The Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Leonfelden is a four star property in the region Mühlviertel in Upper Austria. It is located in a natural setting on a hill at the edge of Bad Leonfelden. In addition to the classical features of the Falkensteiner Hotel group, like their Acquapura SPA program or their special culinary program called Alpe-Adria Kulinarik, this property focuses strongly on regional aspects throughout the whole operation. It tries to integrate itself into the regional conditions of the area as good as possible, both in operation and the construction of the building. The region of the Mühlviertel is one of the leading regions when it comes to sustainability. It has a strong focus on organic agriculture, renewable energy production and regional business cycles. The certification of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden fits well to the regional focus and is seen as another important step for the region to further support a sustainable development (Falkensteiner Hotels & Residences, 2013). 4.2.2 Interest and Market value Within the office building industry the interest and market value for certified buildings is already on a very good track. With this building typology the developer/investor already has the interest to increase the market value and therefore sales chances for his building. This is secured through a higher demand from the tenants perspective already, to decrease on the one hand their operation and maintenance costs, but also on the other hand through increased productivity and the health and well-being of the user. In addition is the certification especially demanded by potential investors, who are in- 58

terested in the maintained value of the building when it is resold (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013). However hotel buildings have special industry requirements and therefore need a special consideration. This argument is confirmed by all experts. The target group for the hotel certification is diversely pointed out. PM 2 argues that the hotel guest is primarily targeted instead of the classical investor or constructor. PM 4 and PM 5 on the other hand point out that due to the common management contracts the operators or the owners are the main target group for the hotel building certification. As a result this would of course also influence the developer or investor of the building which want to rent out their buildings. Still the pressure from the different hotel managers on the developer is not high enough that a potential interest can be realized in the end. As also reviewed in the literature, PM 5 points out that the interest of hotel managers is often in other areas than the hotel building itself. However especially chain affiliated hotels show an increased interest in building certifications, which is appreciated. According to the opinion of PM 5 and 4 this can often be tracked back to corporate environmental policies and action plans. The demonstration of their environmental and social commitment and achievements is used to maintain a good brand image. Those can also have influence on the corporate identity of the brand and as a result to the guest information. They also stress that the major hotel chains have already increased interest in the certification of newly constructed buildings; however the used certification is often dependent on the corporate environmental policies and on the common market conditions. Although DGNB would be commonly used in Austria and Germany, a lot of international hotel chains would stick to the major certification schemes like LEED. Reasons for this would be that they are already used to the requirements of these certification schemes as they are commonly used in their markets of origin. GBCM 1 argues that in the special case of hotel buildings the building itself is not the only driver for sustainability. He claims that the basis is established through the constructional measures complemented with the operation of the hotel. From his point of view the demand of sustainable certification of hotel buildings is increasing and present at the market. With the help of a sustainable construction of hotel buildings he says that the user friendliness and the user guidance can be driven towards a more sustainable one in the long run. He still argues that both the operation and the building itself strong- 59

ly interrelate with each other. It is therefore also important to inform the guests about the implemented features in order to reach the optimal result for a sustainable hotel building. As a result in his opinion it is necessary that the hotel building itself meets certain conditions as hardware and the guest is guided to and understands the aims that want to be met with a sustainable hotel building. In addition he argues that in comparison it is much easier with office buildings, as a fixed workforce is using the building, who also knows how to use all the features properly under the guidance of a facility manager, who is in the worst case also able to come up with punitive measures. Having a look at the specific case, the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden, one interviewed person (PM 1) more represents the view of the developer and investor, whereas GM 1 completely focuses on the operation of the hotel building. PM 1 argues that the interest for sustainable building certification increased generally within the market independently on the system, the location and the building typology. For the specific example of the DGNB certification in Austria he stated that the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden is the pilot project for Austria. It tries to create benchmarks for the sustainable use and construction of a hotel building, which can in the end be used from both the operator and the developer. For the operator he sees the main benefit in the reduction of operating and maintenance costs, for the developer the increased asset value and quality of the building. In addition he argues that the certification also helps to reduce the increased effort in the due diligence, which is a review of the building systems and features that can affect the operation and value of a property. Furthermore he argues that with a certified building the investor can be sure that all the construction related norms and guidelines have been met. As a result he claims that the investor therefore decreases the possible risks of the future value of the real estate asset and the return of investment or the rental income. He states the hotel guest, as the enduser of the building, will only perceive the features of a sustainable building unconsciously through a good indoor quality, better lighting or better ventilation. GM 1 on the other hand mainly looks at the interest for sustainable certification of hotel buildings from the operator s point of view. He argues that compared to the U.S. market the European one is less dependent on certifications when it comes to hotel bookings. Whereas the companies in the U.S. market are more focused on the brand image, the reason for the certification in Europe lies more in the attitude of every hotelier towards a 60

more sustainable and careful use of resources. For the case of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden he says that it was their intention from the beginning, starting at the designing and planning phase, to deal responsibly with sustainable core-attributes and their implementation. In this case these include: The hardware including the hotel building construction and the equipment with furniture from regional material All the processes, including regional economic conditions. The awareness building within the staff members, including the training within their own Falkensteiner Academy. 4.2.3 Acceptance within the hotel sector Similar to the interest and market value of the certification scheme, the market and consumer demand are the main drivers for the acceptance of such a system. Whereas for the office building market the use of certification schemes is already quite common and demanded by the stakeholders due to the majority of benefits (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013), it still lacks at the acceptance within the hotel sector especially in Germany and Austria. Another point that leads to this negative trend in acceptance is that often hotel managers and owners lack information about the green building market or that especially the Austrian hotel market consists mostly of SMEs instead of chain affiliated hotels. GBCM 1 mentions here that the DGNB certification scheme needs a certain lead time with each of the certification schemes. Usually the certification is first applied to a pioneer project, like it was in the case of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden, during the whole process from the development and planning phase to the final commissioning of the building. Then after about two to four years the certification scheme becomes established on the market. Besides he mentions, as reviewed in the literature, that the Austrian hotel market consists of many SMEs which are also often already market leaders in specific regions over a long time. He points out that this is not necessarily a disadvantage; however the additional value of extra sustainable efforts and even a sustainable building certification is often not relevant because of their already wellestablished name in the market. In comparison with the office building market the clients already demand the certification and also the sustainable construction of the building. Another important issue that he points out is that most of the chain-affiliated hotels 61

