BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD for IRELAND
BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD for IRELAND
BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD for IRELAND
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong><br />
<strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong><br />
<strong>for</strong> <strong>IRELAND</strong><br />
IGBC Exploratory Study<br />
UCD Energy Research Group - University College Dublin
CONTENTS<br />
SUMMARY<br />
Context<br />
Aim<br />
Methodology<br />
Key fi ndings<br />
Implementing environmental assessment effectively <strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION<br />
1.1 Increasing environmental awareness<br />
1.2 Building environmental assessment<br />
1.3 Commonly used building environmental assessment methods<br />
1.4 International growth in building environmental assessment<br />
1.5 Current scope and value of building environmental assessment<br />
1.6 Development of a common building environmental assessment methodology<br />
1.7 Building environmental assessment and Green Public Procurement (GPP)<br />
1.8 Building environmental assessment future development and growth<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
2.1 Evaluation of signifi cant environmental assessment methods<br />
2.2 Evaluation of BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and Living Building Challenge (LBC) systems<br />
2.3 Building Environmental Assessment Method <strong>for</strong> Ireland (IBEAM) Framework<br />
2.4 Localisation of environmental assessment methods<br />
2.5 Green Building Councils and environmental assessment<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
3.1 Environmental policy, legislation and standards<br />
3.2 Public sector and building environmental assessment<br />
3.3 Private sector and building environmental assessment<br />
3.4 User experience of environmental assessment in Ireland<br />
3.5 Implementing environmental assessment effectively <strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
APPENDICES<br />
REFERENCES<br />
01<br />
07<br />
08<br />
19<br />
46<br />
58<br />
70
Introduction<br />
The Irish Green Building Council<br />
(IGBC) aims to provide a framework<br />
and leadership to accelerate the<br />
trans<strong>for</strong>mation of the built environment,<br />
and the associated industries, to sustainable<br />
models based on accepted scientifi c principles<br />
of sustainability. IGBC members have highlighted<br />
building environmental assessment as one of the<br />
most pertinent issues to be addressed in the<br />
achievement of that objective, and consequently<br />
an IGBC Members Task Group was <strong>for</strong>med to<br />
advance the topic. This Task Group proposed<br />
that an exploratory study be undertaken to<br />
provide independent analysis and in<strong>for</strong>mation to<br />
support future decision-making.<br />
Aim<br />
The aim of the study is to provide the<br />
IGBC Interim Board and Members<br />
with current international context,<br />
application and appraisal of building<br />
environmental assessment systems in order<br />
to in<strong>for</strong>m discussions on the implementation<br />
of environmental assessment in Ireland, and<br />
as a fi rst step in a process that will provide<br />
a recommendation on the utilisation of<br />
environmental assessment methods in Ireland.<br />
Methodology<br />
The study was undertaken by Vivienne<br />
Brophy, UCD Energy Research Group,<br />
University College Dublin. Members<br />
of the IGBC Task Group 2, and in<br />
particular, Pat Barry, provided in<strong>for</strong>mation and<br />
support. Sarah Brophy and Ciara Grace assisted<br />
with data collection.<br />
The study comprises:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
review of international literature<br />
consultation with international experts and<br />
Green Building Councils<br />
presentations from and interaction with<br />
international assessment system providers<br />
national surveys of sustainable building<br />
stakeholders and environmental<br />
assessment users<br />
interaction with national building design and<br />
construction teams, building owners,<br />
providers and managers, and building policy<br />
makers and regulators.<br />
Key fi ndings, issues pertaining to these fi ndings,<br />
and further tasks to be undertaken in relation<br />
to the implementation of building environmental<br />
assessment in Ireland, are presented below.<br />
Key Findings<br />
Historic and current context of<br />
environmental assessment<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Building environmental assessment methods<br />
(BEAMs) were initially conceived (and still<br />
largely function) as voluntary, market-place<br />
mechanisms to communicate improved<br />
environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
More recently, BEAMs have been adopted by<br />
public agencies and other bodies to specify<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance requirements.<br />
Increasingly, the fi nancial and real estate<br />
sectors recognise BEAMs as indicators of<br />
desirable per<strong>for</strong>mance, and risk mitigators.<br />
They are used as design, assessment and<br />
certifi cation tools, although the number of<br />
assessments far outweigh the number of<br />
buildings certifi ed.<br />
More recently developed methods address<br />
social and economic concerns alongside<br />
1<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
2<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
environmental issues.<br />
The growing proliferation of methods<br />
has prompted a comparison of metrics<br />
and has caused the European Committee<br />
<strong>for</strong> Standardisation (CEN) Technical<br />
Committee CEN/TC 350 to develop<br />
harmonised standards <strong>for</strong> the assessment<br />
of environmental aspects of buildings, and<br />
currently to examine the integrating of social<br />
and economic aspects.<br />
The development of a core set of<br />
standardised indicators <strong>for</strong>ms the basis of<br />
‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ criteria <strong>for</strong> EU<br />
Green Public Procurement (GPP).<br />
The most commonly used systems<br />
are Building Research Establishment<br />
Environmental Assessment Method<br />
(BREEAM) and Leadership in Energy and<br />
Environmental Design (LEED) worldwide,<br />
BREEAM and Deutchse Gesellschaft fur<br />
Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) in Europe, and<br />
BREEAM in Ireland.<br />
In the recent past many European countries<br />
have adopted and adapted BREEAM and<br />
DGNB, or adopted LEED without adaptation<br />
(with the exception of Italy). Spain and<br />
Portugal have developed new national<br />
tools based on the Sustainable Building Tool<br />
(SBTool) framework. Many countries have<br />
multiple systems in operation, generally<br />
defi ned <strong>for</strong> international and national use.<br />
Most countries which adopt a system, adapt<br />
the suite of occupancy profi le methodologies<br />
made available by the system provider.<br />
Green Building Councils are actively involved<br />
in the development, adaptation and operation<br />
of systems.<br />
BREEAM and LEED are the longest<br />
established systems and DGNB and SBTool<br />
(based on the earlier Green Building Tool<br />
(GBTool)) are more recent systems in use in<br />
Europe. Living Building Challenge (LBC) has<br />
more recently launched in Europe.<br />
There are currently 17 BREEAM certifi ed<br />
❚<br />
buildings and 44 BREEAM registered projects<br />
and two LEED certifi ed buildings and 10<br />
LEED registered projects in Ireland.<br />
The certifi ed buildings and registered projects<br />
in Ireland comprise a mix of private and<br />
public sector; the Industrial Development<br />
Authority (IDA) uses LEED, Offi ce of Public<br />
Works (OPW) and Health Services Executive<br />
(HSE) use BREEAM, and the private sector<br />
uses both.<br />
Evaluation of BREEAM, DGNB, LEED<br />
and LBC<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
BREEAM and LEED are considered to be<br />
fi rst generation designer-focussed methods,<br />
DGNB a second generation broader building<br />
life cycle based method, and LBC the most<br />
holistic and ambitious method available today.<br />
BREEAM, DGNB and LEED are based on<br />
categorisation of qualitative and quantitative<br />
criteria <strong>for</strong> credit or point scoring assessment<br />
at design and post-construction stages to<br />
achieve certifi cation to a range of levels.<br />
LBC is based on achieving operational<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance standards <strong>for</strong> certifi cation.<br />
BREEAM is based on European/UK standards,<br />
DGNB on the recently developed CEN/<br />
TC350 standards, LEED and LBC on the<br />
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating<br />
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)<br />
standards (although LBC is currently<br />
developing equivalent standards <strong>for</strong> Irishbased<br />
projects).<br />
Several methodologies (within the<br />
same system) can be used <strong>for</strong> similar building<br />
profi les, eg. BREEAM Offi ces, BREEAM Europe<br />
Commercial and BREEAM International.<br />
The main emphasis in all four methods<br />
reviewed here in detail: (BREEAM 2009<br />
Europe Commercial; DGNB 2009 New<br />
Construction <strong>for</strong> Offi ces and Administrative<br />
Buildings; LEED 2009 New Construction and
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Major Renovations and LBC 2011 Building),<br />
is on the evaluation of environmental aspects,<br />
although all address societal aspects to some<br />
extent, and DGNB also addresses<br />
economical value.<br />
The per<strong>for</strong>mance certifi cation ratings of the<br />
four methods are not comparable, because of<br />
the high level of variation that occurs among<br />
the assessment methods.<br />
Energy is an important aspect of all four<br />
methods; however, the importance given<br />
to energy differs (10% in DGNB, 14% in<br />
LBC, 19% in BREEAM and 32% in LEED),<br />
and there is little relationship between the<br />
fi gures and the energy effi ciency of a building.<br />
Energy is considered in differing ways (DGNB<br />
aggregates life cycle energy over fi fty years<br />
and includes embodied environmental<br />
impacts) and baseline standards differ; indeed,<br />
the standard in LEED is lower than in the<br />
other three methods.<br />
The complexity of comparing methods, the<br />
knowledge needed of the development<br />
context, varying baseline assumptions,<br />
assessment criteria, credits and weightings<br />
combine to result in many research-based<br />
and commercial studies being of limited value<br />
when considering the adoption or adaptation<br />
of a method, and in particular, if it is to be<br />
used <strong>for</strong> international comparisons.<br />
BREEAM requires that a certifi ed BREEAM<br />
Assessor undertake the assessment <strong>for</strong><br />
certifi cation, although members of the design<br />
team can become BREEAM Accredited<br />
Professionals (AP). Training to become a<br />
BREEAM Assessor costs approx €1,885, and<br />
€850 to become a BREEAM AP. Training<br />
can be provided by a National Scheme<br />
Operator who pays 5% of the income to<br />
BRE. DGNB also requires DGNB trained<br />
Assessors to undertake the assessment <strong>for</strong><br />
certifi cation and the training cost is approx<br />
€3,000, but training can be provided by a<br />
❚<br />
national provider with the cost being at<br />
their discretion. It is not necessary to be a<br />
trained LEED or LBC assessor to undertake<br />
assessments <strong>for</strong> certifi cation, but members<br />
of the design team can become LEED<br />
Accredited Professionals (AP) by undertaking<br />
training, provided by the Green Building<br />
Certifi cation Institute (GBCI), at a cost of<br />
approx. €450.<br />
User support is available <strong>for</strong> all systems;<br />
however, LBC offers interactive support and<br />
guidance throughout the project stages from<br />
design to operation.<br />
System adoption and adaptation, or<br />
new system development<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
BRE Global allows its international methods<br />
to be adapted to suit country-specifi c issues<br />
while operated by BRE Global, and also new<br />
methods to be developed and operated<br />
by a National Scheme Operator. DGNB<br />
allows its methods to be adapted and new<br />
methods to be developed while operated<br />
by DGNB. USGBC does not currently allow<br />
the adaptation of LEED methods to suit<br />
European or country-specifi c issues and<br />
LEED is operated only by USGBC. A pilot<br />
adaptation, LEED Italia 2009, was developed<br />
with Green Building Council Italia but USGBC<br />
indicate that they have moved away from the<br />
development of country adapted systems. This<br />
does have the advantage that LEED certifi ed<br />
buildings can be compared internationally. The<br />
LBC method is currently being adapted <strong>for</strong><br />
use in Ireland by the Living Building Institute<br />
Ireland and is operated by the International<br />
Living Future Institute.<br />
BREEAM and DGNB both encourage input<br />
by national stakeholders into the adaptation<br />
process, and future development.<br />
Adoption and adaptation costs vary<br />
3<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
4<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
considerably and could be a deciding factor,<br />
as could time factors, in the selection of a<br />
system. BREEAM charges a National Scheme<br />
Operator an annual licence fee of a minimum<br />
of €38,000 and an audit fee of €18,800, but<br />
charges no fee <strong>for</strong> adapted schemes operated<br />
by BRE Global, only international registration<br />
and certifi cation fees. LBC may collaborate<br />
with a national body to co-host and endorse<br />
the system, subject to an annual licence fee<br />
of €500, or €100 project referral fee. There<br />
are no annual fees associated with adoption<br />
of systems operated by the system provider.<br />
Adaptation costs are dependent on the level<br />
of input by national stakeholders and the<br />
provision of expertise by the system provider.<br />
Project registration and certifi cation fees<br />
vary across system providers and must be<br />
viewed together with system adoption fees.<br />
BREEAM charge a signifi cant annual licence<br />
and audit fee but a lower project certifi cation<br />
fee. DGNB do not charge an annual fee but<br />
have higher certifi cation fees. Fees also vary<br />
in the percentage which is retained by system<br />
operators and national operators.<br />
The development of a new national system<br />
requires high levels of commitment by<br />
industry stakeholders and has a longer<br />
development timescale. However, once<br />
properly developed it is an autonomous<br />
system that can be more quickly adapted <strong>for</strong><br />
other occupancy profi les and can provide a<br />
robust basis <strong>for</strong> the development of green<br />
public procurement.<br />
Building Environmental Assessment Method<br />
<strong>for</strong> Ireland (IBEAM) provided a framework <strong>for</strong><br />
the development of an assessment method<br />
particular to Ireland and helped identify the<br />
various bodies that may be involved in the<br />
design, implementation and management of<br />
an Irish system.<br />
70% of the Better Building International<br />
Conference survey participants indicated that<br />
they saw no value in developing a national<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
system solely <strong>for</strong> use in Ireland; however, 85%<br />
indicated that an adopted system should be<br />
adapted to suit Irish climate, construction and<br />
policy issues.<br />
88% of the Certifi ed and Assessed Irish<br />
Buildings Survey participants reported the<br />
process of applying a building environmental<br />
assessment method a worthwhile one, while<br />
those who indicated a negative response<br />
questioned the value of environmental<br />
assessment as a tool <strong>for</strong> achieving better<br />
per<strong>for</strong>ming buildings.<br />
78% of the completed projects achieved<br />
the building environmental rating sought,<br />
while 22% achieved a lower rating, mainly<br />
due to issues outside the control of design<br />
team. 88% of the project teams indicated<br />
that the requirements of the environmental<br />
assessment led to increased design and<br />
assessment time. 37% indicated an increase<br />
in build cost over that expected, while 78%<br />
indicted positive feedback from building<br />
occupants and a positive impact on the<br />
building operating costs.
Implementing<br />
environmental<br />
assessment<br />
effectively <strong>for</strong><br />
Ireland<br />
The fi ndings of the study identify issues<br />
that require engagement in order<br />
to determine how the IGBC Interim<br />
Board can move <strong>for</strong>ward on this issue.<br />
In order to facilitate discussion, issues pertaining<br />
to the fi ndings are outlined below. A distinction is<br />
made between the issues related to the product<br />
(assessment method) and the process (system<br />
required to support the methods’ use).<br />
Issues in relation to the development of<br />
an environmental assessment method<br />
<strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
While there are many research papers and<br />
industry reports that highlight the perceived<br />
benefi ts of environmental certifi cation of buildings,<br />
there is little understanding of its contribution to<br />
the achievement of broader sustainability targets.<br />
The IGBC is well placed to apply a ‘back-casting’<br />
approach to a review of the national end goal <strong>for</strong><br />
sustainability in Ireland; provide a framework <strong>for</strong><br />
the co-ordination of research, policy, education<br />
and best practice <strong>for</strong> its achievement; and defi ne<br />
a role <strong>for</strong> building environmental certifi cation.<br />
It is essential that the IGBC defi ne the specifi c<br />
users and benefi ciaries of an environmental<br />
assessment method, or methods, to evaluate the<br />
relevance of a method’s international, European or<br />
national focus; alignment with EU policy and CEN<br />
standards or ASHRAE standards; and baseline<br />
attributes. It may be necessary <strong>for</strong> the IGBC to<br />
consider a number of methods to address varying<br />
national usage.<br />
Market context and industry acceptance<br />
are critical to successful uptake of building<br />
environmental certifi cation, which may be<br />
enhanced by the adoption of a familiar method.<br />
Alignment with baseline attributes of national<br />
GPP and future Building Regulations may facilitate<br />
industry application; the IGBC should pursue<br />
collaboration with the Offi ce of Public Works<br />
(OPW) and the Department of the Environment,<br />
Community and Local Government (DECLG).<br />
The choice among the options of adopting, or<br />
adopting and adapting an international method,<br />
or the development of a national method will<br />
be impacted by the availability of an appropriate<br />
suite of occupancy profi les; the openness of the<br />
system providers to new scheme development;<br />
and the level of adaptation allowed to defi ne<br />
Irish conditions. The IGBC should consider<br />
pilot applications of a number of methods to<br />
representative Irish building types to assist in this<br />
process of selection.<br />
Issues such as transparency and usability are<br />
embedded in the method, and so are important<br />
factors to be considered, as are the provision of<br />
user training, and technical support. The IGBC<br />
should engage with building environmental<br />
assessment method stakeholders to determine<br />
a equate support mechanisms and with system<br />
providers to assess training provision options.<br />
5<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
6<br />
SUMMARY<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Issues in relation to the implementation<br />
of an effective system <strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
The adoption of a method should not<br />
only consider the appropriateness<br />
of the method but also the support<br />
system <strong>for</strong> delivery. The provision of a<br />
robust and verifi able system <strong>for</strong> implementation,<br />
operation<br />
<strong>for</strong> success.<br />
and management is essential<br />
While there are many advantages to adopting<br />
a well established and proven system, national<br />
autonomy will be diminished to an extent which<br />
varies between providers. The development of a<br />
national system will require industry stakeholder<br />
commitment, expertise and fi nancial support to<br />
deliver an appropriate suite of evaluation methods<br />
and an accountable certifi cation system. The<br />
option to become a National Scheme Operator<br />
is a compromise. The role of the IGBC should<br />
be considered and, in particular, the costs and<br />
benefi ts of each option should be analysed.<br />
Each of the options will require key<br />
stakeholders investment, which should be<br />
assessed realistically to defi ne a programme<br />
of key actions and players <strong>for</strong> the delivery of<br />
the system.<br />
Further work to be<br />
undertaken<br />
In the author’s opinion, the process requires<br />
the IGBC to undertake the following:<br />
❚<br />
Provision of a framework <strong>for</strong> the achievement<br />
of sustainable buildings in Ireland, identifying<br />
the role of environmental assessment in<br />
its achievement;<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Engagement with industry stakeholders<br />
and policy makers to explore the alignment<br />
of a national assessment approach with<br />
future international and national policy, GPP<br />
guidelines and Building Regulations;<br />
Selection and application of a limited number<br />
of assessment methods to be applied to<br />
representative Irish buildings to provide a full<br />
comparative technical analysis, to highlight the<br />
issues to be addressed in method adoption<br />
and the specifi c evaluation criteria that<br />
require adaptation <strong>for</strong> Irish conditions;<br />
Further consultation with existing system<br />
designers and providers to assess the impact<br />
of application on all stakeholders (including<br />
clients, designers, contractors, manufacturers<br />
and suppliers), the resources required <strong>for</strong><br />
achievement of certifi cation, and the process<br />
of adopting, adapting and implementing a<br />
suite of schemes and certifi cation system<br />
in Ireland;<br />
Further engagement with system stakeholders<br />
to determine, and provide where possible,<br />
training and user support;<br />
Development of strategies suitable <strong>for</strong><br />
a successful implementation and market<br />
adoption of the selected system, identifying<br />
those members of industry who may be<br />
directly involved or responsible <strong>for</strong> delivery of<br />
the system, and those whose participation or<br />
support may be necessary <strong>for</strong> its success;<br />
Publication of a programme of key actions<br />
and players to further the delivery of an<br />
appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,<br />
transparent and verifi able building<br />
environmental assessment system <strong>for</strong> Ireland.
ABBREVIATIONS<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers<br />
BRE - Building Research Establishment<br />
BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method<br />
BMVBS - Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (Germany)<br />
Building Environmental Assessment Method (BEAM)<br />
CASBEE - Comprehensive Assessment Scheme <strong>for</strong> Building Environmental Effi ciency<br />
CEN - European Committee <strong>for</strong> Standardisation<br />
CEPAS - Comprehensive Environmental Per<strong>for</strong>mance Assessment Scheme<br />
CSTB - Centre Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment<br />
DECLG - Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government<br />
DEFRA - Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Britain)<br />
DCENR - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (<strong>for</strong>merly<br />
DCMNR - Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources)<br />
DGNB - Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen<br />
DES - Department of Education and Skills<br />
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency<br />
EU EPBD - EU Directive on the Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance of Buildings<br />
EU ESD - EU Directive on Energy End-use Effi ciency Energy Services<br />
GBTool - Green Building Tool<br />
GBC - Green Building Council<br />
GBCI - Green Building Certifi cation Institute<br />
GPP - Green Public Procurement<br />
HK-BEAM – Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method<br />
HSE - Health Services Executive<br />
HQE - Haute Qualité Environmentale<br />
IBEAM - Building Environmental Assessment <strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
IDA - Industrial Development Authority<br />
IGBC - Irish Green Building Council<br />
iiSBE - International Initiative <strong>for</strong> a Sustainable Built Environment<br />
ILFI - International Living Future Institute (<strong>for</strong>merly the ILBI - International Living Building Institute)<br />
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change<br />
ISO - International Organisation <strong>for</strong> Standardisation<br />
JRC-IPTS - Joint Research Centre’s Institute <strong>for</strong> Prospective Technological Studies<br />
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design<br />
LBC - Living Building Challenge<br />
LBII - Living Building Institute Ireland<br />
NABERS - National Australian Built Environment Rating System<br />
NEEAP - National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan<br />
OPW - Offi ce of Public Work<br />
OECD - Organisation <strong>for</strong> Economic Co-operation and Development<br />
PLEA - Passive and Low Energy Architecture<br />
RICS - Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors<br />
SBA - Sustainable Building Alliance<br />
SBAT - South African Sustainability Assessment Tool<br />
SBTool - Sustainable Building Tool<br />
SCSI - Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland<br />
SDI - Sustainable Development Indicators<br />
USGBC - United States Green Building Council
8<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
1.1 Increasing environmental<br />
awareness<br />
Scientifi c understanding of the potentially<br />
catastrophic consequences of climate<br />
change has proved insuffi cient to motivate<br />
stakeholders in the construction industry to<br />
respond to the need to reduce greenhouse<br />
gas emissions. Ethical dimensions of<br />
environmental responsibility associated with<br />
building design has demonstrebly so far been<br />
inadequate in bringing about change, while<br />
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel<br />
on Climate Change (IPPC) has indicated that<br />
through improved effi ciencies approx 30%<br />
of the projected green house gas emissions<br />
in the building sector can be avoided with<br />
a net economic gain (Cole, 2011). Currently,<br />
there are two main drivers <strong>for</strong> sustainable<br />
construction: policy and regulatory<br />
instruments, and environmental assessment<br />
systems (du Plessis and Cole, 2011).<br />
In the recent past, focus in EU Member<br />
States has been on the transposition into<br />
national legislation of EU Directives that<br />
have been primarily concerned with building<br />
energy per<strong>for</strong>mance issues, and references<br />
to environmental issues are treated as<br />
a consequence of energy consumption<br />
(Franzitta et al, 2011). Research and practice<br />
have developed environmental concerns<br />
from the global impact of greenhouse gas<br />
emissions to those which impact on the local<br />
environment and the building occupant.<br />
The links between occupant health and<br />
well-being, and with building heating and<br />
cooling systems operation and maintenance<br />
and ventilation provision and material<br />
selection, have highlighted the importance<br />
of implementing passive design strategies<br />
and assessing the impact of materials not<br />
only on the environment but on indoor air<br />
quality. Water scarcity and the delivery of<br />
potable water, treatment of waste water and<br />
handling of storm water are all issues that<br />
have become increasingly prominent.<br />
While traditionally, legislation was<br />
viewed as the most appropriate means<br />
of dealing with environmental concerns,<br />
more innovative solutions, cooperative<br />
measures and voluntary agreements<br />
between industry and regulation bodies are<br />
increasingly employed to address emerging,<br />
and broader, environmental issues (Aggeri,<br />
1999). The development of the integrated<br />
design process, bringing together client,<br />
design and technical services professionals,<br />
building team and occupants, has assisted<br />
in the delivery of high per<strong>for</strong>mance, quality<br />
architecture; and has increased pressure on<br />
building developers and designers to deliver<br />
buildings that achieve measurable high levels<br />
of per<strong>for</strong>mance over their lifecycle in a<br />
cost effective and environmentally friendly<br />
manner (Larsson and Poel, 2002).<br />
Buildings achieving high environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance provide several benefi ts to<br />
owners and occupants – improved indoor<br />
environmental quality, increased employee<br />
productivity, reduced absenteeism and<br />
reduced operational costs (Lewis, 2002).<br />
There are market benefi ts that accrue also<br />
to fi nancial and real estate sectors, which can<br />
only be realised if the buildings are assessed<br />
and quantitatively validated, using a certifi ed<br />
rating system and this in<strong>for</strong>mation passed on<br />
to the demand side of the market (Flora and<br />
Moser, 2000).<br />
Prior to the introduction of the Building<br />
Research Establishment Environmental<br />
Assessment Method (BREEAM) in 1990,<br />
there was little, if any, attempt to develop a<br />
comprehensive means of assessing a broad<br />
range of environmental considerations<br />
against explicitly declared criteria or <strong>for</strong>
providing a measure of overall per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
(Yates et al, 1998). Following on its introduction<br />
the fi eld of building environmental assessment<br />
developed quickly with a number of analagous<br />
environmental assessment methods in other<br />
countries, such as the Leadership in Energy and<br />
Environmental Design (LEED) method in 2000<br />
(USGBC, 2012).<br />
1.2 Building environmental assessment<br />
Building environmental assessment is used to<br />
specify, predict and measure environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance in buildings, which can highlight long<br />
term operational benefi ts, provide a valuable<br />
marketing tool <strong>for</strong> the construction industry<br />
to increase demand <strong>for</strong> quality and promote<br />
corporate and public sector sustainability<br />
(Hendrick, 2012). There are numerous mainly<br />
voluntary environmental assessment methods<br />
currently in use around the world and while<br />
methods of assessment vary in accordance with<br />
local circumstances and stakeholders’ concerns,<br />
they do share characteristics and goals that are<br />
signifi cant in their similarity (Hourigan, 2009).<br />
Methods have a wide range of application from<br />
residential to commercial building types, and<br />
from small scale retrofi tting of existing buildings<br />
to multi-million euro new developments, and<br />
can impact the processes of building design,<br />
construction and operation. Assessment methods<br />
were originally developed to purportedly<br />
help protect the environment and ensure that<br />
natural resources were used more effi ciently;<br />
however some second generation methods have<br />
developed broader parameters to include social<br />
and economic concerns alongside environmental<br />
considerations (Todd et al, 2001).<br />
The process of evaluating buildings has three<br />
distinct stages:<br />
❚<br />
Categorisation - inputs and outputs are<br />
assigned to categories based on their<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
perceived impact on the environment;<br />
Characterisation - impacts of the inputs and<br />
outputs are assessed within their categories;<br />
Valuation - the importance of each category<br />
is assigned a value or weight in relation to the<br />
other categories (based on Fenner and<br />
Ryce, 2008).<br />
Categorisation - Criteria that are identifi able as<br />
purely environmental <strong>for</strong>m the larger part of<br />
most assessment methods and refer to design<br />
and construction aspects that have direct impact<br />
on the environment and resource use. Generally,<br />
the building project is divided into six or seven<br />
categories, within which are sub-headings that<br />
specify criteria <strong>for</strong> evaluation, which in turn may<br />
be further sub-divided into individual items. The<br />
majority of assessment methods include the<br />
following key criteria: energy and CO2 emissions,<br />
ecology, land use, transport, pollution, materials,<br />
management, health and indoor environment,<br />
renewable energy, water and waste. Prescriptive<br />
credits require certain materials or details to be<br />
used to earn the credit, whereas per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
based credits require that the element meets<br />
a certain per<strong>for</strong>mance level without specifying<br />
the method.<br />
Characterisation - A level of per<strong>for</strong>mance is<br />
identifi ed, with credits allocated <strong>for</strong> achievement,<br />
within a scale of compliance in relation to typical<br />
or best practice in the market place. As there<br />
are no specifi c targets <strong>for</strong> sustainable buildings<br />
as a whole and no universal defi nition of green<br />
building, environmental assessment methods<br />
measure designed buildings against environmental<br />
criteria rather than some sustainable strategy <strong>for</strong><br />
a project (Ding 2008). This can lead to designers<br />
designing to achieve credits rather than holistically<br />
towards a sustainable ideal. Cole (2003) reports<br />
that there is concern that achieving a high score in<br />
the assessment may prove to be more important<br />
than achieving a good sustainable building. The<br />
9<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
10<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
most signifi cant group of credits is the category<br />
which evaluates energy consumption. Prescriptive<br />
credits are gained <strong>for</strong> using certain materials or<br />
details and per<strong>for</strong>mance credits <strong>for</strong> reaching a<br />
specifi ed level in a prescribed element. An initial<br />
early design assessment is useful in exposing any<br />
weaknesses that can be addressed effi ciently<br />
through project development, and result in a<br />
better per<strong>for</strong>ming building and enhanced credits<br />
(Ding, 2008). According to Crookes and deWit<br />
(2002) environmental assessment is of most<br />
benefi t, and most cost-effective, during the<br />
inception and conceptual design stage.<br />
Valuation - The number of criteria or individual<br />
items under consideration <strong>for</strong> credits is not always<br />
indicative of importance, as categories may be<br />
generally weighted during or after the calculation<br />
to collate the classifi cation or rating (Hourigan,<br />
2009). Weighting has a considerable impact on<br />
the fi nal classifi cation or rating of the building,<br />
and commands much discussion. Some favour a<br />
consensus-derived standardised approach, based<br />
on an agreed theoretical and non-subjective<br />
basis, while others suggest that weighting should<br />
be derived on a national or project by project<br />
basis to refl ect national, regional and/or project<br />
objectives (Lee et al, 2002), (Todd at al, 2002).<br />
LEED is an exception, as all credits are equally<br />
weighted and the number of criteria related to<br />
each issue is, in fact, the weighting. Once the<br />
weighting process is completed and a building<br />
has accumulated a certain number of credits or<br />
points it is then awarded a classifi cation or rating.<br />
These differ from methodology to methodology<br />
- <strong>for</strong> example BREEAM’s classifi cations run from<br />
Pass to Outstanding, LEED’s from Certifi ed to<br />
Platinum and DGNB’s from Bronze to Gold.<br />
Classifi cations are not comparable between<br />
systems as most are developed, and adapted<br />
to, national building codes and standards which<br />
vary country by country, and there<strong>for</strong>e, the<br />
baseline <strong>for</strong> assessment is not consistent (Reed et<br />
al, 2009).<br />
Building environmental assessment systems<br />
may be operated by commercial or non<br />
commercial bodies, and can be operated by one<br />
entity and certifi ed by another. BRE, a private<br />
commercial company, both manages and certifi es<br />
the UK BREEAM system while interested parties<br />
like the United States Green Building Council<br />
(USGBC), a non-profi t organisation, manages the<br />
USA LEED system but certifi cation is provided<br />
by the Green Building Certifi cation Institute.
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
1.3 Commonly used building environmental assessment methods<br />
Strengths Weaknesses<br />
Evaluation categories Per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
certifi cation<br />
rating<br />
Occupancy profi les<br />
developed or<br />
in development<br />
Developer Countries where adopted<br />
or licence to adopt<br />
No. of buildings<br />
certifi ed<br />
No. of<br />
buildings<br />
registered<br />
System Countries with buildings<br />
certifi ed or registered <strong>for</strong><br />
certifi cation 2011<br />
Limited<br />
openness and<br />
transparency<br />
Mature system<br />
familiar to<br />
industry<br />
Unclassifi ed,<br />
Pass, Good, Very<br />
Good, Excellent,<br />
Outstanding<br />
Management, Health and Well being, Energy,<br />
Water, Materials, Land Use, Ecology and Pollution<br />
Residential, Multi-Residential, Offi ces,<br />
Retail, Industrial, Education, Healthcare,<br />
Prisons and Courts, Bespoke<br />
UK, Netherlands, Norway,<br />
Spain, Sweden, United Arab<br />
Emirates<br />
23,009 5,111 British Research Establishment<br />
UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France,<br />
Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands,<br />
Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech<br />
Republic, Hungary, Poland, Sweden,<br />
Finland, Russia, Turkey<br />
BREEAM<br />
UK<br />
1990<br />
C,B-,B+, A,S LCA approved Developed<br />
specifi cally <strong>for</strong><br />
Japan, based<br />
on national<br />
standards<br />
Building Environmental Quality and Per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
and Building Loadings<br />
Japan Existing, New Design,<br />
Renovation, Heat Island, Urban Development,<br />
Urban Area and Buildings,<br />
Cities, Homes, Property Appraisal,<br />
Market promotion is in development.<br />
6654 212 Japan Sustainable<br />
Building<br />
Consortium<br />
Japan, Planned Certifi cation <strong>for</strong><br />
building in China 2012<br />
CASBEE<br />
Japan<br />
2004<br />
Immature still in<br />
development<br />
Innovative<br />
based on EU<br />
CEN standards;<br />
includes LCA<br />
and economic<br />
considerations<br />
Bronze, Silver,<br />
and Gold<br />
Environmental Quality, Economic Quality,<br />
Sociocultural and Functional Quality, Technical<br />
Quality, Process Quality, Site<br />
New, Modernisation and Existing<br />
Offi ce and Administration Buildings,<br />
Modernisation and New Retail, New<br />
Education, Industrial, Residential Buildings,<br />
Hotels and Mixed City Districts<br />
Brazil, China, Thailand, Spain,<br />
Switzerland, Denmark, Italy,<br />
Slovenia, Czech Republic, Austria,<br />
Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria,<br />
Turkey, Russia<br />
301 404 German<br />
Sustainable<br />
Building Council<br />
Germany, Luxembourg, Czech<br />
Republic, Austria<br />
DGNB<br />
Germany<br />
2008<br />
Developed <strong>for</strong><br />
use in Canada<br />
and US to national<br />
standards<br />
Based on<br />
BREEAM, high<br />
involvement<br />
and D+C<br />
process<br />
One, two, three,<br />
four globes<br />
Project Management, Site, Energy, Water,<br />
Resources, Emissions, Impacts and Indoor<br />
Environment<br />
Canada, US Design of New Construction, Management<br />
and Operation of Existing Buildings,<br />
Building Emergency Management,<br />
Building Environment, Fit-out<br />
ECD Energy and<br />
Environment<br />
Canada Ltd. In US, Green<br />
Building initiative<br />
2,698<br />
BOMABESt (Existing,<br />
Canada)<br />
70 (New,<br />
Canada) 400<br />
(New, US)<br />
3,399<br />
BOMABESt<br />
(Existing,<br />
Canada)<br />
Canada, US, JLL Global use Green<br />
Globes in Europe, Australia, Latin<br />
America and a large pilot in China<br />
SPA London, UK and Ireland<br />
Green<br />
Globes<br />
Canada<br />
2000<br />
More suitable<br />
<strong>for</strong> hot climate<br />
conditions with<br />
cooling loads<br />
Based on<br />
BREEAM and<br />
LEED<br />
One, two, three,<br />
four, fi ve, and six<br />
stars<br />
Management, Indoor Environmental Quality,<br />
Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land Use<br />
and Ecology, Emissions, Innovation<br />
Education, Healthcare, Industrial,<br />
Multi-Unit Residential, Offi ce, Offi ce<br />
Interiors, Retail Centre. Communities<br />
and Per<strong>for</strong>mance are in development<br />
Australia, New Zealand, South<br />
Africa<br />
524 442 Green Building Council<br />
Australia, New Zealand<br />
Green Building Council,<br />
Green Building Council SA<br />
Australia, New Zealand, South<br />
Africa<br />
Green Star<br />
Australia<br />
2003<br />
Developed to<br />
Hong Kong<br />
standards<br />
Based on<br />
BREEAM<br />
Bronze,<br />
Silver,<br />
Gold,<br />
Platinum<br />
Building receives<br />
a HQE or<br />
doesn’t,<br />
No rating scale.<br />
Site, Energy Effi ciency and Water Conservation,<br />
Material Use and Specifi cation, Indoor<br />
Environmental Quality, Innovation<br />
Hong Kong New Building, Existing Building, All<br />
building types including Mixed use<br />
complexes and high rise residential.<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance and management<br />
Centre of Environmental<br />
Technology (CET) with<br />
HK-BEAM Steering Committee<br />
200+<br />
~ 9 million m2<br />
Hong Kong, China Not<br />
available<br />
HK-BEAM<br />
Hong Kong<br />
1990<br />
No signifi cant<br />
adoption outside<br />
France<br />
New English<br />
international<br />
version just<br />
launched.<br />
ECO-CONSTRUCTION: Siting, Materials, Low<br />
site nuisance<br />
ECO-MANAGEMENT: Energy, Water, Waste,<br />
Servicing and maintenance<br />
COMFORT: Hygrometric, Acoustic, Visual, No<br />
unpleasant smells<br />
HEALTH: Sanitary quality of areas, Air quality<br />
France, Brazil New Building and Existing building, in<br />
the Residential, Tertiary and Industrial<br />
sectors. Roads and Highways. In development,<br />
Neighbourhoods<br />
Association pour la Haute<br />
Qualite Environnementale<br />
597<br />
(commercial)<br />
754<br />
(commercial)<br />
France, Luxembourg,<br />
Belgium, Italy, Algeria<br />
HQE<br />
France<br />
2005<br />
Not aligned to<br />
European standards<br />
based on<br />
ISO standards.<br />
National adoption<br />
not currently<br />
allowed<br />
Well tested,<br />
mature, open<br />
system<br />
Certifi ed,<br />
Silver,<br />
Gold,<br />
Platinum<br />
Sustainable sites, Water Effi ciency, Energy and<br />
Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor<br />
Environmental Quality,<br />
Innovation in Design and Regional Priority.<br />
LEED<br />
Homes: Locations and Linkages and Awareness<br />
and Education<br />
New Construction, Existing Building<br />
Operation and Maintenance, Commercial<br />
Interiors,<br />
Core and Shell, Schools, Retail,<br />
Healthcare, Homes, Neighbourhood<br />
development<br />
Canada, Brazil, Costa<br />
Rica, Mexico, India<br />
47,567 13,193 US Green Building<br />
Council<br />
UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal,<br />
Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands,<br />
Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech<br />
Republic, Hungary, Poland, Sweden,<br />
Finland, Russia, Turkey<br />
LEED<br />
US<br />
1998<br />
Too stringent<br />
<strong>for</strong> broad<br />
national application<br />
Most far reaching<br />
standard<br />
availabe today<br />
Certifi ed, Petal<br />
Recognition,<br />
Net Zero<br />
Energy<br />
Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity,<br />
Beauty<br />