often use other certification schemes than the DGNB, which they have already used for other properties in other regions. Here the LEED certification was mentioned as the main certification tool. As a third main point he mentioned that the market in Austria does not really offer a lot of new built hotel properties and therefore the certification is not that relevant. Still he is of the opinion that the DGNB certification is accepted within the industry, it just needs time to establish within the market. In his point of view in Austria the system is on a good track, as already three main investors and development companies of tourism projects are part of their network, namely the Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group, the SIGNA holding and the VAMED. The arguments of GBCM 1 were confirmed by PM 5. In his opinion the industry constellation of hotel buildings differs completely from the one of office buildings. If the owner of the hotel building is at the same time the operator of the building, then the decision whether a certification scheme like DGNB is applied or not is a corporate internal decision. If it is a management contract, like the majority of the chain-affiliated hotels, the corporate identity of the hotel is priority in the decision for or against the application of a sustainable building certification. Here it is of great importance then that the standards and requirements are accordingly unified, which is also the reason for most of the big chains to use other certification schemes like the LEED certification. According to PM 4 there is a lack of acceptance of the project developers or builders who do not offer the development of a new hotel building with the included certification process of DGNB and additionally a lack of practical experience with the DGNB certification in the hotel building industry. The DGNB certification of hotel buildings is a quite young certification method thus if a lack of knowledge and interest in a sustainable building certification exits then these schemes are rarely taken into account. Furthermore the additional costs through a certification are often mentioned as barriers for the certification. However if the stakeholders like owners or developers and investors already had experience with a certification, they are often willing to apply a certification to future projects as well, as they already know how the certification process works and what has to be considered. 62

PM 2 agrees with the arguments that the DGNB certification is still a very young certification scheme, however that the increasing number of certified hotel projects especially in Germany shows that the certification scheme increases in acceptance. He mentions that especially for hotel chains, a repeated certification with the same scheme could increase the interest, as the planning and preparation effort for the certification decreases from one project to another. In his opinion the market demand, especially the one from the guests side, is more difficult to assess. In his opinion this varies between the hotel type and the location. A higher demand for more sustainable hotel buildings can be seen in the resort markets or country hotels. The business and urban hotel market is more driven by the sustainable corporate culture of the companies with high travel activities of their employees. When they have incorporated the use of a sustainable certified hotel building within their own corporate culture, a rising demand will be noticed within the sustainable hotel building market. Concluding his opinion he thinks that the acceptance of the sustainable building certification is expected to be primarily driven by the demand from the user perspective. Concentrating on the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden, GM 1 based his arguments more on the booking behavior and their influence on the hotel operation as a result. He argues that the certification process is often associated with a large financial investment and that the benefits of the certification are not really recognizable especially not with increased bookings in the hotel. The guests decide primarily on special offers, price and location. In his opinion environmental certifications do not have a really direct influence on the booking behavior. However he mentions the lack of knowledge of the hoteliers. Therefore for the future he recommends that the focus of these certification schemes should be on the communication and increasing the awareness and the representation of the benefits and high quality guaranteed by the certification. This should raise more attention of the hoteliers but of course also of the guests for a sustainable and responsible use of the environment. PM 1 agrees with the argument that the hotel industry constellation differs completely from other building typologies. A hotel building is often operated longer without interruptions than the office building. Besides he argues that with a bad operation of a hotel building the asset value decreases and the building itself suffers more from it. In addition, in his opinion it also lacks knowledge within the industry, especially in the Austri- 63

an and German market. Hotel buildings are often less new constructed and certified within the Austrian market. In the international markets he thinks that this is different and that there is more focus on certifications of newly constructed buildings. Furthermore he mentions that the DGNB certification is a very comprehensive system and requires a lot of effort can also lead to additional costs. Therefore it often lacks on the knowledge on how this certification can be judged by the industry. 4.2.4 Design and construction costs According to the World Green Building Council, building green does not necessarily means that higher costs arise, especially when environmental strategies, program management and cost strategies are already implemented into the development and design phase. In addition additional costs for green buildings are often perceived higher by the construction industry. (World Green Building Council, The Business Case for Green Building, 2013) This part analyzes the additional value of a DGNB certification for hotel buildings and reports the progresses made especially in the case of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden. The argument of the World Green Building Council is also confirmed by GBCM 2. From his point of view, sustainable buildings are of higher value due to the reduction of operating and maintenance costs. In his answer he refers to several studies, which point out that sustainable buildings minimize risk of vacancies and can increase rental income. As a result this leads to an increased market value and higher sales and resale prices of the asset. He argues that sustainable buildings are therefore value drivers and no cost factors. In addition he refers to a specific study conducted by the consulting company Drees & Sommer: The financial overhead of a DGNB certification in construction costs amounts between zero to four percent. The additional costs for planning and advice are even below 0.5%. PM 4 considers in his answer more the property, which can, from a long-term operator s point of view, better resist the developments of the sustainable building market. The building process and the asymmetry of information between the investors and users or operators becomes more transparent. This leads to new discussions and further questions, which can even increase the awareness about green buildings. In order to reach 64