USA, Canada, Ireland Renovation, Landscape and Infrastructure,<br />
Building, Neighbourhood<br />
110 6 Living Future<br />
Institute<br />
USA<br />
Canada<br />
LBC<br />
US<br />
2006<br />
Development<br />
costly but cost<br />
effective in the<br />
long term<br />
Generic framework<br />
as<br />
basis <strong>for</strong> national<br />
method<br />
Each evaluation<br />
category C1-C9,<br />
are ranked<br />
A+ (excellent)<br />
- E (poor).<br />
(SB-ToolPT,<br />
Portugal)<br />
C1: Climate change and outdoor air quality<br />
C2: Land use and biodiversity<br />
C3: Energy Effi ciency<br />
C4: Materials and waste management<br />
C5: Water effi ciency<br />
C6: Occupant’s health and com<strong>for</strong>t<br />
C7: Accessibilities<br />
C8: Education and awareness of sustainability.<br />
C9: Life-cycle costs. (SB-ToolPT, Portugal)<br />
Offi ce, School, Mult-Unit Residential,<br />
Commercial (Italy Only)<br />
Not available iiSBE Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal<br />
and Spain.(SB Tool CZ, Protocollo<br />
ITACA, SB-ToolPT, and SB<br />
Tool Verde respectively)<br />
Not available Not available<br />
SB Tool<br />
(<strong>for</strong>merly<br />
GB Tool)<br />
International<br />
1998
12<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
1.4 International growth in building<br />
environmental assessment<br />
Building environmental assessment<br />
methods were initially conceived (and<br />
still largely function) as voluntary, market<br />
place mechanisms by which owners<br />
seeking better environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
their buildings would have an objective method<br />
<strong>for</strong> communicating the achievement. Assessment<br />
methods provide quantitative per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
indicators <strong>for</strong> design alternatives and a rating<br />
<strong>for</strong> the whole building per<strong>for</strong>mance. They<br />
offered a structure <strong>for</strong> environmental issues;<br />
a straight<strong>for</strong>ward declaration of per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
measures; a means to demonstrate commitment<br />
to environmental policy and an opportunity to<br />
brand innovative materials and products (Cole,<br />
2005). They have assisted in shifting industry<br />
emphasis from conventional practice towards<br />
high per<strong>for</strong>mance, environmentally focussed<br />
building; and the introduction of BREEAM, LEED<br />
and other tools resulted in noticeable change.<br />
Furthering sustainable building practice requires<br />
the development of in<strong>for</strong>mation exchange and<br />
increased cooperation between stakeholders,<br />
and building environmental assessment methods<br />
have been proven to be very valuable in this<br />
regard (Cole, 2011). While primarily assessment<br />
tools, they can act as a road map <strong>for</strong> the<br />
integration of environmental issues in the design<br />
and construction process (Brophy, 2005). They<br />
are often referred to as building design tools and<br />
building rating tools.<br />
The initial success (as measured by the<br />
increasing new construction fl oor area being<br />
assessed and of practitioner acceptance) can<br />
be seen to be either be seen as indicative of<br />
a proactive building industry, or response<br />
of systems to market demand. Either way,<br />
it is recognised that building environmental<br />
assessment has achieved the following:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Provided guidance to design teams in a<br />
structured and organised manner which<br />
gives focus to improved environmental<br />
building practice<br />
Encouraged the <strong>for</strong>mulation of per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
based indicators<br />
Redefi ned the design process to assist in the<br />
delivery of high per<strong>for</strong>ming buildings on time<br />
and cost effectively<br />
Contributed to promotion of higher<br />
environmental expectations and both directly,<br />
and indirectly, infl uenced the per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
buildings (Cole, 2003, 2004).<br />
Because of the early success of fi rst generation<br />
assessment methods they have been seen as<br />
being a most powerful mechanism <strong>for</strong> affecting<br />
change and moving the focus of debate, and have<br />
led to the evolution of families and generations<br />
of systems as a result of growing experience,<br />
new conceptual awareness, and theoretical<br />
propositions (IEA, 2010).<br />
Research activity and demonstration practice<br />
directed at the assessment of environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance of buildings, has represented a key<br />
part of international conferences, such as the<br />
Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA)<br />
and Sustainable Building Conferences, with many<br />
sessions devoted to the topic. It is seen as a<br />
distinct and important area of research that seeks<br />
to refi ne and provide rigour in the development<br />
of per<strong>for</strong>mance indicators, weighting protocols,<br />
and integrating new assessment criteria, such as<br />
life cycle analysis, into the evaluation of measures.<br />
Generally, the comparison is made between<br />
the methods rather than their organisational<br />
or management structures. Research has also<br />
provided comparisons of various assessment<br />
methods, to illustrate similarities and differences,<br />
typically to assess their application in other<br />
countries or as a basis <strong>for</strong> the development of<br />
new national assessment methods (Cole, 2005).
Their early success has led to the development<br />
of a broad range of systems <strong>for</strong> differing countries,<br />
community infrastructure, differing building<br />
scales and functions, structures, restoration and<br />
interiors. More recently developed systems, or<br />
‘second generation’ systems, while still employing<br />
the scoring systems of earlier methods,<br />
collectively suggest a transition towards methods<br />
that may enable assessment of economic and<br />
social aspects of building and the extent to which<br />
they can contribute to supporting sustainable<br />
patterns of living. For example the Japanese<br />
Comprehensive Assessment Scheme <strong>for</strong> Building<br />
Environmental Effi ciency (CASBEE) and the<br />
Hong Kong Comprehensive Environmental<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Assessment Scheme (CEPAS)<br />
include per<strong>for</strong>mance issues and structural<br />
features that differentiate them from earlier<br />
methods, while others such as the South African<br />
Sustainable Assessment Tool (SBAT) and Ove<br />
Arup’s Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine<br />
(SpeaR) introduced per<strong>for</strong>mance criteria that<br />
assess not only environmental, but also social<br />
and economic sustainability (Cole, 2005).<br />
Newer developed systems, while based on fi rst<br />
generation systems, have focussed on national<br />
issues; <strong>for</strong> example the Australian Green Star<br />
(based on BREEAM) sets higher standards <strong>for</strong><br />
water conservation. The independently developed<br />
system German Sustainable Building Certifi cate<br />
(DGNB) emphasises the importance of life<br />
cycle analysis and the impact of building material<br />
selection on indoor air quality and health – an<br />
important issue in colder climatic zones where<br />
very low energy, airtight buildings are essential <strong>for</strong><br />
energy conservation.<br />
At the same time, more ambitious frameworks<br />
have been developed with broader principles<br />
<strong>for</strong> societal sustainability. The Natural Step<br />
Framework assists in the integration of sustainable<br />
development into an organisation’s strategic<br />
planning, based on four principles - reducing<br />
the extraction of natural resources, eliminating<br />
harmful substances and degradation of nature<br />
and natural resources (Natural Step, 2012). It<br />
bases its planning approach on a concept called<br />
back-casting from principles (a vision of the future<br />
determining the actions of today) and is the basis<br />
of The Living Building Challenge – “visionary path<br />
to a restorative future” developed in 2006. This<br />
latter challenges us not to quantify the level of<br />
damage a building has on the environment, but<br />
to evaluate the positive contribution that can be<br />
made based on twenty ‘profound imperatives’.<br />
The International Living Building Institute has<br />
developed a suite of assessment methods <strong>for</strong><br />
renovation, landscape or infrastructure, building<br />
and neighbourhoods that evaluate actual, rather<br />
than modelled or anticipated per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
(International Living Building Institute, 2010).<br />
1.5 Current scope and value of building<br />
environmental assessment<br />
Globalisation offers great choice to those selecting<br />
an environmental assessment method. Where<br />
legislation or market <strong>for</strong>ces do not restrict the<br />
choice of system, both international and local<br />
systems can be applied. The more developed<br />
systems, LEED and BREEAM, are increasingly<br />
applied outside of the country of their origin.<br />
LEED has certifi ed projects in 41 countries and<br />
BREEAM International has been used as a base<br />
standard <strong>for</strong> the development of region-specifi c<br />
systems across Europe and the Gulf region (Jones<br />
Lang LaSalle, 2008).<br />
In more recent years, the growing general<br />
acceptance of building environmental assessment<br />
methods has moved them beyond voluntary<br />
market place mechanisms to adoption by public<br />
agencies and other bodies as per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
specifi cation requirements. Increasingly, the<br />
fi nancial sector (banks and insurance companies)<br />
and the real estate sector (institutional investors,<br />
13<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
14<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
fund managers and project developers) are<br />
recognising them as indicators of desirable<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance and risk mitigation (RICS, 2011). An<br />
RICS Research Report of March 2012 documents<br />
a study undertaken at Maastricht University<br />
which indicates that in the developing market<br />
of BREEAM certifi ed commercial buildings in<br />
London there are currently substantial premiums<br />
to be commanded <strong>for</strong> certifi ed buildings over<br />
non-certifi ed properties with similar basic building<br />
characteristics. Rental rates attract at best a<br />
28% and transactions a 26% premium; however,<br />
building clustering, location, size, storey height,<br />
can all reduce these premia. Signifi cant decrease<br />
is possible as the market <strong>for</strong> certifi ed buildings<br />
and national standards increases (Chegut et al,<br />
2012). The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors<br />
(RICS) study results are supported by a recent<br />
examination of the impact of LEED and Energy<br />
Star certifi cation in the US commercial markets<br />
(Eichholtz et al, 2010). While the premiums<br />
documented were lower, 6% and 16% respectively,<br />
this was investigated and accounted <strong>for</strong> by the<br />
inclusion of Building Owner and Managers<br />
Association (BOMA) building quality control class<br />
defi nitions. The RICS study tested the Eichholtz<br />
analyses with the removal of the building quality<br />
controls and compared the results with those of<br />
New York, Chicago and Washington DC using<br />
the Eichholtz data. The results <strong>for</strong> these three<br />
cities indicate that when control <strong>for</strong> building<br />
quality is removed the results are comparable<br />
with the London specifi cations, suggesting that<br />
standardization of building quality measures is<br />
required to provide more comparable data,<br />
which may in the future fi nd substantially lower<br />
premiums <strong>for</strong> ‘green’ buildings in London. While<br />
real estate agents continue to debate about the<br />
level of premiums, if any, it is fair to say that some<br />
level of premium is currently evident in the rental<br />
and sale of BREEAM and LEED certifi ed buildings.<br />
However, it is the high per<strong>for</strong>mance and low<br />
risk aspect of certifi ed buildings that is driving<br />
assessment today, as property investors seek to<br />
reduce risk by lending to those that are perceived<br />
to be socially responsible.<br />
Building environmental assessment methods<br />
have been embraced by building design<br />
professionals, in particular by architects, and<br />
there is increasing interest by other stakeholders<br />
across many developed countries. The inclusion<br />
of life cycle analysis of materials and components<br />
will increase the interest from manufacturers<br />
and suppliers, but the method of compliance<br />
within environmental assessment methods may<br />
be contentious.<br />
However, as yet, there is little understanding<br />
about the equivalence of the methods being used<br />
internationally and with increasingly global fi nancial<br />
and property markets, assessment methods need<br />
to be benchmarked in a clear and transparent<br />
manner (Reed et al, 2009). There is a growing<br />
practice of environmental assessment methods<br />
aligning themselves with particular corporate<br />
targets, addressing regional commitments, using<br />
locally defi ned benchmarks and assessment<br />
criteria, applying differing weightings, providing<br />
little transparency and with all of these systems<br />
vying <strong>for</strong> market share, so that it is not surprising<br />
that the European Commission is giving attention<br />
to the harmonisation of assessment methodologies<br />
(RICS, 2011), (Reed et al, 2011).<br />
1.6 Development of a common building<br />
environmental assessment methodology<br />
The International Organisation <strong>for</strong> Standardisation<br />
(ISO) has investigated the need <strong>for</strong> standardised<br />
tools within the fi eld of sustainable design,<br />
and the <strong>for</strong>mation of the technical committee<br />
ISO/TC59 has led to the publication in 2011<br />
of ISO 21929-1:2011 Sustainability in building<br />
construction – Sustainability indicators – Part 1:<br />
Framework <strong>for</strong> the development of indicators
and a core set of indicators <strong>for</strong> buildings. It adapts<br />
general sustainability principles <strong>for</strong> buildings;<br />
includes a framework <strong>for</strong> developing sustainability<br />
indicators <strong>for</strong> use in the assessment of economic,<br />
environmental and social impacts of buildings;<br />
determines aspects <strong>for</strong> consideration when<br />
defi ning a core set of sustainability indicators<br />
<strong>for</strong> buildings; establishes a core set of indicators;<br />
describes how to use sustainability indicators;<br />
and provides rules <strong>for</strong> establishing a system<br />
of indicators. ISO 21929-1:2011 does not<br />
give guidelines <strong>for</strong> the weighting of indicators<br />
or aggregation of assessment results (ISO, 2011).<br />
In Europe, concern that the proliferation<br />
of national building environmental assessment<br />
methods <strong>for</strong> buildings and construction products<br />
could lead to technical barriers to trade in<br />
Europe led to the European Committee<br />
<strong>for</strong> Standardisation (CEN) being requested<br />
to develop a harmonised approach to the<br />
measurement of environmental impacts of<br />
construction products and whole buildings across<br />
the entire lifecycle. This was further extended<br />
to include economic and social per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
buildings. Technical Committee CEN/TC350 has<br />
developed harmonised standards <strong>for</strong> sustainable<br />
assessment in buildings EN15643-3:2012 and<br />
EN15643-3:2010 and is currently in the approval<br />
process of prEN16309 (CPA, 2012). However,<br />
the fi rst set of published standards will not cover<br />
aspects of social and economic per<strong>for</strong>mance –<br />
some of which are considered essential <strong>for</strong> the<br />
assessment of a building – and these will not be<br />
available until 2013 and beyond (UKGBC, 2011).<br />
The European Commission’s Directorate<br />
General <strong>for</strong> the Environment funded research<br />
‘Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement<br />
Criteria <strong>for</strong> Offi ce Buildings’ is a development<br />
of the voluntary Ecolabel ‘fl ower’, established to<br />
encourage manufacturers to introduce individual<br />
products and services that are environmentally<br />
friendly. Under EU procurement law (EC,<br />
2004, a, b) eco-labels <strong>for</strong> products have been<br />
used in public procurement - both as a source<br />
of environmental criteria <strong>for</strong> specifi cations or<br />
to illustrate compliance or to award points <strong>for</strong><br />
meeting the ecological criteria of the European<br />
Ecolabel (ICLEI, 2008) - and the focus has now<br />
turned to buildings. The study is being carried<br />
out by the EC Joint Research Centre’s Institute<br />
<strong>for</strong> Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-<br />
IPTS). The proposed criteria <strong>for</strong> Green Building<br />
Procurement <strong>for</strong> Offi ce Buildings were developed<br />
through economic and market analysis, technical<br />
study of key environmental impacts, cost, and<br />
public procurement process considerations <strong>for</strong><br />
purchasing of new and major renovated offi ce<br />
buildings. A set of ‘core’ criteria were developed<br />
suitable <strong>for</strong> use by contracting bodies with<br />
minimal additional verifi cation ef<strong>for</strong>t or cost<br />
increases, and a set of ‘comprehensive’ criteria<br />
were developed <strong>for</strong> those who wish to purchase<br />
the best products on the market, which may<br />
require additional verifi cation or a slight increase<br />
in cost (JRC IPTS, 2011). The criteria are based on<br />
scientifi c assessment of the environmental impacts<br />
of the building <strong>for</strong> each part of the life-cycle and<br />
consider environmental aspects consistent with<br />
commercial environmental assessment methods,<br />
incorporating the emerging CEN standards and<br />
encompassing existing legislation, including the EU<br />
Directive on the Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance of Buildings<br />
(EPBD) (2002/91/EC) (EU, 2002) and its recast in<br />
2010 (2010/31/EU) (EU, 2010).<br />
15<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
16<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
The Commission Decision on establishing<br />
the ecological criteria <strong>for</strong> the EU Ecolabel <strong>for</strong><br />
New Buildings underwent public consultation<br />
period to mid- January with public consultation<br />
<strong>for</strong> GPP criteria until mid-February 2012. The<br />
EU Ecolabel can be awarded to buildings under<br />
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European<br />
Parliament and of the Council. The World<br />
Green Building Council has responded, as<br />
have individual GBCs. It was expected that the<br />
Ecolabel <strong>for</strong> Offi ce buildings would be fi nalised<br />
in late 2012; however, the lack of CEN standards<br />
<strong>for</strong> social and economical aspects may delay its<br />
implementation. The standards developed by<br />
CEN/TC350 should provide the framework <strong>for</strong> a<br />
harmonized approach throughout Europe in the<br />
environmental assessment of buildings. If there is<br />
a desire to move the EU Ecolabel <strong>for</strong> buildings<br />
<strong>for</strong>ward quickly, it may well be that existing<br />
building environmental assessment methods could<br />
provide a practical interim route to achievement,<br />
linking proposed Ecolabel per<strong>for</strong>mance criteria<br />
with those measured in existing methods.<br />
The EC is also funding a number of Europeanwide<br />
projects that support the harmonization of<br />
building environmental assessment methods. The<br />
EU FP7 Open House project has as its objective the<br />
development and implementation of a common<br />
European transparent building assessment<br />
methodology, complementing existing ones,<br />
while seeking to address perceived weaknesses<br />
in other methods. The baseline comprises<br />
existing standards, CEN/TC350 and ISO/TC59,<br />
the EPBD and its national transpositions and<br />
methodologies <strong>for</strong> assessment at international,<br />
European and national level (Open House,<br />
2012). The methodology has been developed<br />
as a two-step assessment method, the ‘simpler’<br />
assessment <strong>for</strong> application at early design stages<br />
and the ‘complete’ assessment <strong>for</strong> the fi nished<br />
building. Currently, a method <strong>for</strong> the assessment<br />
of offi ce buildings is being tested on buildings in<br />
Europe, the outcomes of which will further feed<br />
back into the fi nalised methodology. Cooperation<br />
with another EU FP7 project Sustainability and<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance assessment and Benchmarking of<br />
Buildings (SuPerBuildings), which is developing<br />
sustainability indicators and benchmarks <strong>for</strong><br />
buildings, will advance the proposal <strong>for</strong> the<br />
development of one building environmental<br />
assessment methodology <strong>for</strong> Europe. The Open<br />
House project will also provide guidance on the<br />
incorporation of the developed methodology<br />
into green public procurement procedures. The<br />
Longlife project, part funded by the EU Baltic Sea<br />
Region programme 2007-2013, has undertaken a<br />
comparison of worldwide certifi cation systems<br />
<strong>for</strong> primarily residential buildings and is focussed<br />
on harmonization of building procedures between<br />
EU Member States (Longlife, 2009).<br />
Private initiatives, such as the Sustainable<br />
Building Alliance (SBA), are also seeking<br />
harmonization. SBA is an international non-profi t<br />
organization, established in 2009 by the British<br />
Research Establishment (BRE) and the Centre<br />
Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB)<br />
and Certivéa. SBA is seeking the establishment<br />
of a system <strong>for</strong> assessing the environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance of buildings that is both nationally<br />
effective and recognized on the global scale;<br />
and that is increasingly adopted in Europe and<br />
worldwide. Bringing together developers of<br />
building assessment and certifi cation, standard<br />
setting organizations, national building research<br />
centres and key property industry stakeholders,<br />
they sought to enable the assessment of the main<br />
environmental impacts and to develop a common<br />
international vocabulary <strong>for</strong> building environmental<br />
assessment, facilitate communication between<br />
stakeholders, support the development of future<br />
assessment schemes and facilitate inter-building<br />
and inter-countries comparisons (SBA, 2012).<br />
Assisted by the International Initiative <strong>for</strong> a<br />
Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), they have
developed a core set of assessment criteria that<br />
include primary energy, carbon emissions, indoor<br />
air quality, thermal com<strong>for</strong>t, water and waste. The<br />
membership has now expanded to 13 countries<br />
(Larsson and Macias, 2012).<br />
It is reported that three of the most common<br />
environmental assessment methods, BREEAM,<br />
Green Star and LEED are developing common<br />
metrics that could assist international stakeholders<br />
to compare certifi cates or ratings in a common<br />
language (Kenneth, 2009). Documentation<br />
generated to demonstrate compliance with<br />
energy credits in BREEAM could be allowed as<br />
an alternative compliance path in LEED (USGBC,<br />
2012a).<br />
A survey undertaken by the International<br />
Real Estate Business School, University of<br />
Regensburg, of thirty national Green Building<br />
Councils worldwide found that 66% of GBCs<br />
saw the potential of creating a global assessment<br />
system and 75% of those saw the framework<br />
of that system coming from a system already in<br />
the market within fi ve years (IREBS, 2011). An<br />
important advantage of an agreed system would<br />
be the comparability of assessment results due<br />
to the standardised assessment procedures<br />
and world wide availability, and the benefi ts of<br />
objective assessment <strong>for</strong> property and fi nancial<br />
markets. However, providing a very complex<br />
assessment system dealing with numerous<br />
differing national requirements would be diffi cult<br />
to apply (Schultmann et al, 2009). Perhaps the<br />
focus should be on incorporating the standards<br />
that are currently under development into existing<br />
methodologies, making the per<strong>for</strong>mance baseline<br />
<strong>for</strong> evaluation more consistent and providing<br />
greater transparency to facilitate comparability.<br />
1.7 Building environmental assessment<br />
and Green Public Procurement (GPP)<br />
Each year in Europe public authorities spend<br />
the equivalent of 16% of the EU gross domestic<br />
product on the purchase of goods, building and<br />
transport components and services. For most<br />
public authorities, construction and renovation<br />
works, and operating costs of buildings represent<br />
a major share of annual expenditure, in some<br />
cases over 50%. This is highlighted in the<br />
Communication from the Commission in 2008<br />
on Public Procurement <strong>for</strong> a Better Environment<br />
(COM, 2008a). This Communication is part of<br />
the Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption<br />
and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy<br />
(SCP/SIP) (COM, 2008b), which establishes a<br />
framework <strong>for</strong> the integrated implementation<br />
of a mix of instruments aimed at improving the<br />
energy and environmental per<strong>for</strong>mances of<br />
products. In 2003 the EC encouraged Member<br />
States to develop National Action Plans (NAP)<br />
<strong>for</strong> greening their public procurement, which<br />
was closely followed in 2004 by two EU<br />
Directives (Directive 2004/17/EC and Directive<br />
2004/18/EC) that contain specifi c reference<br />
to the possibility of including environmental<br />
considerations in the contract award process.<br />
A review of the situation regarding NAPs<br />
(undertaken within the Open House project)<br />
found that NAPs have been published in many<br />
Member States and measures are being taken to<br />
enhance green public procurement (Eider, 2010).<br />
The EC GPP Training Toolkit is intended to be<br />
a support tool <strong>for</strong> European public bodies that<br />
want to implement environmental criteria in their<br />
tendering process (EC, 2008). Guidance outlines<br />
that green criteria - Core and Comprehensive -<br />
can be included in the subject matter, technical<br />
specifi cation, selection criteria <strong>for</strong> tenders, award<br />
criteria and contract per<strong>for</strong>mance clauses of<br />
the building tender process, while considering<br />
the overall environmental profi le of the entire<br />
17<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
18<br />
1. EVALUATING <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
building – including environmental issues<br />
that are embedded in existing environmental<br />
assessment methodologies.<br />
1.8 Building environmental<br />
assessment – future development<br />
and growth<br />
A need has been identifi ed to standardize methods<br />
internationally and to include social and economic<br />
criteria alongside existing environmental criteria.<br />
However, in harmonising the approach, if not<br />
internationally at least Europe-wide, variation and<br />
fl exibility is required to allow <strong>for</strong> regional and local<br />
differences that refl ect stakeholder values (Posten<br />
et al, 2010). UK GBC Members recommended<br />
to BRE Global, as part of a consultation process<br />
on the proposed update of BREEAM <strong>for</strong> 2011,<br />
that BREEAM should be aligned with European<br />
and International standards, but that care should<br />
be taken to ensure fl exibility of approach and<br />
reference to local context (UKGBC, 2009).<br />
Engagement with industry stakeholders was seen<br />
as integral to the process.<br />
Stakeholders with an interest in sustainable<br />
development principles, both on the supply<br />
and demand sides, whose decisions and actions<br />
determine the quality of built environment<br />
and infl uence its contribution to sustainable<br />
development, are growing in number and<br />
becoming more diverse (Lutzkendorf et al,<br />
2011). Sustainable development achievement<br />
depends on the interaction of public policy in the<br />
<strong>for</strong>m of regulation; incentives and disincentives;<br />
involvement of the real estate, fi nance and<br />
insurance industries; the infl uence of education<br />
and training institutions, professional institutes<br />
and construction industry bodies and including<br />
the wide range of stakeholders in this complex<br />
sector of the built environment (Kibert, 2007).<br />
Stakeholder infl uence on the evolution of<br />
building assessment may see the development<br />
of integrated building per<strong>for</strong>mance assessment<br />
methodologies that are transparent and accessible,<br />
include stakeholders’ values and knowledge,<br />
consider not only environmental issues but also<br />
social and economic matters in the complete life<br />
cycle of buildings, and a move from predictive<br />
and analytical data to actual building per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
(Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2007), (Kaatz et<br />
al, 2006). The communication of economic<br />
advantages and reduced risks of high per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
buildings into mainstream investment analysis will<br />
effect trans<strong>for</strong>mation and growth in the usage<br />
of environmental assessment. Whatever the<br />
future requirements are <strong>for</strong> building assessment<br />
methods – simple or complex, standardised or<br />
non comparable, voluntary or mandatory - it<br />
seems certain that the focus will shift from ‘what<br />
is possible’ to ‘what is required’ (Lutzkendorf and<br />
Lorenz, 2007).
2<br />
INTERNATIONAL<br />
<strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong><br />
<strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
20<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
2.1 Evaluation of signifi cant<br />
environmental assessment methods<br />
Cole has written extensively about the<br />
role of building environmental assessment<br />
methods (Cole, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,<br />
2011). He has compared and contrasted<br />
the initial intention and current focus with<br />
the increasing emphasis on the wider<br />
‘sustainability’, and in particular social and<br />
economic sustainability. He questions the<br />
extent to which methods can address<br />
complex issues while remaining simple and<br />
practical, and their capacity to enhance<br />
dialogue among stakeholders and frame<br />
sustainability within the political and social<br />
debate. He draws distinctions between<br />
the ‘product’ (the recognizable technical<br />
assessment framework within the method)<br />
and the ‘process’ (issues related to the use of<br />
assessment methods) to emphasize that an<br />
assessment framework is ‘only a means to an<br />
end and not an end in itself’. The discussion of<br />
systems must go further than their technical<br />
attributes, because in practice many other<br />
factors, including organisational and market<br />
context, fi nancial, and political support and<br />
stakeholder interests are all ‘complicit in<br />
their market acceptance’ (Cole 2006).<br />
Technical criteria within frameworks can<br />
be adapted to suit varying climatic zones,<br />
to mirror national policy and integrate<br />
national building regulations. In assessing<br />
a method, it is the fundamental approach<br />
that is signifi cant which is not singular but<br />
part of a suite such as inclusion of life cycle<br />
issues, the stage of the building life cycle<br />
that they are applied and whether they are<br />
applied when the building is in use (NZGBC,<br />
2006). Other issues to be addressed, apart<br />
from the adaptability of the method and its<br />
alignment to EC policy, Directives and CEN<br />
standards, are the willingness and ability<br />
of an appropriate system to adapt existing<br />
methodologies to refl ect national priorities<br />
and circumstances (<strong>for</strong> example fuel mix)<br />
or develop new categories if necessary, and<br />
to license or manage the system in a cost<br />
and time effective manner while providing<br />
an appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,<br />
transparent and verifi able system <strong>for</strong> all<br />
stakeholders. It is in this context that the<br />
evaluation of environmental assessment<br />
methods is undertaken in this study.<br />
The systems chosen here <strong>for</strong><br />
further evaluation represent differing<br />
approaches – BREEAM and LEED are<br />
well established designer-focussed<br />
assessment methods, DGNB as<br />
a more recent, broader building value<br />
based method, and the Living Building<br />
Challenge (LBC) as the most stringent and<br />
far-reaching standard.<br />
BREEAM and LEED, considered as<br />
examples of mature fi rst generation systems,<br />
are currently in use in Ireland, albeit in a small<br />
way. DGNB, a more recently developed<br />
German methodology, considered a second<br />
generation system with greater fl exibility, has<br />
been recently adopted by a number of EU<br />
Member States. The Living Building Challenge<br />
is currently being adapted <strong>for</strong> use in Ireland.<br />
The Building Environmental Assessment<br />
Method <strong>for</strong> Ireland (IBEAM), a framework<br />
<strong>for</strong> a building environmental assessment<br />
method developed within the context of an<br />
MArchSc thesis in UCD Architecture, is also<br />
evaluated as it may have a role in in<strong>for</strong>ming<br />
the development of a national methodology<br />
<strong>for</strong> Ireland or may aid in the adaptation of<br />
evaluation criteria <strong>for</strong> Irish conditions of<br />
existing methods.<br />
Other well known methodologies,<br />
including Green Star, HQE and SBTool,<br />
following review were not considered<br />
appropriate <strong>for</strong> further evaluation.
Green Star, the Australian voluntary<br />
environmental assessment method, was<br />
developed in a partnership of Sinclair Knight and<br />
BRE in 2003, but has since been developed and<br />
managed by Green Building Council Australia<br />
(GBCA). While the calculation method is based<br />
on BREEAM, the GBCA adapted it to make its<br />
delivery more akin to LEED (Saunders, 2008).<br />
It has been adapted to suit climatic conditions,<br />
the local environment and construction industry<br />
standard practice and has evolved signifi cantly.<br />
The building certifi cation is expressed in stars: 4<br />
stars Best Practice; 5 stars Australian Excellence;<br />
and 6 stars World Leadership. It has been<br />
used extensively in Australia, New Zealand<br />
and South Africa to evaluate a wide range of<br />
building occupancy profi les, including education,<br />
healthcare, industrial, retail, offi ces, residential<br />
and communities. Four million square metres of<br />
building space have been certifi ed in Australia.<br />
It exists alongside the National Australian Built<br />
Environment Rating System (NABERS), managed<br />
by the New South Wales Government, which<br />
was developed on a national basis in 2000 to<br />
enable building owners and managers to assess<br />
operational impact in order to achieve energy<br />
effi ciencies and cost savings; 60% of offi ce space<br />
has been assessed with NABERS. Green Star<br />
does not have a method <strong>for</strong> assessing operational<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance, but GBCA is in the development<br />
stages of Green Star Per<strong>for</strong>mance, which will<br />
assess the operational per<strong>for</strong>mance of existing<br />
buildings. GBCA is working closely with the new<br />
South Wales Government in the development<br />
of the method, recognizing that it is benefi cial to<br />
include the existing NABERS reporting standards<br />
(ASBEC, 2011).<br />
Green Star was developed to accommodate<br />
buildings in hot climates where cooling systems<br />
and solar shading are of major importance. A<br />
comparative study of the energy component of<br />
Green Star, BREEAM and LEED methodologies<br />
highlighted the differing calculation methodologies<br />
employed, and most noticeably the difference<br />
between Energy Star and the BREEAM and<br />
LEED methodologies, which were more similar<br />
in both assessment criteria and results (Roderick<br />
et al, 2009). Reed in his comparison of Energy<br />
Star, BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE states that the<br />
Green Star methodology leads to lower levels of<br />
sustainability compared with BREEAM (Reed et<br />
al, 2011).<br />
Haute Qualité Environmentale (HQE) is the<br />
certifi cation system of Certivéa, a subsidiary of<br />
the Centre Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment<br />
(CSTB) which was developed in 2006. It was<br />
used to certify new non-residential buildings<br />
and renovation projects mainly in France. Until<br />
June 2012 the HQE methodology was not<br />
available in either an English or international<br />
version, which made it diffi cult to evaluate.<br />
Denmark’s Green Building Council (GBCD),<br />
within the process of adapting an environmental<br />
assessment method, carried out a pilot study by<br />
undertaking a comparative assessment of two<br />
large offi ce buildings using BREEAM, DGNB,<br />
HQE and LEED. The most important issues<br />
considered were adaptability, alignment with<br />
EU Directives and CEN Standards, costs <strong>for</strong><br />
implementation, and international visibility of<br />
the method. Both BREEAM and DGNB were<br />
considered most suitable, HQE was not seen to<br />
be easily comparable and took the design team<br />
considerably more time to implement, and LEED<br />
was rejected because of its non-alignment with EU<br />
policy and standards (Benchmark Centre, 2010).<br />
However to extend its expertise and expand into<br />
new markets, Certivéa have just launched a new<br />
methodology ‘HQE international certifi cation<br />
<strong>for</strong> non-residential buildings’. It has been tested<br />
on pilot projects in the UK, Morocco, Germany,<br />
Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy. It is based on<br />
assessing per<strong>for</strong>mance through a new method<br />
compatible with indicators including those of<br />
21<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
22<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Sustainable Building Alliance and CEN TC/350. It<br />
will be some time be<strong>for</strong>e the methodology can<br />
be comparatively evaluated.<br />
The SBTool is the fi rst collaborative<br />
international assessment tool developed by iiSBE,<br />
a worldwide network of professionals in the<br />
sustainable built environment. It was originally<br />
developed as the GBTool by the Green Building<br />
Challenge (GBC) to address the shortcomings of<br />
other assessment tools and to develop a system<br />
that incorporates regional variations (Ding, 2008).<br />
The SB method is a generic framework and can<br />
be used by authorized third parties to prepare<br />
adapted SBTool versions as rating systems to<br />
suit local regions and building types. Italy, Spain,<br />
Portugal and the Czech Republic have utilized<br />
the framework in the development of national<br />
assessment methods. The system is not based<br />
on credits, but on scores that are derived from<br />
the comparison of the building with a national<br />
reference building. It allows national issues to<br />
be prioritized while being harmonized with EU<br />
standards. It is normal <strong>for</strong> the national chapter<br />
of iiSBE to develop a SBTool in conjunction with<br />
a GBC or academic group, a process seen to<br />
require greater technical expertise in comparison<br />
with adapting an existing method (Fowler<br />
and Rauch, 2006). While Ireland could adapt<br />
the SBTool Verde <strong>for</strong> Ireland, the value of the<br />
SBTool is that the original framework could be<br />
developed as a national method specifi cally <strong>for</strong><br />
Ireland. GBTool was evaluated with BREEAM and<br />
LEED within the IBEAM study and found to have<br />
the widest criteria <strong>for</strong> evaluation at that time and<br />
this infl uenced the development of the IBEAM<br />
methodology, which is evaluated further in<br />
this section.<br />
2.2 Evaluation of BREEAM, LEED,<br />
DGNB and Living Buildings Challenge<br />
(LBC) systems<br />
While there have been many research-based<br />
and commercial studies undertaken to compare<br />
selected groups of assessment methods, many<br />
of these are out of date. Newer versions of the<br />
methodologies, eg. LEED NC, v2.0, v2.1 and<br />
v2.2, have become available, and also several<br />
methodologies can be used <strong>for</strong> similar building<br />
profi les; eg. BREEAM Offi ces, BREEAM Europe<br />
Commercial, and BREEAM International all can<br />
be used to assess offi ce buildings depending on<br />
location. Too often, the specifi c building profi le<br />
or assessment method version is not referenced,<br />
making it diffi cult to draw robust conclusions.<br />
In seeking to provide consistant indicative<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation on internationally applied systems<br />
in this study, the versions selected <strong>for</strong> review<br />
represent current systems <strong>for</strong> a similar occupancy<br />
profi le: BREEAM 2009 Europe Commercial;<br />
DGNB 2009 New Construction <strong>for</strong> Offi ces and<br />
Administrative Buildings and LEED 2009 New<br />
Construction and Major Renovations (which<br />
is used <strong>for</strong> many occupancy profi les including<br />
offi ce buildings) and the Living Building Challenge<br />
2011 Building. While BREEAM does have an<br />
international bespoke system which can be<br />
nationally adapted LEED does not have a specifi c<br />
international system and DGNB is currently<br />
developing such a system. The LBC does not<br />
differentiate between occupancy profi les, or new<br />
and existing, so the Building typology is used <strong>for</strong><br />
this evaluation. The study did not evaluate other<br />
occupancy or retrofi t profi les available within the<br />
systems; however, it would be advisable to do so<br />
at a later stage.