certain targets for the certification, the whole process requires additional evidence from an auditor. Therefore users know that an additional quality control was performed and that the building can be better compared to other hotel properties. As a result this also increases the market value of the hotel property. PM 2 argues that many projects already follow very high standards from the development stage. Therefore a certification would help to make the already achieved standards more transparent and also demonstrate some suggestions for improvements. So he claims that those developers and investors, who have already planned sustainably, are expected to have lower costs in order to reach a certain certification standard for a hotel building. In addition he states that both the hotel guest and the operator would significantly profit from the DGNB certification. In order to reach a DGNB certification certain air measurements are required. Therefore the guest would benefit from better indoor air quality. On the other hand the operator will profit through the documentation of planning and constructing in a sustainable way, which also optimizes the operation in the long run. Besides an additional benefit is expected for all stakeholders, as the market and the comparability of real-estate projects will increase. All of the arguments by PM 2 are confirmed by GBCM 1. He argues that through the optimization in the investment the life cycle and the operational costs can be already optimized. Through the structure of management contracts within the hospitality industry, the developer or investor would also profit from lower maintenance and operating costs. However he stresses that there is of course a difference between smaller privately-owned hotels or chain-affiliated hotels. In the private sector the transparency in the market is not that important. The private hotel sector does not consider a resale of the building after a certain period of time and therefore it is, compared to the institutional market, not necessary to demonstrate all the quality and performance measures to all stakeholders. However in his opinion the acceptance of the certification is already very high and the additional expenditure remunerates in the long run. ARCH 1 agrees with the opinions of the other respondents and adds that in his point of view a building certification for a hotel is an investment in the future. In addition it is an independent validation for the investor that the building fulfills the latest trends in terms of resource conservation issues, preserving value and user comfort. 65

Also in the case of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden PM 1 emphasizes that the return on investment happens faster in the long run. The operator and owner of a highly-qualitative property can be sure that the life-cycle costs are reduced. Through the certification the life-cycle costs become more transparent and the property therefore more attractive. In the case of the Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Leonfelden he is sure that the certification was worth it, as the building is now officially sustainable. Furthermore the certification process has shown them the strengths and weaknesses of the building in order to know where operating costs can be reduced. He also agrees with GBCM 1, when it comes to the private hotel sector. Here he recommends smaller and easier certification schemes. Based on this he argues that the DGNB certification is a very comprehensive certification scheme, which might be not necessary for smaller enterprises and properties but also not appropriate in this scope. From an operator s point of view the additional expenditure is seen more critically. GM 1 argues that it is important to consider also the often not very sustainable guest needs in the certification of hotel buildings. The risk of negative guest reviews is much higher, when the hotelier is concerned too much about sustainability. A good example would be the towels in the spa area. Especially for higher class hotels it is expected that towels are always available in the spa area. Therefore the effort to convince hotel guests of a more responsible use of resources is much greater than among employees of an office building. At the moment in his opinion the cost is even higher compared to the value of certification. In addition the European market is still not ready to pass the financial costs of the certification and the sustainable use of resources in the hotel onto the guest room prices. However for the Falkensteiner Group the integration of the hotels into the environment and the region, both visually and in cooperation with regional partners was and is important. Especially for a hotel in the rural environment this is of greater significance than for a city hotel. The use of typical local and natural materials in terms of the environmental and economic performance, combined with the careful use of all resources is for them just as important as a high technical quality, representing the fire protection concept and the related purpose safety. 66

The Falkensteiner Group has also paid attention to the socio-cultural quality and the functionality of a high level of comfort for their guests. These include, among many other factors, handicapped accessible rooms and an optimal thermal and visual setting. 4.2.5 Summary of findings Table 2 summarizes all the findings from the expert interviews. It highlights the main drivers and barriers for sustainable building certifications for hotel buildings. Drivers for green building certifications Barriers for green building certifications in the hospitality in the hospitality industry industry Lower operating and maintenance costs Solutions integrated in internal policy Prior positive experience Higher asset value More transparent information through certification Higher acceptance through integration into the environment Higher branding value Diverse user groups No recognizable consequences Hotel managers attitude towards the topic/lack of market pressure Market structure in Austria/many SMEs Lack of information for owners/operators/guests Large time and personnel requirement for implementation, training and maintenance Higher first cost Higher building performance TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 4.3 Document analysis The literature review highlighted a number of triggers and barriers for green building activity in the future. Similarly a report of the McGraw Hill Construction (2013) about World Green Building trends compares findings from more than 800 architects, engineers, owners, consultants, manufacturers and suppliers worldwide. This report was done with the help of an online survey in more than 62 countries around the world. It is the second edition after the first in 2008 and compares the findings between 2008 and 2012. 67

This subchapter tries to combine the findings from the qualitative data with the findings of the report. The results of the interviews above and the literature reviewed were cross-checked with the results of this worldwide report, in order to show if the findings are supported and follow a common trend within the whole worldwide green building industry. However the report includes sustainable building certification schemes for all building typologies and does not explicitly focus on hotel buildings. 4.3.1 Triggers Driving Future Green Building Activity As figure 9 describes, primary triggers for green building were market and client demand. Similar findings were also shown in the interviews above in the section of interest and market value. Especially lower operating costs and branding/ public relations increased in their importance in 2012 compared to 2008. This was also mentioned by the experts in the hospitality industry and reviewed in the literature. Especially in the USA in the hospitality industry the issue of branding and public relations of green hospitality buildings is very strong. There many hotel chains have already incorporated green building activities in their internal policies. Also the high energy and resource demand for hotel buildings and lower operating costs were mentioned by the interviewees. In addition many of the experts also mentioned the higher building value in the long run, which is especially interesting for investors and owners. Furthermore the argument of Right Thing to do decreased immensely, which is in the author s point of view the trend of companies to become aware of the benefits of green building in general. 68