The evaluation criteria are listed below:<br />
1. System Application and Maturity<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Type of project / buildings<br />
Number of buildings certifi ed/registered<br />
System age<br />
Stability of system<br />
Proven track record<br />
Applicability/internationalization<br />
2. Technical Content<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Relevance to sustainability – environmental/<br />
social/economic<br />
Thoroughness<br />
Standardisation<br />
Quantifi cation- categories, criteria, weightings,<br />
classifi cations tables<br />
Certifi cation and verifi cation<br />
3. Potential <strong>for</strong> Development and<br />
Adaptation<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
System management<br />
Development approach<br />
Openness of operations<br />
Ease of adaptation<br />
Cost adaptation and use<br />
Product support and training<br />
4. Comparability and<br />
Communicability<br />
❚ Comparability<br />
❚ Transparency<br />
❚ Results usability<br />
Source: based on Review Criteria <strong>for</strong> Rating Systems,<br />
Fowler and Rauch, 2006.<br />
BREEAM<br />
BREEAM was developed by the Building Research<br />
Establishment (BRE) in the UK in 1990 and is seen<br />
by many as the world’s <strong>for</strong>emost environmental<br />
assessment method and rating system <strong>for</strong><br />
buildings. Being the fi rst environmental building<br />
method developed, it leads with 200,000 certifi ed<br />
BREEAM assessment ratings, and over a million<br />
buildings registered <strong>for</strong> assessment since it was fi rst<br />
launched. BREEAM has a range of versions that<br />
cover many occupancy profi les: residential, multiresidential,<br />
offi ces, retail, industrial, education,<br />
healthcare, prisons, courts, data centres. It has an<br />
international bespoke version that can be adapted<br />
<strong>for</strong> any building type in other countries. It also has<br />
versions <strong>for</strong> refurbishment, <strong>for</strong> in-use buildings,<br />
and <strong>for</strong> communities. It has been adapted <strong>for</strong> use<br />
in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.<br />
It is also the basis <strong>for</strong> many of the other building<br />
environmental assessment methods that have<br />
been developed internationally, including those<br />
of Canada, Australia and Hong Kong (BRE,<br />
2011). BREEAM has been adopted in the UK as<br />
a standard <strong>for</strong> both public and private sector<br />
buildings. The Department of the Environment,<br />
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) requires a<br />
minimum of BREEAM ‘Excellent’ <strong>for</strong> new build<br />
construction and the Scottish Funding Council and<br />
the Northern Ireland Dept of Education require<br />
the same standard <strong>for</strong> educational buildings.<br />
DEFRA requires ‘Very Good’ <strong>for</strong> refurbishment<br />
of buildings. Private sector companies such as<br />
Marks and Spencer and John Lewis also build to<br />
the ‘Excellent’ standard. The Code <strong>for</strong> Sustainable<br />
Homes was published in 2006 and adopted <strong>for</strong><br />
building regulation compliance in England and<br />
Wales, with specifi c Code levels to be achieved <strong>for</strong><br />
social housing. Code Level 3 has been adopted by<br />
the Housing Communities Agencies, the Welsh<br />
Association and the Northern Ireland Executive<br />
as a minimum standard <strong>for</strong> new-build housing.<br />
There are 44 buildings registered <strong>for</strong> assessment<br />
23<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
24<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
and 17 certifi ed buildings in Ireland (BRE, 2012).<br />
DGNB<br />
DGNB was developed by the German Sustainable<br />
Building Council and the Federal Ministry of<br />
Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS)<br />
in 2007. It has an increasing range of occupancy<br />
profi les such as new, modernisation and existing<br />
offi ce and administration buildings, modernisation<br />
and new retail, and new educational, industrial<br />
and residential buildings, hotels and mixed<br />
city districts. Systems being developed include<br />
airports and sports and parking facilities. It has<br />
been adapted <strong>for</strong> use in Denmark, Brazil and<br />
China and has approx. 225 buildings certifi ed to<br />
date. There are no certifi ed buildings in Ireland<br />
(DGNB, 2012).<br />
LEED<br />
LEED was developed by the United States Green<br />
Building Council (USGBC) in 1998. It was the<br />
only environmental assessment system in North<br />
America until the Green Building Initiative in<br />
Canada introduced Green Globes in 2000, which<br />
is now used <strong>for</strong> smaller projects while LEED is<br />
used <strong>for</strong> larger projects in Canada. It is the system<br />
most widely used by Federal and state agencies in<br />
the US.<br />
LEED has a range of occupancy profi les <strong>for</strong><br />
new construction, existing buildings operation and<br />
maintenance, core and shell, commercial interiors,<br />
new and existing schools, retail, healthcare,<br />
homes and neighbourhood development. It also<br />
has application guides that increase its fl exibility in<br />
terms of the types of project that can be certifi ed<br />
(USGBC, 2011). There are LEED projects in over<br />
114 countries around the world. There are 10<br />
registered LEED projects and two certifi ed LEED<br />
Gold projects in Ireland (USGBC, 2012b).<br />
LBC<br />
LBC is a programme developed by the<br />
International Living Future Institute (ILFI, <strong>for</strong>merly<br />
the International Living Building Institute), which<br />
joins the Cascadia Green Building Council with<br />
the Natural Step Network USA and Ecotone<br />
Publishing. Since its launch in 2006 the Challenge<br />
is now established in USA and Canada and being<br />
introduced in Ireland. It provides a framework<br />
<strong>for</strong> design, construction and a symbiotic<br />
relationship between people and all aspects of<br />
the built environment and is the most ambitious<br />
measure of sustainability in the built environment<br />
today. It sets goals <strong>for</strong> projects that aim to be<br />
restorative, regenerative or net zero impact. It is<br />
a philosophy, an advocacy tool, and certifi cation<br />
programme that addresses development at<br />
all scales. The framework can be applied to<br />
landscape and infrastructure projects; partial<br />
renovations and complete building renewals; new<br />
building construction; and neighborhood, campus<br />
and community design (ILBI, 2010). There are six<br />
certifi ed projects and 110 registered projects to<br />
date, mainly in the USA. Living Building Institute<br />
Ireland (LBII) has been <strong>for</strong>med but there are no<br />
projects registered in Ireland (O’Brien, 2012).
Number of Buildings Certifi ed<br />
Many buildings claim to be designed and built to<br />
a particular standard, but without verifi cation.<br />
Many others have been registered <strong>for</strong> assessment<br />
but not certifi ed. There are many confl icting<br />
statistics regarding the ever-changing number<br />
of buildings certifi ed, or within the assessment<br />
process but not intending to, within the differing<br />
systems; and complicated by differing types of<br />
measurement (building number or area), building<br />
profi les, versions and world locations. Also, many<br />
certifi ed buildings do not provide in<strong>for</strong>mation to<br />
the public. RICS Sustainable Building Certifi cation<br />
Statistics Europe provides the most up-to-date<br />
published fi gures of commercial buildings in<br />
Europe and indicates over 2,000 buildings in the<br />
pipeline <strong>for</strong> assessment in 2009/2010 within the<br />
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and HQE commercial<br />
building systems (RICS, 2011). There are no<br />
commercial buildings in Europe certifi ed to the<br />
LBC system (O’Brien, 2012).<br />
25<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
26<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
4<br />
1<br />
P<br />
Commercial Buildings Registered <strong>for</strong> Certifi cation in Europe<br />
May 2011<br />
9<br />
54<br />
E<br />
7<br />
9<br />
IRL<br />
1500<br />
approx<br />
38<br />
GB<br />
54<br />
9<br />
F<br />
28<br />
9<br />
B<br />
Totals: 1,699 Approx BREEAM<br />
149<br />
DGNB<br />
11<br />
1<br />
L<br />
28<br />
4<br />
NL<br />
Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC).<br />
4<br />
CH<br />
8<br />
149<br />
165<br />
D<br />
488<br />
0<br />
3<br />
8<br />
A<br />
3<br />
26<br />
S<br />
4<br />
14<br />
CZ<br />
2<br />
56<br />
I<br />
LEED<br />
LBC<br />
6<br />
21<br />
PL<br />
6<br />
14<br />
HU<br />
5<br />
20<br />
FL<br />
11<br />
11<br />
RUS<br />
8<br />
24<br />
TR
1<br />
P<br />
Certifi ed Commercial Buildings in Europe<br />
May 2011<br />
3<br />
12<br />
E<br />
IRL<br />
4000<br />
approx<br />
8<br />
GB<br />
Totals: 4,061 Approx BREEAM<br />
183<br />
15<br />
1<br />
F<br />
9<br />
1<br />
B<br />
DGNB<br />
Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC).<br />
1<br />
5<br />
L<br />
8<br />
2<br />
NL<br />
1<br />
CH<br />
6<br />
171<br />
9<br />
D<br />
66<br />
0<br />
1<br />
6<br />
A<br />
3<br />
4<br />
S<br />
2<br />
CZ<br />
5<br />
5<br />
I<br />
LEED<br />
LBC<br />
3<br />
4<br />
PL<br />
3<br />
2<br />
HU<br />
9<br />
FL<br />
1<br />
1<br />
RUS<br />
27<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
3<br />
5<br />
TR<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
28<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
2.2.2 Technical Content,<br />
Measurability and Verifi cation<br />
BREEAM: Europe Commercial 2009<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Categories and Weighting: Management<br />
(12%), Health and Wellbeing (15%),<br />
Energy (19%), Transport (8%), Water (6%),<br />
Materials (12.5%), Waste (7.5%), Land Use<br />
and Ecology (10%), Pollution (10%), (and a<br />
further possible Innovation (10)).<br />
Credit Score: Credits awarded <strong>for</strong> each of<br />
the nine weighted categories, 59 criteria<br />
with a possible 112 points, to achieve<br />
Unclassifi ed, Pass, Good, Very Good,<br />
Excellent or Outstanding certifi cation.<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Certifi cation Rating:<br />
Unclassifi ed
assessor registers the project <strong>for</strong> precertifi<br />
cation or certifi cation. Detailed<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation about the project, the building<br />
owner, and the auditor is needed <strong>for</strong><br />
registration. Furthermore, the assessor<br />
indicates the date by which all documentation<br />
is to be submitted to DGNB <strong>for</strong> review. If<br />
the real building type differs considerably<br />
from the occupancy profi le selected <strong>for</strong><br />
certifi cation (<strong>for</strong> example due to mixed<br />
use), the DGNB reserves the right to refuse<br />
the review. Registration there<strong>for</strong>e does not<br />
guarantee that a con<strong>for</strong>mity inspection will be<br />
conducted or that the certifi cation process<br />
will be carried out. Upon registration, the<br />
building owner receives a project-specifi c<br />
contract required <strong>for</strong> the certifi cation process.<br />
Once the contract has been signed and<br />
returned to the DGNB, the building owner<br />
receives a fee invoice. The fee depends<br />
on building fl oor area. The fee <strong>for</strong> Precertifi<br />
cation varies from €4,000 <strong>for</strong> buildings<br />
of less than 4,000m2 to €13,000 <strong>for</strong> those<br />
greater than 80,000m2 fl oor area. The fee <strong>for</strong><br />
Certifi cation varies from €6,000 <strong>for</strong> buildings<br />
of less that 4,000m2 to €28,000 <strong>for</strong> buildings<br />
of more than 80,000m2. The auditor compiles<br />
all of the relevant project documentation<br />
and presents it to the DGNB <strong>for</strong> the review.<br />
The documentation must be compiled in<br />
accordance with DGNB guidelines and<br />
criteria to simplify the review process;<br />
otherwise, the review cannot be carried<br />
out. As part of the con<strong>for</strong>mity inspection,<br />
each project is thoroughly studied in two<br />
consecutive reviews. If the assessor or building<br />
owner insists on additional reviews (of no<br />
more than 10 criteria), the DGNB will charge<br />
an extra € 2,000. The con<strong>for</strong>mity inspection<br />
can only be carried out after all certifi cation<br />
fees have been paid. The building owner and<br />
auditor are generally in<strong>for</strong>med of the fi nal<br />
result of the inspection within 6 to 8 weeks. If<br />
the documentation submitted complies with<br />
the requirements <strong>for</strong> the DGNB certifi cate,<br />
the building owner will receive the Certifi cate<br />
or Pre-certifi cate <strong>for</strong> the construction project.<br />
LEED: New Construction 2009<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Categories and Weighting: Sustainable Sites<br />
(26%), Water Effi ciency (10%), Energy and<br />
Atmosphere (35%), Materials and Resources<br />
(14%), Indoor Environmental Quality (15%),<br />
(and a further possible Innovation and Design<br />
Process (6) and Regional Priority (4)). The<br />
number of criteria and possible points within<br />
the categories determine the weighting.<br />
Credit Score: Credits awarded <strong>for</strong> each of<br />
the seven categories, <strong>for</strong> 58 criteria with a<br />
possible 110 points.<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Certifi cation Rating: Certifi ed<br />
40-49 points, Silver 50-59 points, Gold 60-69<br />
points, Platinum 80 points or over.<br />
Certifi cation Phases: Design and Construction<br />
– can be split or combined.<br />
Certifi cation Process: Registration serves as<br />
a declaration of intent to certify a building<br />
or neighbourhood development under<br />
the LEED Green Building Rating Systems.<br />
Registration is completed online on payment<br />
of registration fee of approx. €915 which<br />
provides access to a variety of tools and<br />
resources. At this stage the project team is<br />
assembled and the documentation process<br />
begins. Only the LEED Project Administrator<br />
is eligible to submit a completed application<br />
<strong>for</strong> Review. The review can combine design<br />
and construction, or can be split into two.<br />
Requirements <strong>for</strong> a complete application<br />
vary according to the review path, but will<br />
always include payment of the appropriate<br />
Certifi cation Review Fee, which varies<br />
depending on building fl oor area from €2,100<br />
<strong>for</strong> projects of less than 4,645m2 to €21,000<br />
29<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
30<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
<strong>for</strong> projects with more than 46,450m2. Prior<br />
to certifi cation, all project teams are required<br />
to submit completed documentation <strong>for</strong><br />
all prerequisites and at least the minimum<br />
number of credits required to achieve<br />
certifi cation, as well as completed general<br />
project in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong>ms. Upon receipt of<br />
a completed application <strong>for</strong> Certifi cation, a<br />
<strong>for</strong>mal application review will be initiated.<br />
Appeals can be submitted, and fees are<br />
calculated based on the number of credits<br />
appealed (€500 per credit), regardless of how<br />
many points are appealed within<br />
those credits.<br />
LBC: Building 2011<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Categories and weightings: Site, Water, Energy,<br />
Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty.<br />
Credit score: Credits awarded <strong>for</strong> seven<br />
Categories (Petals) with a total of twenty<br />
criteria (Imperatives).<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Certifi cation Rating: Living<br />
Building Challenge, Petal Recognition<br />
(minimum three categories) and Net Zero<br />
Energy Building Certifi cation. There are no<br />
levels of certifi cation, certifi cation is achieved<br />
or not.<br />
Certifi cation phases: Post-occupancy<br />
Certifi cation (following 12 month operation).<br />
Certifi cation Process: Because the<br />
programme is an innovative per<strong>for</strong>mancebased<br />
standard, support and guidance is<br />
provided throughout the project design and<br />
specifi cation. The registration fee is €400 <strong>for</strong><br />
a new build commercial project. Following<br />
online registration of the project, technical<br />
assistance, design charette and dialogue<br />
activity commences with the ILFI to support<br />
the design and construction team through the<br />
process and to achieve certifi cation. Within<br />
the fi rst twelve months of operation, actual<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance data is collected to provide ILFI<br />
auditors with suffi cient in<strong>for</strong>mation to review,<br />
visit the project and provide certifi cation.<br />
Certifi cation fees vary according to fl oor area<br />
and certifi cation type. Fees <strong>for</strong> commercial<br />
new build projects less than 500m2 are<br />
€1,200 <strong>for</strong> Petal Recognition and €2,000<br />
<strong>for</strong> Certifi cation, and these increase to a<br />
maximum <strong>for</strong> projects over 50,000m2 of<br />
€12,000 <strong>for</strong> Petal Recognition up to €20,000<br />
<strong>for</strong> Certifi cation.<br />
Source of fee data: fee data provided is indicative<br />
<strong>for</strong> commercial projects, collated from the website<br />
of each provider between March and May 2012,<br />
and has been converted to metric units and €<br />
currency. Fees indicated are exclusive of taxes<br />
and are those available to non-members where<br />
differences apply. Because the fees are determined<br />
by project area in sliding bands it is not possible to<br />
provide a direct comparison between schemes,<br />
and perhaps not appropriate either to do so. In<br />
comparing the costs associated with each system<br />
it is necessary to review all costs concurrently and<br />
these include system adoption and adaptation<br />
fees, annual licensing fees, assessor training fees<br />
and project registration and certifi cation fees.<br />
For example, BREEAM charges a substantial<br />
annual licence and audit fee but a lower project<br />
certifi cation fee. DGNB does not charge an<br />
annual fee but has larger certifi cation fees. Fees<br />
also vary in the proportion which is retained by<br />
system owners and national operators.