Triggers Driving Future Green Building Activity 2008 2012 42% 34% 35% 35% 33% 17% 30% 30% 22% 26% 25% 22% 24% 23% 35% 18% 16% 13% 18% 12% 9% 11% Local competition Global competitiveness Higher Building value Market Transformation Environmental Regulations Internal Corporate Commitment Right Thing to Do Branding/Public Relations Lower Operating Costs Market Demand Client Demand FIGURE 9: TRIGGERS DRIVING FUTURE GREEN BUILDING ACTIVITY (MCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION, 2013) What was not mentioned at all in the interviews, but was in the literature (Hwang & Tang, 2010; Kibert, 2010), are environmental regulations. In the author s opinion the regulations for new buildings are already very high in Austria, which is guaranteed with the mandatory use of the energy performance certificate. The competitiveness was also not mentioned by any interviewee, and does not play a large role in Europe and especially in Austria due to the high legal requirements, like the EPBD, the energy performance certificate and the climate strategy of Austria. 4.3.2 Challenges Increasing Green Building Activity In Figure 10 it can be seen that the variations between the two time periods is not that big in the obstacles for increasing green building activities. What was mentioned as the biggest challenge are the higher first costs. This argument was also brought up in the interview above. However two experts and also some authors in the literature (World Green Building Council, 2013; Hotel Energy Solutions, 2011; Sloan et. al, 2009) argue that the costs are often perceived higher than they really are. The second most mentioned answer in this survey was the lack of political support and incentives. 69

Challenges to Increasing Green Building Activity 2008 2012 80% 76% 49% 48% 46% 38% 36% 32% 30% 29% 29% 29% 17% 10% Lack of trained Green Building Professionals Lack of Public Awareness Affordability - Green is High-End Lack of Market Demand Challenge with Split Between Capital Expenditure and Operating Cost Savings Lack of Political Support/Incentives Higher First Costs FIGURE 10: CHALLENGES TO INCREASING GREEN BUILDING ACTIVITY (MCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION, 2013) Generally the Austrian Government offers a number of incentives for all kind of sustainable projects. One of them is the Austrian climate fund of the federal government. It offers incentives to private people, companies, regional governments, research institutes and other target groups, like farming. The budget for supporting energy projects amounts 140 million Euros in 2013. The main focus and objectives are e-mobility and Zero Emission Austria which focuses especially on energy efficiency and smart energy technologies (Klima- und Energiefonds, 2013). For the hotel industry in particular the Austrian Government together with the ÖHT, the Austrian Hotel and Tourism Bank facilitate the TOP tourism fund. This focuses especially on the quality optimization of hospitality and tourism enterprises. These would include energy-saving measures, e.g. insulation of buildings or the installation of new windows, also the implementation of renewable energy technologies but also focuses on things like quality improvement or plant size optimization (Österreichische Hotel- und Tourismusbank Ges.m.b.H., 2011). In addition to the TOP tourism fund, the UFI is also a program of funding redevelopment measures in the energy system for industrial and commercial enterprises. Typical 70

projects are all renewable energy technologies but also the connection to district heating, dwellings thermal rehabilitation, investments for the reduction of emissions and waste and many more. For the period of 2011 to 2015 the annual funding budget of 90 million per year is increased by 100 million per year especially for thermal remediation (Lebensministerium II/3, 2012). What was very often mentioned in the survey was the split between capital expenditure and operating cost savings and the lack of public awareness. Especially in the hospitality industry it is still hard to charge more for the rooms when they are green. In addition the guests need to be more informed about their benefits of green buildings, in order to also increase the public awareness about the topic. This was also mentioned by the experts in the interviews. The lack of trained green building professionals decreased by 29%, which shows that more and more people are becoming more aware of the topic. The number of Green Building Councils all over the world was also growing and the organizations themselves are also more interested in the topic. This was also not mentioned in the interviews, as the DGNB in Germany and the ÖGNI in Austria are constantly growing and a lot of companies show their interest in becoming experts for their own projects. A significant increase can also be detected with affordability. This was mentioned in the interviews as well as in the literature. The argument that green is high-end, and the resulting higher prices cannot be forwarded to the market yet, especially in the European hotel market. However the interviewed experts expect this to happen within the near future, which is also already being shown in the US. 71

4.3.3 Benefits of Using a Green Building Rating System As already mentioned above, the number of green building councils is constantly increasing all over the world. These organizations are also establishing measures to assess green buildings and sustainable construction or use already existing measures for their assessment. However these assessment schemes show a couple of benefits and challenges as well. Benefits of Using a Green Building Rating System 2008 2012 69% 73% 67% 50% 43% 41% 40% 19% 20% 0% 0% 0% Offers Government or Local Financial Incentives/Rebates Provides a Common Language in the Industry Encourages Use of an Integrated Design Team Creates Opportunity to Learn more About the Specific Elements of Green Building Provides Marketing and Competitive Advantage/Recognitio n Creates Ability to Create a Better Performing Building FIGURE 11: BENEFITS OF USING A GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEM (MCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION, 2013) Figure 11 shows the benefits of Green Building Rating Schemes, whereas the challenges will be explained and developed in chapter 4.3.4. As main benefit, the ability to create better performing building was mentioned. With the help of the rating systems certain standards and requirements need to be met, which as a result lead to better performing buildings in general. As the interviews and the literature mention, this can be met especially if the green building rating system is already integrated at a very early stage, importantly the design stage. The second most mentioned answer was the marketing and competitive advantage. This was also agreed upon in the literature and the interviews. Especially the awarding process is finalized with a big presentation including media and the local community. As a 72

result the recognition for this building increases and the level of certification is often displayed at the entrance. Also in the hospitality industry, the companies can use such certificates to better integrate their business in the regional economic environment and can present their efforts concerning a more sustainable operation. Some interview partners above also mentioned the third benefit of learning more about specific elements of a green building. Especially in the case of Falkensteiner, which was the first hotel certified in Austria, they mentioned that they learned a lot from this project and that this is going to help them in implementing such systems in further projects. Nevertheless the other three benefits were not really mentioned in the interviews; however they were all slightly touched on in the literature. Through the use of green building systems, the design team needs to communicate closer and the involvement of each stakeholder in almost each step is very important. In Europe the common language in the industry is already given through the EPBD. Finally the incentives have neither been touched by the literature, nor by the interviews. According to McGraw Hill Construction (2013) this focuses more on Singapore, where this was mentioned as the second biggest benefit. 4.3.4 Reasons for Not Using Green Building Rating Systems According to figure 12, the literature and the expert interviews agree that the length of time it takes to assess a green building poses the biggest challenge to the costs. Especially in the Austrian hotel market, a major part of which consists of SMEs, the time span and the high costs are often not appropriate in that scope. Also the costs of an assessment cannot yet be included into the hotel room prices, as the risk of negative guest reviews would increase. 73

Reasons for Not Using Green Building Rating Systems 2008 2012 61% 42% 41% 36% 24% 15% Too Costly/Time Intensive Not Tailored to Regional Climate and Cultural Implications Difficult to Understand Requirements/Documentation Processes FIGURE 12: REASONS FOR NOT USING GREEN BUILDING RATING SYSTEMS (MCGRAW HILL CONSTRUCTION, 2013) A second argument was that the assessment schemes are not tailored to regional and cultural implications. This was also mentioned in the literature. However the increasing number of national green building councils has supported the shift to more regional climates. One of the strengths of the DGNB system, which is used in more than 20 countries worldwide, is that it considers national norms and requirements and is adapted for all of the assessment criteria. This is also the reason for the decreased frequency of this answer compared to 2008. Also the decreased frequency of the answer difficult to understand requirements/documentation processes can be tracked back to the increased number of rating systems and the increased number of green building professionals. 74

5 CONCLUSIONS The overall aim of this research was to detect obstacles in applying the DGNB certification scheme on hotel buildings and explore the main reasons for these barriers. As a result, recommendations to overcome these obstacles will be provided. In order to better work out these short-comings in the special case of hotel buildings the following research specifics were set: Identify the forces driving green building certification and the barriers to the successful implementation in the hotel industry. Explore green-building expert views and practices related to green building certification of hotel buildings, including drivers and barriers. Formulate overall recommendations on the implementation. The literature in chapter 2.1 identified the main reasons why the concept of green building was developed: the alarming trends of climate change, the rapid growth of emissions (for which the buildings are responsible for more than 40%), the high water usage in construction, the cheaper operating costs, the higher indoor air quality, higher safety issues and comfort health, and the use of more environmentally friendly building materials. Through the creation of Green Building Councils, which are non-governmental and non-profit member-based organizations formed by all members of regional sectors of the property industry, the concept of green buildings was exported globally. However the construction industry is a very complex industry, including a high number of stakeholders with many different interests when constructing a building. In order to reach a more sustainable consensus and create a more transparent and comparable information exchange within the construction industry, green building assessment tools have been created. These are used worldwide and are often accompanied by third-party verification, in the majority of the cases by the Green Building Councils. The most commonly used sustainable assessment tools are the total quality assessment systems, which evaluate ecological, economic and social aspects. Especially the hospitality industry, including hotel buildings, is often characterized by a high energy and resource demand through the 24-hour based operation and the high comfort level demanded by many travelers. 75

Whereas for office buildings these assessment tools have become quite common, this has not happened within the hotel industry. In this industry, as evidenced in the expert interviews, those in charge of implementing sustainable building assessments for hotel buildings may not have a collective view of why they are introducing these tools. Whereas from a developer s and investor s view the main drivers for green building assessment tools are the reduction of operation and maintenance costs and a higher asset value, for the hoteliers all these actions are strongly dependent on their attitude and knowledge. In general the literature review on green building showed four main benefits. Those include the higher asset value, recognizable in higher sales prices and higher rents. Secondly, green buildings have been shown to save costs through reduced energy and water usage and lower operation and maintenance costs. Thirdly, improved indoor environments can increase the workers productivity but also the occupants well-being and health. Last but not least the future value of the asset and the return on investment are secured and proved through more transparent information and communication of the certificates. Similarly, most of the above mentioned drivers were mentioned by the expert interviews in chapter 4.2. Generally chain-affiliated hotels have already integrated such solutions into their corporate environmental policies and have already positive prior experience with such tools. Also the reduction of operational costs, higher performance and customer demand, the improvement of the hotel s image and higher acceptance of the building through integration in the environment were mentioned as the most prominent drivers. The main conclusion, which can be drawn from the drivers for green building certification schemes, is that chain affiliated hotels are already considering and integrating these schemes in their internal policies, and they are highly feasible, as multiple goals can be achieved. There are also a number of barriers that impede the use of sustainable building certifications for hotel buildings. A number of obstacles were mentioned by the experts, especially focusing on the DGNB certification of hotel buildings in Austria and Germany. First of all, a lack of suitable information for hotel operators as well as guests is mentioned as a main barrier for the implementation. The Austrian hotel market is a very special one, which is dominated by many SME hotels. Especially those need to be tar- 76