Comparison of certifi cation ratings,<br />
categories, criteria and weighting<br />
The four assessment methods determine<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance certifi cation ratings that are<br />
not comparable, because of the high level of<br />
variation that occurs between the assessment<br />
methods. While all four methods are based<br />
on categorisation of criteria <strong>for</strong> credit or point<br />
assessment or achievement, they are arranged<br />
and allocated in different ways. In BREEAM<br />
there are 59 criteria arranged in nine categories,<br />
in DGNB 49 criteria are allocated to six<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance or quality categories, in LEED 58<br />
criteria are presented in seven categories and<br />
in the LBC there are 20 criteria or imperatives<br />
in seven categories or petals.<br />
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC - Categories and<br />
weightings of each system<br />
%<br />
BREEAM<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
0<br />
DGNB<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
% 0<br />
LEED<br />
35<br />
30<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
% 0<br />
LBC<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
% 0<br />
Energy<br />
Environmental Quality<br />
Energy and Atmosphere<br />
Energy<br />
Health & Wellbeing<br />
Economical Quality<br />
Indoor air<br />
quality<br />
Health<br />
Land use &<br />
Economy<br />
Socio-Cultural and<br />
Functional Quality<br />
Sustainable Stress<br />
Site<br />
Water<br />
Technical Quality<br />
Water<br />
Efficiency<br />
Water<br />
Materials<br />
Process<br />
Quality<br />
Materials and<br />
Resources<br />
Materials<br />
Pollution<br />
Equity<br />
Waste<br />
Beauty<br />
Transport<br />
Management<br />
31<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
32<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
In terms of the weighting applied to the issues,<br />
the main differences are evident as energy,<br />
management and economic issues. Energy<br />
is an important aspect of all four methods;<br />
however, the importance given to energy,<br />
which has considerable impact on the overall<br />
rating, differs (10% in DGNB, 14% in LBC, 19%<br />
in BREEAM and 32% in LEED) but there is little<br />
relationship between the fi gures and the energy<br />
effi ciency of a building. Energy is considered<br />
in differing ways (DGNB aggregates life cycle<br />
energy over fi fty years and includes embodied<br />
environmental impacts), and baseline standards<br />
differ. The high reward of 32% in LEED does<br />
not translate to high energy savings, as one can<br />
achieve a LEED Silver certifi cate without any<br />
energy saving measures over and above the<br />
pre-requisite, and only when striving <strong>for</strong> Gold<br />
DGNB:<br />
Economical<br />
Quality.<br />
ECONOMY<br />
ENVIRONMENT<br />
BREEAM:<br />
Pollution,<br />
Land use<br />
& Ecology,<br />
Energy, Waste,<br />
Materials<br />
Water<br />
DGNB:<br />
Ecological<br />
Quality<br />
LEED:<br />
Material &<br />
resources<br />
Energy and<br />
atmosphere,<br />
Water effi ciency,<br />
sustainable sites<br />
SUSTAINABILITY<br />
or Platinum certifi cate does improving energy<br />
saving become a necessity.<br />
The main emphasis of all four assessment<br />
methods is on environmental aspects, although<br />
all address societal aspects to some extent;<br />
however, only DGNB addresses economic<br />
quality and this aspect has equal weighting<br />
with the other two recognised strands of<br />
sustainability. LBC does not evaluate the cost of<br />
strategies but does encompass life cycle issues.<br />
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC - environmental, social<br />
and economic aspects. Source: based on Alinghizadeh<br />
Kherzi, 2011 (amended to include LBC).<br />
LBC:<br />
Site,<br />
Water,<br />
Energy,<br />
Materials.<br />
BREEAM:<br />
Transport.<br />
BREEAM:<br />
Health and wellbeing<br />
DGNB:<br />
Sociocultural and<br />
functional quality.<br />
LCB:<br />
Health, Equity, Beauty,<br />
Education<br />
SOCIETY
The graphics illustrate the issues and the<br />
requirements in each scheme (divided into<br />
environmental, social and economical strands) as<br />
evaluated to indicate the depth of consideration<br />
from fully considered as an issue or indicator<br />
to partially considered or not considered at all.<br />
In particular, certain issues, such as economic<br />
considerations (life cycle cost) and socio-cultural<br />
and functional aspects, were only addressed in<br />
DGNB. For example, building life cycle cost is fully<br />
considered as an issue in DGNB, is considered as<br />
an indicator moderately in BREEAM and partly in<br />
LEED and LBC (Munch, 2009).<br />
System<br />
Living Building Challenge<br />
LEED<br />
DGNB<br />
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC – topic assessed based<br />
on assessment criteria and weightings. Source: based on<br />
Alinghizadeh Kherzi, 2011, (amended to include LBC).<br />
BREEAM<br />
Fully considered as a topic<br />
fully considered as an indicator<br />
partly considered<br />
not considered<br />
Land use and Ecology<br />
Sustainable Sites<br />
Energy and Atmosphere<br />
Water Effi ciency<br />
Materials and Resources<br />
Renewable Energy<br />
Pollution and Emissions<br />
Waste Recycling<br />
Transport / Location & Linkages<br />
Maintenance and Operation<br />
Economic Quality<br />
Indoor Environment Quality<br />
Health and Wellbeing<br />
Socio-Cultural Aspects<br />
Function<br />
Management<br />
Innovation / design process<br />
33<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
34<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
These variations highlight the complexity of<br />
comparing environmental assessment methods<br />
and the necessity <strong>for</strong> in-depth knowledge of<br />
the assessment criteria, credits and weightings,<br />
and also of their development context and<br />
baseline assumptions, when considering the<br />
adoption and adaptation of an assessment<br />
method – and in particular, if it is to be used <strong>for</strong><br />
international building per<strong>for</strong>mance comparisons.<br />
At a national level, undertaking assessments of<br />
representative occupancy profi le buildings using<br />
each assessment method should achieve a more<br />
precise comparative analysis, highlight the issues<br />
to be addressed in adoption and modifi cations<br />
<strong>for</strong> adaptation.<br />
2.2.3. Potential <strong>for</strong> Development<br />
and Adaptation<br />
In order to assess the development potential<br />
of the four systems, the IGBC requested an<br />
Expression of Interest from the system providers<br />
to set out how the system providers might<br />
work with the IGBC if they were to be the<br />
organisation to deliver certifi cation in Ireland.<br />
The request letter included a number of issues<br />
to be discussed within the Expression of Interest,<br />
and all four system providers responded to the<br />
request. These included:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
possibility <strong>for</strong> adaptation of the system<br />
specifi cally to take account of EU legislation,<br />
Irish Building Regulations, and regional<br />
variations such as climate, construction<br />
techniques etc., stating how the process<br />
had been managed in other countries, the<br />
timescale <strong>for</strong> development of an Irish ‘version’<br />
and <strong>for</strong> full implementation of a<br />
certifi cation system;<br />
level of input the IGBC or other Irish<br />
stakeholders could or would have into the<br />
adaptation of the certifi cation system;<br />
possibility of creating a specifi c new profi le<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
within the certifi cation system (e.g. retrofi t,<br />
single housing etc); and the time scale<br />
required <strong>for</strong> development;<br />
cost <strong>for</strong> the adaptation process <strong>for</strong> each<br />
profi le of building;<br />
fees <strong>for</strong> building registration and certifi cation;<br />
annual fee or fee <strong>for</strong> national operator or<br />
licensing arrangements with the IGBC;<br />
costs <strong>for</strong> any training that would be provided;<br />
where the national adaptation or the national<br />
licensing of a system was not permitted the<br />
system provider was requested to suggest<br />
other means by which the provider could<br />
cooperate with the IGBC in assisting greater<br />
uptake of environmental assessment<br />
of buildings.<br />
Refer to Appendix A <strong>for</strong> full Expression of<br />
Interest request.<br />
The following text includes edited in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
taken directly from the responses from each<br />
system provider and should be viewed in<br />
that context.<br />
BREEAM<br />
BRE Global manages the BREEAM application in all<br />
countries except those where BREEAM has been<br />
adapted specifi cally <strong>for</strong> that country and where a<br />
National Scheme Operator has been appointed.<br />
Such is the case <strong>for</strong> BREEAM NL, BREEAM NOR<br />
and BREEAM SE which are all operated under<br />
licence by the national Green Building Council,<br />
while BREEAM ES is operated by the Fundacion<br />
Instituto Technológico de Galicia.<br />
BREEAM, when used in all other countries is<br />
operated by BRE Global, and the most often used<br />
methods are BREEAM International Bespoke,<br />
Europe Commercial, Communities and In-use.<br />
BREEAM International Bespoke can be used to
assess single developments anywhere in the world<br />
when the building function falls outside the scope<br />
of the BREEAM Europe Commercial scheme<br />
and the country-specifi c schemes operated<br />
by National Scheme Operators. BREEAM<br />
International Bespoke is an assessment method<br />
that can be used at the design, construction,<br />
initial occupation and refurbishment stages of<br />
a building’s lifecycle. It can be tailored to suit<br />
national circumstances, and the assessor can<br />
work with BRE to develop assessment criteria<br />
specially tailored to a building where it doesn’t fi t<br />
neatly into one of the existing schemes (Parker,<br />
2009). In examining the national adoption or<br />
adaptation of existing methodologies the full suite<br />
of BRE methodologies should be considered,<br />
including the Code <strong>for</strong> Sustainable Homes which<br />
is perceived to be a valuable framework in the<br />
future achievement of zero carbon or carbon<br />
neutral residential buildings (UKGBC, 2009).<br />
The similarity of Irish building regulation,<br />
procurement and design processes and<br />
construction methods to those of the UK would<br />
suggest that the adoption of a suite of BRE<br />
methods could be achieved without diffi culty.<br />
Training to become a certifi ed BREEAM<br />
Assessor is delivered by BRE. A BREEAM<br />
International assessor can carry out assessments<br />
outside the UK using standard or Bespoke<br />
International schemes. Training comprises three<br />
day training, written examination and home-based<br />
case study. The training costs approx. €1,885.<br />
There is no annual licence fee <strong>for</strong> International<br />
assessors. A professional member of the design<br />
team can become a BREEAM Accredited<br />
Professional (AP); if an AP is part of the design<br />
team up to three credits are awarded. Training<br />
comprises mainly on-line training, workshop and<br />
written examination, and costs approx. €850.<br />
There are a number of ways to work with<br />
BRE to adapt BREEAM to Irish conditions which<br />
include two options:<br />
National Scheme Operator (NSO): The<br />
development of a new scheme adapted to local<br />
conditions, subject to approval by BRE Global, to<br />
be affi liated to BRE but operated by the National<br />
Scheme Operator under licence by BRE Global.<br />
The scheme operator could be the IGBC. The<br />
organisation must sign a licence agreement<br />
with BRE Global that sets out the contractual<br />
responsibilities <strong>for</strong> themselves and BRE Global, the<br />
terms and conditions and fees. The organisation<br />
must contribute to the ongoing development of<br />
BREEAM by actively participating in the NSO<br />
activities. The length of the process depends on<br />
the level of adaptation and the availability of local<br />
experts to <strong>for</strong>m representative working groups<br />
to advance the adaptation of the scheme. The<br />
timescale of the full process <strong>for</strong> an organisation to<br />
become a NSO and approve an affi liated scheme<br />
is typically over 18 months. The annual licence<br />
fee associated with an NSO is approx. €38,000<br />
<strong>for</strong> all approved schemes in the fi rst Life Cycle<br />
Stage (there are fi ve Life Cycle Stages: Planning,<br />
New Construction, In Use, Refurbishment and<br />
Deconstruction) and €6,250 <strong>for</strong> all Approved<br />
Schemes under each subsequent Life Cycle Stage.<br />
An annual audit fee of €18,800 covers all audits<br />
by BRE Global <strong>for</strong> the NSO at any stage during<br />
the year. The NSO defi nes the Certifi cation and<br />
Training fees but provides 5% of the income to<br />
BRE Global. The development of new schemes,<br />
not already within the BRE suite, can only be<br />
undertaken within this framework; however, BRE<br />
Global has expressed a willingness to negotiate<br />
with the IGBC.<br />
Technical Development: BRE Global operates<br />
a procedure that allows country-specifi c codes or<br />
standards to be added to the International New<br />
Construction 2012 scheme which is operated<br />
by BRE Global following the development of<br />
the country specifi c issues with, and approved<br />
by, BRE Global. The IGBC, or another industry<br />
body, could be the organisation to develop the<br />
appropriate technical changes with BRE Global.<br />
35<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
36<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
The changes are generally limited to Checklist<br />
A10. The timescale of the technical work will<br />
depend on the content delivered by the national<br />
organisation, which will collect the in<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
and develop an appropriate Checklist A10. The<br />
production of a country-specifi c checklist, rather<br />
than a scheme, would mean that the BREEAM<br />
International scheme would have a quicker<br />
uptake and would be less costly to adapt. BRE<br />
Global act as the Certifi cation body and operate<br />
the scheme. Standard International fees apply <strong>for</strong><br />
registration and certifi cation.<br />
BRE also subcontract training to both NSOs<br />
or other bodies such as the IGBC even where the<br />
national organisation is only involved in technical<br />
development. Training costs vary dependent<br />
on the scheme, but <strong>for</strong> example the fee <strong>for</strong> the<br />
BREEAM International Course is €1,850 (BRE,<br />
2012).<br />
DGNB<br />
DGNB is a non-profi t and non-governmental<br />
organization that operates and certifi es the DGNB<br />
Certifi cation System. An international DGNB<br />
Partner network has been established with a<br />
view to drawing up cooperation agreements<br />
or memoranda of understanding to provide<br />
a DGNB system tailored to local needs.<br />
Where partners are not yet established or<br />
adaptations not yet completed, DGNB offers<br />
certifi cation based on EU legislation, standards<br />
and technical guidelines.<br />
The DGNB Academy was founded to<br />
provide expertise on sustainable building to all<br />
stakeholders and provides training to specifi c<br />
needs. DGNB provides training <strong>for</strong> international<br />
assessors. The DGNB Navigator is an on-line<br />
plat<strong>for</strong>m <strong>for</strong> sustainable construction products.<br />
The DGNB is based on a modular structure<br />
and on the defi nition of per<strong>for</strong>mance targets,<br />
not individual measures. The basic intention<br />
underlying the creation of the DGNB system was<br />
to allow an easy and fast adaptation to different<br />
types of climates, building types, standards,<br />
building techniques, etc. The systematic<br />
approach underlying DGNB is not changed in an<br />
adaptation process. What does change, however,<br />
is the interface between the basic structure and<br />
local specifi cs. The DGNB system is based on<br />
European standards (CEN/TC 350); national<br />
adaptation within Europe is thus particularly easy.<br />
As long as there are no major climatic differences,<br />
no major adjustments are needed. Through<br />
the defi nition of targets (rather than specifi c<br />
measures), adaptation to different construction<br />
techniques and different building products is<br />
not diffi cult.<br />
The DGNB system has already been adapted<br />
to various countries such as Austria, Bulgaria,<br />
Denmark, and Switzerland. An adaptation of<br />
the system to Brazil, China, and the Ukraine is<br />
under way. The adaptation of the core system<br />
and the training of the fi rst Irish auditors (who<br />
would then work as local experts on the system<br />
adaptation) should take approximately six<br />
months. The certifi cation of pilot projects, the<br />
subsequent evaluation of the adapted system,<br />
and the full implementation of the DGNB<br />
system would take approximately another<br />
12-18 months.<br />
The procedure <strong>for</strong> the adaptation of the<br />
DGNB system to another country usually is as<br />
follows: training of local experts – creation of local<br />
technical committees – adaptation in cooperation<br />
with DGNB – pilot projects – revision of adapted<br />
system – full implementation – continuous<br />
update and widening of the adapted system in<br />
cooperation with DGNB and the International<br />
DGNB Board respectively.