geted for special educational and awareness raising campaigns to promote general sustainable actions and more specifically sustainable building actions and certifications. The reason for focusing on these hotels is that the additional value of sustainable efforts may not be relevant, as they are often already well-established. For the future, the author recommends encouraging investments in green building solutions through financial incentives and subsidies, and also through informing hoteliers about specific energy efficient solutions that are available on the market and helping them to assess the technical feasibility of a solution. Additionally the DGNB certification for hotel building is a quite young certification scheme, which was established in 2011 in Austria, and therefore it lacks practical experience. Resulting from this, the author recommends waiting until the certificate gets established within the market, like other larger certification schemes or those that have been in existence longer, in order to gather more experience. But not only are the hoteliers lacking information, also the guests need to be convinced. Here the author would recommend special folders and green marketing activities, like active involvement in environmental activities or special offers for an arrival by train. Besides big guests surveys could also influence the implementations and the hoteliers would be more able to consider the guests special wishes. In addition the diverse user groups of a hotel building were mentioned. Whereas in an office building a fixed workforce who knows how to use all the features is using the building, in a hotel building the user is often changing. Therefore the hotel guests needs to be guided to and understand the aims of the sustainable building. This needs to be accomplished through the building as hardware, but also through the operation of the hotel. Especially in the case of sustainable hotel buildings the guests as the end-users need to be guided towards more sustainable use in the long-run. One other main obstacle for the implementation of sustainable building assessment tools is the high first costs of investment and the benefits arising from the certification, which are not really recognizable especially not with increased bookings. This is due to the guests booking behavior, which is commonly based on price, special offers and location. The author s recommendation would include the market penetration of green booking platforms and websites, but also through green marketing activities in order to increase the guests awareness and their willingness to pay more for a more sustainable hotel room. Nevertheless in the European markets the financial costs of the certification 77

and implementation are not yet ready to pass onto the guest room prices. In relation to the two above mentioned barriers, the increased number of employees and personnel time for implementing, maintenance and training was mentioned. As already mentioned, the DGNB certification is a very young certificate, therefore little prior knowledge exists. As it is also a very comprehensive system, including a lot of different factors and requiring very detailed data and document collection, it requires a lot of effort, which may also lead to additional costs. Also the education of all employees and guests about the new technology in each part of the hotel s operation takes a large amount of the personnel s time and may result in additional costs. Respectively these additional costs cannot be passed on the guest room prices. The main conclusion that can be drawn from this research on the evident obstacles in applying the DGNB certification on hotel buildings are that voluntary involvement of hoteliers still strongly depends on the hotelier s attitude and knowledge. Consequently three main barriers hindering sustainable building certification tools are a lack of suitable information, the diverse user groups, and the lack of demand and pressure on the European market to pass the increased first investment costs and the potential higher personnel costs onto the hotel room prices. From the conclusions the fifth recommendation to be made is that hoteliers and hotel developers should be aware of why introducing sustainable building certification of hotel buildings would benefit the operators, guests and developers and the external factors that are influencing the decision. Above all, the stakeholders need to ensure that the information of the sustainable building certification is clear, transparent and communicated to those in charge of implementing the certification into the operation of the hotel, for example the hoteliers, their employees and also the guests. This recommendation would ensure that the hotelier and end-users understand collectively why sustainable building certification is important, and what the benefits are to the hotel as a whole as well as to staff and guests. Communicating this information to hoteliers and guests would remove all misunderstandings and increase the awareness and attitude towards such systems. Further it needs to be secured that this information is easily accessible for each and every end-user and staff. This could be done at check-in of the guest, but also during staff meetings. The integration into the internal policies is of high importance and is already done by many chain-affiliated hotels. 78

Furthermore it is recommended to encourage staff to become involved in the implementation, maintenance and training. Besides the hoteliers and staff members should receive meaningful training in a structured way that is aimed specifically at preparing hotel staff for integrating the special features of the sustainable building into their everyday work, whether operation, checkin or marketing. Table 3 summarizes the recommendations in order to give an overview of the recommendation and the ascertained domain. Domain Recommendation High costs Lack of experience Lack of awareness Booking behavior Lack of information Financial incentives and subsidies to encourage investments in green building solutions Wait until certificate is well-established within the market and gather experience from other versions Convince guests through special folders and green marketing activities, e.g. special reductions Market penetration of green booking platforms and websites Clear & transparent information for hotel operators and developers about benefits of certification Involvement of staff in implementation, maintenance and training Clear communication of the certificate to the guests TABLE 3: RECOMMENDATIONS 79

6 LIMITATIONS Although this research provides new insights into the obstacles in applying the DGNB certification scheme on hotel buildings, various problems were encountered in conducting the research, which have to be viewed in terms of caveats. The topic of green building certification, especially on hotel buildings, will raise interest for businesses and academic research. However the available literature on this topic is rare and difficult to find. The majority of the literature was made up by articles and journals. However the fast development and the current relevance of this topic required the use of the most recent articles and documents, which also reduced the scope of literature. Another limitation is the low number of respondents of the interviews. On the one hand it was a challenge to find enough suitable interview partners also willing to participate in the research. On the other hand the focus of the research was selected on a regional and young certification scheme, which did not offer a lot of samples. Due to their expert positions in their field it was also very hard to reach the different interview partners. As a result of the relatively small sample size, these findings cannot be generalized to the broader industry based on this study alone. The use of a larger and more representative sample size, perhaps looking at several sustainable building certification schemes for hotel buildings within Europe, would lead to stronger results. An additional limitation is that the DGNB certificate is a very young one, especially in the assessment of hotel buildings. The certification scheme is very limited to local regulations and in Austria only one hotel has been assessed thus far. Considering the German market, where the DGNB certification is also used, only eleven projects were available for the analysis. However most of the data needs to be treated confidentially and the companies have not been allowed to give all information out to the public, which would have been valuable for the research. The consideration of other certification schemes used for Austrian hotel buildings would have added further richness to the study, but this would have compromised the focus of the research and perhaps made the load of work unmanageable. Finally it would also be very interesting to compare the barriers and obstacles to the application of sustainable building certification schemes on hotel buildings to the ones of other building typologies such as residential or office buildings. If such a comparison 80

would have been made, the findings would have offered an even greater insight as to how a certification scheme tailor- made for office buildings needs to be further developed and progressed allowing for better application to other building typologies and their sustainability. 81

7 BIBLIOGRAPHY FMTG - Falkensteiner Michaeler Tourism Group AG. (2010). We live Tourism. Retrieved Mai 07, 2013, from http://www.fmtg.com/en/ World Green Building Council. (2013). About World GBC. Retrieved March 16, 2013, from http://www.worldgbc.org/worldgbc/about/ Andaloro, A., Salomone, R., Ioppolo, G., & Andaloro, L. (2010). Energy certification of buildings: A comparative analysis of progress towards implementation in European countries. Energy Policy(38), pp. 5840-5866. Auinger, M. (2012). Gebäudezertifizierung Das System DGNB der ÖGNI. Linz: ÖGNI. Berardi, U. (2011, September 26). Sustainability Assessment in the Construction Sector: Rating Systems and Rated Buildings. Sustainable Development(20), pp. 411-424. BRE Global. (2010-212). BREEAM. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from The world's leading design and assessment method for sustainable buildings: http://www.breeam.org/ Cole, R. J. (1998). Emerging trends in building environmental assessment methods. Building Research and Information(26 (1)), pp. 3-16. Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: redefining intentions and roles. Building Research and Information, 35 (5), pp. 455 467. Cole, R. J. (2011). Motivating stakeholders to deliver environmental change. Building Research and Information(39 (5)), pp. 431-435. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research Design^: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3. ed.). California, USA: SAGE Publicationsm Inc. Davies, H. (2001). Environmental benchmarking of Hong Kong buildings. Structural Survey(19 (1)), pp. 38-45. DGNB, G. (2013). DGNB System. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from http://www.dgnbsystem.de/de/ Ding, G. (2008). Sustainable Construction - The role of environmental assessment tools. Journal of Environmental Management(86), pp. 451-464. du Plessis, C., & Cole, R. (2011). Motivate change: shifting the paradigm. Building Research and Information, pp. 436-449. EPBD Building Platform. (2008). Implementation of the Energy Performance of Buildings Directive Country Reports 2008. Brussels: European Commission Directorate- General for Energy and Transport. Falkensteiner Hotels & Residences. (2013). Falkensteiner Hotel & Spa Bad Leonfelden. Retrieved May 07, 2013, from http://www.falkensteiner.com/hotels/badleonfelden/files/hotelbroschuere_070909_deu_engl.pdf 82

Filimonau, V., Dickinson, J., Robbins, D., & Huijbregts, M. (2011, July 14). Reviewing the carbon footprint analysis of hotels: Life Cycle Energy Analysis (LCEA) as a holistic method for carbon impact appraisal of tourist accommodation. Journal for Cleaner Production(19), pp. 1917-1930. Flick, U. (2011). Introducing Research Methodology. (S. P. Ltd, Ed.) Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowohlt Verlag GmbH. Font, X. (2002). Environmental certification in tourims and hospitality: progress, process and prospects. Tourism Management(23), pp. 197-205. GBI. (2013). Green Building Programs. Retrieved April 2, 2013, from http://www.thegbi.org/green-globes/ GBI, T. G. (n.d.). Green Globes. Retrieved March 20, 2013, from The practical Building Rating System: http://www.greenglobes.com/default.asp Hlousek, P. (2012). Hotelzertifizierung: Positive Effekte auf verschiedenen Ebenen. WEKA Praxischeck(1-2), pp. 32-35. Hotel Energy Solutions. (2011). Factors and Initiatives affecting Energy Efficiency use in the Hotel industry. Hotel Energy Solutions project publications. Hwang, B.-G., & Tan, J. S. (2010, July 19). Green Building Project Management: Obstacles and Solutions for Sustainable Development. Sustainable Development(20), pp. 335-349. ISA, I. (2009). Die österreichische Entsorgungswirtschaft - Daten und Fakten. Wien, Austria. Jilek, W. (2011). Implementation of the EPBD in Austria - Status in Novemeber 2010. Brussels: European Union. Kibert, C. (2008). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Klima- und Energiefonds. (2013). Jahresprogramm 2013 des Klima- und Energiefonds. Vienna: Klima- und Energiefonds. Lam, P., Chan, E., Poon, C., Chau, C., & Chun, K. (2009, October 22). Factors affecting the implementation of green specifications in construction. Journal of Environmental Management(91), pp. 654-661. Lebensministerium II/3. (2012). UFI - Umweltförderung im Inland. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.lebensministerium.at/umwelt/klimaschutz/ufi/ufi.html Lebensministerium V/4. (2012). Überarbeitung der Klimastrategie 2007. Retrieved April 3, 2013, from http://www.lebensministerium.at/umwelt/klimaschutz/klimapolitik_national/klimastr ategie/klimastrategie.html 83