The Irish Green Building Council and other<br />
Irish stakeholders, as well as Irish green building<br />
experts, would be crucial <strong>for</strong> the adaptation<br />
process. DGNB provides basic system input and<br />
supports the adaptation; however, local knowhow<br />
as well as national target values can only be<br />
provided and defi ned by the Irish themselves.<br />
For DGNB, adaptation is a process that is part<br />
of an international movement, but that is strongly<br />
driven by local groups.<br />
The creation of specifi c new occupancy<br />
profi les in accordance with DGNB is always<br />
possible as long as the basic systematic approach<br />
is maintained. If applicable, these methods can<br />
also be made available to other members of the<br />
DGNB network. The expected timescale <strong>for</strong> the<br />
development of a new scheme is approximately<br />
6 months (but again, this depends very much on<br />
the dedication of the local experts working on<br />
the development).<br />
The main task is the adaptation of the core<br />
system – the adaptation of individual schemes<br />
can follow suit relatively quickly. Adaptation is<br />
normally carried out by local experts working<br />
on a voluntary basis. DGNB provides a limited<br />
amount of support without charge (approximately<br />
the equivalent of 300 man hours). Any specifi c<br />
consultancy that may be required in addition to<br />
the general support (e.g. LCA training) is offered<br />
at a daily rate of €1,000 (+ VAT and travel<br />
expenses) per trainer.<br />
The certifi cation fee charge by the IGBC is set<br />
by the IGBC itself (in agreement with DGNB).<br />
DGNB receives 15 per cent of these fees in<br />
exchange <strong>for</strong> providing the system content, the<br />
brand, support in the adaptation process and<br />
regular updates of the system. DGNB does<br />
not charge any annual fees or additional cost to<br />
IGBC.<br />
The cost <strong>for</strong> consultant training is roughly<br />
€3,000 <strong>for</strong> a member of a partner GBC. DGNB<br />
can provide tailor-made arrangements with<br />
reduced rates if partnered with local councils or<br />
group training. Profi ts resulting from such training<br />
in Ireland are split equally between DGNB and<br />
IGBC (DGNB, 2012).<br />
LEED<br />
The USGBC, the developer of the LEED<br />
environmental assessment method, does not<br />
manage its certifi cation process, but provides<br />
training and in<strong>for</strong>mation to assist in the<br />
achievement of LEED certifi cation. Certifi cation<br />
occurs through the Green Building Certifi cation<br />
Institute (GBCI), an independent non-profi t<br />
organisation that was established in 2008 with<br />
the support of USGBC. GBCI administers LEED<br />
certifi cation <strong>for</strong> all commercial and institutional<br />
projects registered under any LEED Rating<br />
System, in USA or abroad. USGBC administers<br />
the development and ongoing improvement<br />
of the LEED rating systems. USGBC is also the<br />
primary source <strong>for</strong> LEED and green building<br />
education and resources <strong>for</strong> project teams, such<br />
as reference guides, rating system addenda,<br />
workshops, online trainings and other support<br />
tools. GBCI and Green Building Council Italia<br />
have joined <strong>for</strong>ces in support of the pilot LEED<br />
Italia scheme (LEED Italia 2009 por le Nuove<br />
Costruzioni). GBCI maintains control of the<br />
certifi cation process. LEED has been adapted <strong>for</strong><br />
Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil and India.<br />
Training to become a LEED Accredited<br />
Professional (AP) is provided by USGBC, but<br />
the Green Building Certifi cation Institute (GBCI)<br />
administers the LEED Professional Credentials and<br />
Exams. It is not necessary to be a trained LEED<br />
AP, which costs approx €450, to undertake an<br />
assessment but a point is awarded if so qualifi ed.<br />
37<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
38<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
LEED has not been created with the ability<br />
to adapt or to be managed on a national basis,<br />
although the pilot scheme in Italy did suggest a<br />
change. However, it is tied to ASHRAE standards<br />
and is USA-focused in its approach to many issues<br />
(Parker, 2009).<br />
The USGBC has moved away from the<br />
development of country adapted certifi cation<br />
systems in favour of a globally consistent LEED<br />
assessment and certifi cation system that has<br />
built-in fl exibility <strong>for</strong> dealing with regional<br />
conditions. The certifi cation system, which is<br />
based on ASHRAE standards, cannot currently<br />
be adapted to suit European or national legislation<br />
or standards. Some fl exibility is in-built in the<br />
provision of Alternative Compliance Paths (to<br />
be renamed as Global Options) that can be used<br />
instead of original credit requirements outside of<br />
the US where original aspects might be diffi cult<br />
to achieve. LEED asserts the benefi t of global<br />
consistency, ensuring that LEED projects and<br />
LEED project professionals are recognized <strong>for</strong><br />
their leadership no matter where the project or<br />
the person is located.<br />
The USGBC sees the lack of input by national<br />
organizations and GBC as a positive feature that<br />
allows the GBC to free up its resources from<br />
rating system development and maintenance<br />
in favour of other activities such as advocacy,<br />
education, market awareness and focusing on<br />
specials projects. Many GBCs support LEED,<br />
generally alongside other adopted systems. Ways<br />
in which USGBC work with national groups or<br />
GBCs include providing content <strong>for</strong> education, upto-date<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation about LEED and encouraging<br />
LEED Professionals to participate in GBC events<br />
(USGBC, 2012b).<br />
LBC<br />
The Living Building Institute Ireland (LBII), affi liated<br />
to the International Living Future Institute, is the<br />
independent primary host, management and<br />
certifi cation body of LBC <strong>for</strong> Ireland. However,<br />
collaboration with the IGBC may be possible<br />
to allow limited rights to co-host/present and<br />
endorse the LBC, subject to an annual licence fee<br />
of €500 or €100 project referral fee (whichever<br />
is greater). Standard registration and certifi cation<br />
fees would be reviewed in light of an endorsement<br />
agreement.<br />
The LBII will shortly complete translation<br />
of the international LBC standard to suit<br />
Irish conditions, culture, and language. When<br />
completed and ratifi ed it will represent an LBC<br />
version considered suitable <strong>for</strong> Ireland and,<br />
subject to occasional revisions, further adaptation<br />
will not be necessary and is not envisaged. The<br />
LBC <strong>for</strong> Ireland includes the four standard LBC<br />
project typologies and no other typologies are<br />
envisaged or possible <strong>for</strong> development.<br />
Training will be provided by the LBII and fees will<br />
be negotiable (O’Brien, 2012).<br />
2.2.4 Comparability and<br />
Communicability<br />
As stated earlier, while there have been<br />
many research-based and commercial studies<br />
undertaken to compare selective groups of<br />
assessment methods, it is diffi cult to reference<br />
up-to-date, impartial in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
BRE compared a number of assessment<br />
methods (including BREEAM and LEED) in 2008<br />
and found that under normalised conditions<br />
across the rating criteria BREEAM sets higher<br />
standards in some categories than LEED (including<br />
energy, management, health and well-being),
and a LEED Platinum rated building (the highest<br />
LEED rating possible) was comparable with a<br />
BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rated building. Again<br />
according to BRE, building code standards in the<br />
USA are lower than those in the UK Building<br />
Regulations and so baseline standards differ<br />
(Saunders, 2008). A study which compared the<br />
application of BREEAM, DGNB and LEED to two<br />
Danish offi ce buildings came to a similar fi nding<br />
(a LEED Silver being comparable to a BREEAM<br />
Pass); this lower LEED standard was considered a<br />
disadvantage in the selection of an environmental<br />
assessment method <strong>for</strong> Denmark (Benchmark<br />
Centre, 2010). A comparison of BREEAM<br />
2009 Europe Commercial, DGNB 2009 New<br />
Construction <strong>for</strong> Offi ces and Administrative<br />
Buildings, and LEED 2009 New Construction<br />
and Major Renovations highlighted differences in<br />
the consideration of issues in the three schemes,<br />
with differing categories, criteria and weightings<br />
employed, particularly in economic, energy and<br />
management aspects (Alinghizadeh Kherzi, 2011).<br />
Also, the balance between prescriptive credits<br />
and required standards <strong>for</strong> credit achievement<br />
has an infl uence on comparability. LEED has<br />
less prescriptive credits (which are generally<br />
less onerous to achieve) than BREEAM, but<br />
required standards demand more calculations<br />
and more work to prove achievement. This is<br />
particularly so when using LEED <strong>for</strong> the fi rst time<br />
in Ireland, as becoming familiar with the ASHRAE<br />
standards and providing equivalences is very<br />
time consuming.<br />
In 2009 BREEAM, LEED and Green Star agreed<br />
to jointly develop common metrics to measure<br />
C02 emissions and to seek to align the methods<br />
(Sleeuw, 2011). LEED recently announced that<br />
LEED will recognise BREEAM Energy Credits in<br />
an ef<strong>for</strong>t to reduce work needed <strong>for</strong> projects<br />
choosing to use multiple certifi cation systems<br />
(USGBC, 2011).<br />
Both BREEAM and LEED are recognised as<br />
leaders in the fi eld of environmental assessment,<br />
with long track records of system operation and<br />
certifi cation. The fact that BREEAM is a privately<br />
managed and certifi ed system (and as such could<br />
be more susceptible to pressure from market<br />
<strong>for</strong>ces) while LEED is managed by USGBC, a<br />
network of 10,000 industry practitioners, and<br />
certifi ed by GBCI (and could be perceived to be<br />
more impartial) suggests that LEED may seem to<br />
offer a more open and transparent process, with<br />
published data on credit achievement. However,<br />
this is not necessarily highly valued in the market<br />
place. The value of a brand is related to the<br />
credibility they provide in the market place,<br />
and it may be that a system’s ability to adapt<br />
to differing market places, (which LEED does<br />
not try to achieve), that will be key to growing<br />
market share.<br />
While the absence of comparability between<br />
systems is an important issue in the future<br />
development of environmental assessment, it is<br />
the common frame of reference <strong>for</strong> environmental<br />
issues that is critical to driving the environmental<br />
agenda. The use of environmental assessment<br />
as an in<strong>for</strong>mation source <strong>for</strong> users is crucial to<br />
success in market trans<strong>for</strong>mation as the method<br />
is identifi ed with credible environmental design<br />
(Toth and Hizsnyik, 1998). The inclusion or<br />
omission of certain aspects of environmental<br />
design and associated credits can indirectly<br />
prioritise particular approaches to environmental<br />
issues (Udall and Schendler, 2005). Thus, the<br />
importance of clarity on the basis of evaluation<br />
and the transparency of the method are critical to<br />
user understanding and validation of the method.<br />
Furthermore, the transparency of the method is<br />
critical to its acceptability by the building industry<br />
and the public at large (Usher, 2004). It would<br />
be useful <strong>for</strong> the whole construction sector to<br />
understand what strategies are required to attain<br />
credits. Publication online of simplifi ed data from<br />
39<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
40<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
assessments would in<strong>for</strong>m the general public; this<br />
is available with LEED, and to a lesser extent with<br />
BREEAM (Fenner and Ryce, 2008). It is diffi cult to<br />
get data from BRE, (due to client confi dentiality),<br />
on the buildings assessed and the level to which<br />
they are certifi ed. It is too early to judge DGNB<br />
in this regard. However, it is the process of<br />
assessment and certifi cation that really highlights<br />
the differences in management processes. Both<br />
BREEAM and DGNB have similar certifi cation<br />
systems. BREEAM requires assessors (licensed by<br />
BRE) to assess the building, report it to the BRE,<br />
who issues the certifi cate. For LEED certifi cation<br />
design teams collate the in<strong>for</strong>mation, perhaps<br />
assisted by a LEED-AP, submit to USGBC and<br />
the building is certifi ed by GBCI (Inbuilt, 2010).<br />
LBC has the most transparent process of all<br />
four systems. Once the project is registered,<br />
active engagement commences with the Living<br />
Future Institute and designers of other registered<br />
projects, and members can share and discuss<br />
design strategies, tools and research fi ndings. The<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation <strong>for</strong> certifi cation is collected during<br />
the fi rst year of operation and is supported by<br />
a site visit by the Institute be<strong>for</strong>e confi rming<br />
certifi cation.<br />
2.3 Building Environmental Assessment<br />
Method <strong>for</strong> Ireland (IBEAM) Framework<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Categories and Weighting: Energy (25%),<br />
Indoor environmental quality (17.5%),<br />
Environmental Loading (15%), Site and<br />
Transport (17.5%), Water and waste (12.5%)<br />
and Materials (12.5%).<br />
Credit Score: Credits awarded equally <strong>for</strong><br />
each of the six categories, <strong>for</strong> 67 criteria with<br />
possible 240 points plus 10% in each category<br />
<strong>for</strong> Innovation.<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Certifi cation Rating: Not<br />
determined in research<br />
Certifi cation Phases: Not determined in<br />
research<br />
❚<br />
Certifi cation Process: Proposal included in<br />
research<br />
In 2005 the UCD Energy Research Group<br />
was awarded by the Environmental Protection<br />
Agency (EPA) ERTDI Programme a UCD<br />
MArchSc bursary to investigate the development<br />
of an environmental assessment method <strong>for</strong><br />
commercial buildings in Ireland. The intention of<br />
the research was to provide a framework <strong>for</strong> the<br />
creation of an assessment method particular to<br />
the Irish construction context and to develop a<br />
proposal <strong>for</strong> its introduction. An Industry Focus<br />
Committee (IFC) was <strong>for</strong>med representative<br />
of construction industry stakeholders, local<br />
authorities and policy makers, (including DECLG,<br />
OPW, SEAI, EPA, CIF) to guide the research<br />
and input to the development of environmental<br />
categories and assessment criteria.<br />
Three of the most widely used tools, BREEAM,<br />
GBTool (now SBTool) and LEED were compared<br />
and found to share certain characteristics and<br />
goals; however, differences and omissions in<br />
categories, assessment criteria scoring and<br />
weighting were evident also. The GBTool had<br />
the widest reaching criteria <strong>for</strong> assessment,<br />
possibly because it is an environmental<br />
framework rather that a certifi cation system.<br />
The heavy emphasis across all three on energy<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance, ventilation and environmental<br />
loadings facilitated discussion within the<br />
IFC on where this nation might wish to place<br />
its emphasis.<br />
An in-depth comparison was undertaken of<br />
each category, criterion, its intent, implementation<br />
stage and credits awarded <strong>for</strong> each of BREEAM,<br />
GBTool and LEED. The researcher, Neasa<br />
Hourigan, with guidance from the IFC and<br />
research supervisors, put <strong>for</strong>ward a proposal <strong>for</strong><br />
six categories with a total of 67 criteria, outlining
function, intent and implementation stage, building<br />
up to a recommended framework <strong>for</strong> assessment<br />
criteria <strong>for</strong> offi ce buildings in the Irish context. A<br />
structure emerged as indicated below.<br />
Energy<br />
Site &<br />
Transport<br />
Building In<strong>for</strong>mation<br />
Assessment Credits<br />
IEQ<br />
Water and Waste<br />
Category Scores<br />
Environmental<br />
Weighting<br />
Single Score<br />
Calculation<br />
IBEAM RATING<br />
The structure of the proposed framework.<br />
Source: Hourigan, 2009.<br />
Environmental<br />
Loadings<br />
Materials<br />
A weighting was proposed to the individual<br />
categories that refl ected perceived national policy<br />
of the time. The proposed criteria and credits are<br />
available <strong>for</strong> further study in the thesis and while<br />
they may require review and updating, they do<br />
<strong>for</strong>m an agreed approach, developed with the<br />
IFC, which could <strong>for</strong>m a basis <strong>for</strong> determining the<br />
adaptation of existing environmental assessment<br />
methods, or the development of a new assessment<br />
method <strong>for</strong> Ireland.<br />
% 0<br />
Recommended Weighting <strong>for</strong> Assessment Categories.<br />
Source: Hourigan, 2009.<br />
Many issues emerged as being fundamental in<br />
the development of an appropriate national<br />
assessment method, particularly in the areas<br />
of design sustainability, materials, and system<br />
implementation, as indicated below:<br />
Design Sustainability<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Advocate cost benefi t from early passive<br />
design strategies<br />
Implement integrated design process and<br />
management<br />
Reward simplifi cation of design and building<br />
services, robust construction and high<br />
standard specifi cation<br />
Materials<br />
❚<br />
Provision of independent registry of material<br />
and component specifi cations<br />
System Implementation<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
25<br />
20<br />
15<br />
10<br />
5<br />
Energy<br />
Indoor Environmental Quality<br />
Site<br />
Method to be simple and accessible<br />
Certifi cation body to be objective and free<br />
from private sector infl uence<br />
Implemented by governmental body or<br />
Water<br />
Materials<br />
Environmental Loading<br />
Innovation<br />
41<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
42<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
authority<br />
Review building operation and certifi cation<br />
regularly.<br />
The research project considered the strategies<br />
suitable to achieve a successful implementation<br />
and market adoption of the system proposed. It<br />
identifi ed those members of industry who may<br />
be directly involved or responsible <strong>for</strong> delivery<br />
of a system, and those whose participation or<br />
support may be necessary <strong>for</strong> its success. First<br />
party initiators are those who may implement<br />
the scheme, i.e. ,the client or building owner,<br />
the project design team, the management<br />
and accreditation body <strong>for</strong> the scheme, and<br />
Government bodies that may support the scheme.<br />
Second party initiators are those whose support<br />
is necessary to launch and operate the scheme<br />
i.e. the construction and supply chain industry.<br />
Third party initiators are those whose support<br />
or demand <strong>for</strong> such a scheme will increase its<br />
application i.e. the building industry stakeholders,<br />
professional bodies and the consumer.<br />
The IFC saw the clear identifi cation of key users<br />
and benefactors as one of the crucial fi rst steps<br />
towards effective implementation. This facilitates<br />
the targeting of the method towards those<br />
elements of the construction industry that can<br />
achieve meaningful trans<strong>for</strong>mation, and provides<br />
a basis upon which consideration can be given to<br />
two paths of implementation – the market-led<br />
voluntary approach that offers increased market<br />
competitiveness and the implementation through<br />
regulatory bodies to gain wider benefi ts of<br />
sustainable buildings. The research considers the<br />
various bodies who might become responsible <strong>for</strong><br />
implementation and the roles of governmental,<br />
local authority and private initiatives in the<br />
adoption of an environmental assessment<br />
method. The research makes recommendations<br />
<strong>for</strong> the adoption of both approaches under the<br />
headings of Communications, Co-operation<br />
and Perceived Value Factors, highlighting the<br />
action leader and target group <strong>for</strong> each <strong>for</strong> each<br />
recommendation. It concludes by highlighting<br />
a summary of recommendations and the need<br />
<strong>for</strong> capital investment and knowledge exchange<br />
(Hourigan, 2009).<br />
2.4 Localisation of environmental<br />
assessment methods<br />
The IBEAM research project highlights the<br />
commitment necessary from all stakeholders in<br />
the development of an adapted method, or a new<br />
method <strong>for</strong> Ireland. Both Spain and Portugal have<br />
recently developed generic national assessment<br />
methods in parallel, SBTool Verde and SBTool<br />
PT, based on the SBTool framework. This has<br />
increased interest in the development of new<br />
methodologies with the purpose of providing<br />
a methodology specifi c to national policy and<br />
benchmarks. Portugal perceived the route as<br />
one which requires discussion at all levels with<br />
all stakeholders and a process that requires great<br />
commitment (Mateus and Braganca, 2011). The<br />
Spanish GBC indicated that the development<br />
of a new method, which took three years,<br />
was considered much more onerous than the<br />
adaptation of an existing method; however, once<br />
developed, they have more quickly developed<br />
three schemes <strong>for</strong> Housing, Offi ces and Bespoke.<br />
An advantage of the development of a nationally<br />
focussed method is that it could provide a<br />
robust and consistent basis <strong>for</strong> the development<br />
of guidelines <strong>for</strong> green public procurement. A<br />
IGBC survey undertaken at the Better Building<br />
International Conference (April 2012) indicated<br />
that participants did not see any good reason to<br />
develop an environmental assessment method<br />
specifi cally <strong>for</strong> Ireland. In particular, building<br />
designers thought that the adoption of an existing<br />
system, adapted to refl ect Irish climatic and<br />
constructional practices, to be the best option.