Makkie, H. E. (2010). Green Building: Nachhaltigkeitszertifikate im Bausektor. Hamburg: Diplomica Verlag GmbH. Maly, M. (2012, May 31). Michaeler und Partner News - Wie nachhaltig sind Umweltzertifikate? Retrieved February 27, 2013, from http://www.michaelerpartner.com/de/news.html McGraw Hill Construction. (2013). World Green Building Trends: Business Benefits Driving New and Retrofit Market Opportunities in Over 60 Countries - Smart Market Report. USA, Bedford: McGraw Hill Construction. ÖGNI. (2009). Nachhaltiges Bauen und Bewirtschaften. Etablierung der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Nachhaltige Immobilienwirtschaft". Linz, Austria: ÖGNI. ÖGNI. (2011, August 01). Nutzungsprofile Neubau Hotelgebäude 2011. Retrieved April 10, 2013, from http://www.ogni.at/de/neubauhotelgebaeude/ ÖGNI. (2012). DGNB Systembroschüre. Linz, Austria: ÖGNI. ÖGNI. (2013). ÖGNI. Retrieved March 29, 2013, from Österreichische Gesellschaft für Nachhaltige Immobilienwirtschaft: http://www.ogni.at/de/ Österreichische Hotel- und Tourismusbank Ges.m.b.H. (2011). TOP-Tourismus-Förderung. Retrieved April 18, 2013, from http://www.oeht.at/finanzierung-undfoerderungen/top-tourismus-foerderung/ Reeder, L. (2010). Guide to Green Building Rating Systems. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Ronning, A., & Brekke, A. (2009). Puttin' on the Ritz - but what are the emissions? Aalborg, Denmark: Joint Actions on Climate Change conference. Schuetze, P. D. (2012). Towards sustainable architecture and urbanism through responsible tourism and the realization of zero-emission hotels. Retrieved Februrary 11, 2013, from http://upcommons.upc.edu/revistes/bitstream/2099/12606/1/c_101_3.pdf Sedlacek, S., & Maier, G. (2012, July 18). Can green building councily serve as third party governance institutions? An economic and institutional analysis. Energy Policy(49), pp. 479-487. Seo, S., Tucker, S., Ambrose, M., Mitchell, P., & Wang, C. (2006). Technical Evaluation of Environmental Assessment Rating Tools. In R. a. Corporation (Ed.), Project No. PN05.1019. Silvermann, D. (2010). Doing Qualitative Research (3. ed.). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. Sloan, P., Legrand, W., & Chen, J. (2009). Eco-Design in Hospitality Architecture. In Sustainability in the hospitality industry (pp. 49-60). Burlington USA: Elsevies Inc. 84

Statistik Austria. (2013, March 23). NAMEA. Retrieved from http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/energie_und_umwelt/umwelt/namea/ind ex.html Statistik Austria. (2013). Tourismus. Retrieved March 2013, 23, from Tourismus- Satellitenkonto: http://www.statistik.at/web_de/statistiken/tourismus/index.html UNEP, U. (2009). Buildings and Climate Change - Summary for Decision-Makers. Paris, France: UNEP Sustainable Consumption & Production Branch. USGBC, U. G. (2013). LEED. Retrieved March 27, 2013, from http://www.usgbc.org/leed Vito Albino, A. B. (2009). Environmental Strategies an Green Product Development: an Overview on Sustainability-Driven Companies. Business Strategy and the Environment(18), pp. 83-96. Vito Albino, U. B. (2012, March 26). Green buildings and organizational changes in Italian case studies. Business Strategy and the Environment(21), pp. 387-400. World Green Building Council. (2013). The Business Case for Green Building. Toronto, Canada: World Green Building Council. Yau, R., Cheng, V., & Yin, R. (2006). Building performance assessment in China. Beijing: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Intelligent Green and Energy Efficient Building and Technologies and Products Expo. Yudelson, J. (2007). Green Building A to Z (1. ed.). Canada: New Society Publishers. 85

APPENDICES Appendix 1: Questionnaire/interview schedule Experte: Projekt: Projektart: a) Ferienhotel b) Stadthotel c) Wellnesshotel d) Seminarhotel Die Themen Ressourcenschonung, Werterhalt und Nutzerkomfort werden in der Baubranche immer wichtiger. Planer, Erbauer und Betreiber von Immobilien rücken diese Ziele immer mehr in den Vordergrund. Um diese Werte transparent darzustellen werden nachhaltige Zertifizierungssysteme immer mehr gefragt und bei vielen verschiedenen Immobilientypen eingesetzt, so auch bei Hotels. Jedoch gibt es noch nicht sehr viele DGNB zertifizierte Hotelgebäude. Ziel der Arbeit ist es deshalb die Gründe dafür herauszufinden und Verbesserungsvorschläge zu finden. 1. Wie schätzen Sie das Interesse an Zertifizierungen und deren Nutzen im Bereich Hotels ein? (Zielgruppe, Nutzer im Vergleich zu anderen Immobilientypen) 2. Es gibt noch nicht viele nach DGNB zertifizierte Hotelprojekte. Ist das System Ihrer Meinung nach noch nicht komplett ausgereift oder fehlt es an Akzeptanz? 3. Wie würden Sie den Mehrwert einer Zertifizierung im Hotelbereich bewerten und lohnt sich Ihrer Meinung nach der finanzielle Mehraufwand? Gibt es bereits Erfahrungsberichte? Privathotellerie vs. Institutioneller Versionen? Unterschiede bei Arten der Hotellerie (Stadt, Wellness)? 4. Wo sehen Sie bei der DGNB Zertifizierung für Hotels die maßgeblichen Unterschiede zu anderen Immobilienkategorien? 5. Das Zertifizierungssystem für Hotelgebäude basiert auf dem von Bürogebäuden. Wie sehen Sie die Übertragung der Kriterien auf Hotelgebäude? Wo sehen Sie Schwierigkeiten die Zertifizierungskriterien an Hotelgebäuden anzuwenden? 86

6. Wie sehen Sie die Zukunft von Nachhaltigkeitszertifizierungen für Hotelimmobilien insbesondere des DGNB-Siegels? Welche Vorteile sehen Sie in Zukunft in der Zertifizierung für Hotelimmobilien? Wie kann die Zertifizierung in Bestandsimmobilien eingebunden werden? 87