2.5 Green Building Councils and<br />
environmental assessment<br />
Green Building Councils in many countries<br />
have a role in the development, adaptation<br />
and management of environmental assessment<br />
methods.<br />
The IGBC interviewed the Danish, Dutch,<br />
Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish and Romanian GBCs<br />
to ascertain the process of national adoption of<br />
an environmental assessment system. Denmark<br />
adopted the DGNB New Modernisation and<br />
Existing Offi ces and Administration Building<br />
methodology; the Netherlands and Norway<br />
adopted BREEAM; while Sweden adopted<br />
BREEAM and LEED, alongside the existing<br />
national method Miljobyggnad (which has been<br />
handed over to the Swedish GBC to manage) and<br />
Spain developed a national methodology, SBTool<br />
VERDE based on the Canadian iiSBE SBTool.<br />
Romania has not yet adopted an assessment<br />
system but is in discussion with both BRE<br />
and USGBC.<br />
Systems adopted, adapted, developed or supported by<br />
the various Green Building Councils.<br />
NOTE: In<strong>for</strong>mation opposite, sourced from the web, and<br />
personal communication, is not exhaustive and does not<br />
include every European country.<br />
Systems adopted, adapted, developed or supported by<br />
the various Green Building Councils.<br />
NOTE: In<strong>for</strong>mation opposite, sourced from the web,<br />
and personal communication, is not exhaustive and<br />
does not include every European country.<br />
GBC System Role<br />
Austria Adopted DGNB<br />
Bulgaria Bulgaria is in a joint venture with the<br />
German Sustainable Building Council<br />
and has adopted DGNB.<br />
Czech Republic Have signed memorandum of understanding<br />
to adopt, BREEAM, and<br />
DGNB <strong>for</strong> use in Czech Republic, SB<br />
Tool also in use.<br />
Denmark Adopted DGNB<br />
France Developed HQE specifi cally <strong>for</strong><br />
France, which recently has been<br />
adopted <strong>for</strong> Brazil, under the name<br />
Aqua<br />
Germany Developed the DGNB tool with the<br />
Department of Transport and Urban<br />
Planning<br />
Hellenic (Greece) Have signed memorandum of understanding<br />
with DGNB to explore<br />
adopting DGNB without precluding<br />
the use of other systems.<br />
The Netherlands NSO <strong>for</strong> BRE, Negotiated contract<br />
with BRE Global which allows them<br />
autonomy to develop schemes and<br />
credits under the BREEAM name.<br />
Italy Adopted LEED. This is the last<br />
national council to be allowed to<br />
adopt LEED, as the USGBC no longer<br />
allows country-specifi c adoptation<br />
of LEED. The Italian GBC operates<br />
in the Trentino region of Italy with a<br />
chapter of Puglia. There is also an Italian<br />
national system.<br />
Norway NSO <strong>for</strong> BRE, Recently completed<br />
process of adoptation of BREEAM as<br />
the national assessment system. Also<br />
participate in the Round Table adoption<br />
of LEED <strong>for</strong> international use.<br />
Poland Have signed memorandum of agreement<br />
<strong>for</strong> adoption of DGNB and<br />
BREEAM, LEED is also used.<br />
Romania Do not offi cially support any system<br />
currently.<br />
Russia Do not offi cially support any particular<br />
system.<br />
Spain Developed SB Verde from the SB<br />
Tool framework developed by iiSBE.<br />
Also on the Round Table <strong>for</strong> the<br />
internationalisation of LEED. Instututo<br />
Technologo Galicia has adopted<br />
BREEAM <strong>for</strong> Spain<br />
Serbia Are providing education and training<br />
in LEED and BREEAM but has not<br />
offi cially adopted or supported any<br />
particular system<br />
Sweden Licensed scheme operator BREEAM<br />
and currently adopting BREEAM. Also<br />
support nationally developed system<br />
Myljobyggnad which has the wider<br />
use. Also supports LEED.<br />
UK Do not offi cially support any particular<br />
system, but the Government<br />
support BREEAM.<br />
United States Developed LEED<br />
43<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
44<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
A questionnaire was developed <strong>for</strong> telephone<br />
interviews which were undertaken with GBCs in<br />
early 2012. Refer to Appendix B. The following is<br />
based on the responses.<br />
In most countries the GBC founding members<br />
selected, by consensus, the system to adopt<br />
based on an investigation into alternative systems<br />
which was undertaken by a GBC Task Group<br />
or a university research body <strong>for</strong> the GBC.<br />
The investigation was, as a minimum, a desktop<br />
evaluation of systems often followed by a building<br />
application evaluation, which took a maximum<br />
of eighteen months to complete, with an<br />
additional three to six months <strong>for</strong> methodology<br />
adaptation.<br />
Most identifi ed ‘international recognition’ and<br />
‘ease of adaptability’ as the two most important<br />
issues considered in choosing a system. Individual<br />
systems were also chosen <strong>for</strong> particular reasons;<br />
e.g., inclusion of life cycle analysis (BREEAM<br />
and DGNB) and alignment to EU CEN350<br />
standards (DGNB). While Sweden adopted<br />
LEED, others dismissed it stating lack of fl exibility<br />
<strong>for</strong> adaptation and non-alignment with European<br />
policy and standards as the reason <strong>for</strong> dismissal.<br />
Spain considered the availability of LEED in Spain<br />
to be suitable <strong>for</strong> large international corporations<br />
but the development of a national method more<br />
appropriate <strong>for</strong> residential and other occupancy<br />
profi le buildings.<br />
Financial considerations were not taken into<br />
consideration in general. In Denmark, however,<br />
fi nances became a major consideration in system<br />
selection. The BRE National Scheme Operator<br />
annual licence fee was considered too high to<br />
be supported by the level of certifi cation in<br />
a small country and the DGNB fee structure<br />
was considered to be more cost-effective.<br />
While individual countries, the Netherlands<br />
<strong>for</strong> example, had negotiated a better fi nancial<br />
arrangement with BRE, it was suggested that<br />
GBCs should come together to negotiate with<br />
system providers, particularly in countries<br />
where the volume of construction is low and<br />
annual licensing fees (rather than usage fees) are<br />
inappropriately high and represent too much risk<br />
<strong>for</strong> the GBC. DGNB charges no annual licence<br />
fee or adaptation fee, and the fee is based on a<br />
percentage of the annual usage of the scheme.<br />
This eliminated the fi nancial risk <strong>for</strong> the Danish<br />
GBC which manages the system in Denmark.<br />
Those who adapted BREEAM indicate that the<br />
changes required were minimal, mainly to remove<br />
non-applicable issues rather than adaptation<br />
to national criteria. They did not consider that<br />
they achieved national autonomy and felt such<br />
achievement would slow up the process further,<br />
and tended to develop guidance alongside the<br />
methodology rather than integrating e.g. life cycle<br />
analysis of materials. The Dutch GBC utilised<br />
their own database <strong>for</strong> material analysis. In all<br />
cases those who adopted BREEAM seemed very<br />
happy with that choice, and the level of take up<br />
has been very good.<br />
Denmark considers that they have good<br />
autonomy over the development of DGNB<br />
and found it to be very adaptable to Danish<br />
requirements; but cannot, as yet, assess the level<br />
of take-up as it was only recently adopted. It is<br />
well liked by stakeholders involved, particularly<br />
by architects as they feel it better refl ects the<br />
social and economic aspects of sustainability.<br />
They are working on the development of an area<br />
assessment method, and a healthcare method is<br />
being piloted on a large public hospital.<br />
Spain has achieved national autonomy in the<br />
development of SBTool Verde, but considered<br />
the process of its development to have been very<br />
time-consuming. They consider that the process<br />
was more diffi cult than adapting an existing
method. It took three years to develop the<br />
methodology, although this may well have been<br />
because Spain was the fi rst country, in parallel<br />
with Portugal, to develop a national SBTool.<br />
Three occupancy profi les have been developed<br />
<strong>for</strong> residential, offi ces and bespoke buildings,<br />
however, take up has been slow because they<br />
came to the market in 2008 when new build<br />
construction effectively ceased. The current<br />
development of a retrofi t method is expected to<br />
achieve greater uptake.<br />
45<br />
2. INTERNATIONAL <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong> <strong>METHOD</strong>S<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
3<br />
<strong>IRELAND</strong> AND<br />
<strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong><br />
<strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
3.1 Environmental policy, legislation<br />
and standards<br />
In Ireland in the recent past, the focus in the<br />
construction industry at national level has been<br />
on the implementation of EU Directives that<br />
were primarily directed at improving the energy<br />
effi ciency of buildings, which is recognised by the<br />
EU as the easiest, quickest and most effective way<br />
to reduce energy dependence and damage to<br />
the environment (COM, 2006). Ireland has been<br />
recognised as exemplary in the transposition of<br />
the EU Directive on the Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
of Buildings (EPBD), (EU, 2002) into national<br />
legislation, mainly through the Building Control<br />
Act 2005 and Statutory Instrument SI No. 666<br />
European Communities (Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
Buildings) Regulations 2006. The 2005, 2007/8 and<br />
2011 amendments to Building Regulation Part L<br />
Conservation of Fuel and Energy have emphasised<br />
the assessment of building per<strong>for</strong>mance and<br />
delivered signifi cant energy saving in new build<br />
construction (IEA, 2010). Elements of the Irish<br />
construction industry have shown interest in the<br />
Passivhaus Standard as the basis of low energy<br />
design, extending the focus to electrical energy<br />
and assisting in the improvement of generally poor<br />
construction practices, with an emphasis on the<br />
reduction of air infi ltration and thermal bridging.<br />
The PPHP software has been adapted <strong>for</strong> Irish<br />
climatic conditions and monitoring has been<br />
undertaken of recently constructed dwellings<br />
leading to investigative research in Ireland. The<br />
most recently built student housing in UCD has<br />
been certifi ed as Passivhaus Standard and is<br />
currently being monitored by the UCD Energy<br />
Research Group.<br />
The National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan<br />
(NEEAP) required within the EU Energy Enduse<br />
Effi ciency Energy Services Directive (ESD)<br />
(EU, 2006) was published as Maximising Ireland’s<br />
Energy Effi ciency – The National Energy Effi ciency<br />
Action Plan 2009-2020 (DCENR, 2009), building<br />
on the Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020<br />
(DCMNR, 2007) outlining a framework to<br />
achieving a sustainable energy future with security<br />
of supply, provision of more af<strong>for</strong>dable energy,<br />
improved national competitiveness and reduced<br />
green house gas emissions in Ireland. A revised<br />
NEEAP will be published shortly.<br />
The commitment to a 20% reduction in<br />
energy demand by 2020 across the whole<br />
economy and a 33% reduction in public sector<br />
energy are set out in key measures that require<br />
public sector, business and residential sectors<br />
to be more energy effi cient in their buildings,<br />
appliances, equipment, processes, transport<br />
means and energy systems. It has been projected<br />
that savings from existing and committed actions<br />
(including regulation and incentive programmes)<br />
could account <strong>for</strong> 75% of Ireland’s 2020 target.<br />
In order to achieve additional effi ciencies in the<br />
public sector new building standards, stricter than<br />
Building Regulation requirements, are applied to<br />
some building types such as school buildings, and<br />
signifi cant energy saving measures are applied<br />
to existing public buildings eg. installation of<br />
compact fl uorescent lamps. A major retrofi tting<br />
programme has been adopted by Government.<br />
The OECD Environmental Per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
review (OECD, 2009) recognised the signifi cant<br />
progress that had been made since 2000 with<br />
improved environmental policies and the<br />
introduction of national legislation in areas such<br />
as environmental licensing, waste management<br />
and water resource management. Relevant<br />
policy statements include The National Climate<br />
Change Strategy; Smarter Travel – A Sustainable<br />
Transport Future; National Biodiversity Plan;<br />
Government Policy on Architecture; National<br />
Action Plan <strong>for</strong> Social Inclusion; and the more<br />
recent Draft National Action Plan on Green<br />
Public Procurement; Strategy <strong>for</strong> Af<strong>for</strong>dable<br />
47<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
48<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Energy; and the Strategy on Renewable Energy<br />
2012-2020.<br />
Our Sustainable Future, a Framework <strong>for</strong><br />
Sustainable Development <strong>for</strong> Ireland, in the words<br />
of the Department of Environment, Community<br />
and Local Government is ‘a joined-up approach<br />
to policy making on sustainable development,<br />
it sets out 70 measures that will ensure we<br />
improve our quality of life <strong>for</strong> current and<br />
future generations and sets out clear measures,<br />
responsibilities and timelines in an implementation<br />
plan. These include areas such as the sustainability<br />
of public fi nances and economic resilience,<br />
natural resources, agriculture, climate change,<br />
transport, public health, education, innovation<br />
and research, education, skills and training, and<br />
global poverty. While considerable progress has<br />
been made in integrating sustainability principles<br />
into public policy making in Ireland since the fi rst<br />
national strategy in this area was published in<br />
1997, signifi cant gaps remain across a range of<br />
economic, social and environmental policy areas’<br />
Launching the Framework on the 6 June 2012,<br />
the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, T.D., commented; “Our<br />
Sustainable Future is very deliberately ambitious<br />
in both scope and intent. The Green economy is<br />
a central plank to our economic recovery and this<br />
was recognised in the Action Plan <strong>for</strong> Jobs 2012.<br />
This Framework sets out a medium to long-term<br />
plan to guide the essential work we need to do<br />
to progress the sustainable development agenda<br />
and more fully embrace the green economy in<br />
Ireland”. It highlights the necessity <strong>for</strong> the further<br />
development of Sustainable Development<br />
Indicators (SDI) and green infrastructure, and<br />
defi nes programmes <strong>for</strong> resource effi ciency and<br />
GPP as short-term goals (DECLG, 2012).<br />
3.2 Public sector and building<br />
environmental assessment<br />
While Ireland has a good reputation in<br />
implementing some EU Directives in national<br />
regulation, the Irish market tends to emphasise<br />
competitiveness and market growth and that<br />
Government supports this perspective by<br />
avoiding compulsory environmental policies as<br />
a whole (Hourigan, 2009). The slow growth of<br />
environmental assessment of buildings has been<br />
led by market <strong>for</strong>ces as a voluntary mechanism<br />
<strong>for</strong> effecting sustainable development to obtain<br />
market advantage. There is little evidence of how<br />
environmental assessment supports national<br />
policy and what role it could have in effecting<br />
real change.<br />
The Offi ce of Public Works (OPW)<br />
commissioned the drafting of a sustainability<br />
policy, which stated objectives in the reduction<br />
of energy consumption, the reduction and<br />
avoidance of waste, green procurement of<br />
products, reduction of risks to health and<br />
the environments, and staff understanding of<br />
sustainability. With respect to environmental<br />
assessment of buildings it states that by 2010 all<br />
new build and refurbishments should achieve<br />
BREEAM Very Good rating or OPW equivalent,<br />
and by 2008 all new building and refurbishment<br />
over €1 million would achieve BREEAM Very<br />
Good rating or OPW equivalent (OPW, 2007).<br />
OPW trained a number of BREEAM assessors in<br />
the achievement of the objectives.<br />
Environmental issues were embedded in the<br />
design and tender stages <strong>for</strong> building construction<br />
projects within the Public Service De-centralisation<br />
Programme (announced in 2003 and cancelled in<br />
2011) and the Department of Defence building<br />
programme. A number of buildings in both<br />
programmes were designed in accordance with<br />
BREEAM assessment criteria and assessed at
post-construction stage. While certifi ed public<br />
buildings could have showcased good practice to<br />
industry, in reality few buildings were certifi ed.<br />
The system was perceived to be too diffi cult to<br />
implement across all buildings and the focus is now<br />
on the development of guidelines <strong>for</strong> Green Public<br />
Procurement (GPP).<br />
The Draft National Action Plan on Green<br />
Public Procurement (DECLG, 2011), was published<br />
in line with the EC requirement of 2003 and<br />
subsequent Directives in 2004 which focussed<br />
on coordinating procurement procedures and<br />
is a potential driver in developing the green<br />
economy in Ireland. It takes cognisance of the<br />
EU’s Sustainable Consumption and Production<br />
and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan<br />
(COM, 2008b) which brings together other EU<br />
Strategies, Regulations and Directives on waste,<br />
water, natural resources and eco labelling. It<br />
complements and strengthens existing national<br />
legislation and public policy targets in the areas<br />
of procurement, environmental protection, social<br />
policy, and fostering innovation.<br />
The Draft National Action Plan supports<br />
the national drive to achieving greater value <strong>for</strong><br />
money in public procurement, which can impact<br />
production and consumption trends and generate<br />
demand <strong>for</strong> ‘greener’ goods, and increase the<br />
market <strong>for</strong> environmentally benign products<br />
and services. It promotes life cycle thinking on<br />
the appraisal of capital projects and cost benefi t<br />
analysis, enabling the long term environmental<br />
impacts associated with the purchase, operating<br />
costs and end-of-life costs of goods and services<br />
to be evaluated by public procurers and their<br />
suppliers. It sets out a long term vision <strong>for</strong> GPP<br />
in the construction sector and outlines six key<br />
aspects, through which it can be embedded in<br />
the construction sector; Design, Ecology and<br />
Site Utilities, Energy, Materials, Refurbishment<br />
and Specifi cation.<br />
The OPW is currently developing guidance,<br />
supported by the EC GPP Training Toolkit,<br />
on how in practice to attain targets <strong>for</strong> nonresidential<br />
procurement which is expected to<br />
be published late 2012. The guidance will take<br />
the <strong>for</strong>m of defi ning ’Core’ and ‘Comprehensive’<br />
criteria, developed by the EU Commission (core<br />
criteria are those that can be used with minimum<br />
additional verifi cation or cost increases, and<br />
comprehensive criteria are those that require<br />
additional verifi cation and some increase in cost).<br />
In defi ning the categories and criteria there are<br />
similarities with the categories and criteria in<br />
environmental assessment methods. However,<br />
the basis <strong>for</strong> the harmonised standard is building<br />
eco labelling, criteria selection based on economic<br />
feasibility, and evaluation on operational<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance (Burke, 2012). This suggests that<br />
while existing budgets <strong>for</strong> public buildings may not<br />
increase in the near future the current disconnect<br />
between capital cost and operational costs may<br />
be reviewed. The extent of implementation will<br />
determine its success, but it may well be that in<br />
the near future public buildings will demonstrate<br />
environmental impact in a similar manner to<br />
certifi ed private sector buildings.<br />
Current guidelines within the Department<br />
of the Environment, Communities and Local<br />
Government are seen as the basis <strong>for</strong> the<br />
development of future guidance and the<br />
amendment of Building Regulations over time<br />
to address GPP requirements <strong>for</strong> residential<br />
buildings (O’Connor, 2012).<br />
Many Governmental Departments require<br />
specifi c environmental or energy standards greater<br />
than current Building Regulation requirements.<br />
The Department of Education and Skills (DES)<br />
provides Technical Guidance Documents, the<br />
requirements of which must be applied to all<br />
construction projects, both primary and postprimary<br />
schools, funded in part or in total by DES.<br />
The guidelines require passive design principles<br />
49<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
50<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
to be integrated into school building design to<br />
achieve a com<strong>for</strong>table indoor environment with<br />
specifi c requirements <strong>for</strong> natural ventilation rates<br />
and daylight and acoustic levels. High per<strong>for</strong>mance<br />
building envelope construction must take account<br />
of air permeability, material specifi cation and<br />
good construction practices. Other issues such<br />
as water conservation and control of space and<br />
water heating must be included. A building energy<br />
rating of at least A3 must be achieved.<br />
There is no requirement <strong>for</strong> a specifi c<br />
environmental assessment method to be applied<br />
to school building projects. The DES employed<br />
independent consultants in 2003 to evaluate the<br />
application of BREEAM to new school projects<br />
who concluded that the method did not suit<br />
the DES requirements, and in particular, its<br />
application would not provide value <strong>for</strong> money,<br />
as many of the strategies evaluated were not<br />
appropriate or cost effective <strong>for</strong> the occupancy<br />
profi le of schools. It is believed that the inclusion<br />
of specifi c requirements appropriate to schools<br />
can be delivered more cost effectively through<br />
the requirements of the technical guidance<br />
provided (Dolan, 2012).<br />
The Health Services Executive (HSE) does<br />
not have a stated policy on environmental<br />
issues; however, they have embedded individual<br />
appropriate environmental strategies in projects<br />
in the past and they require two current projects,<br />
the National Children’s Hospital and the National<br />
Forensic Mental Health project, to be assessed<br />
and certifi ed with BREEAM <strong>for</strong> the benefi t of the<br />
projects themselves and to in<strong>for</strong>m future capital<br />
development. Some aspects of the BREEAM<br />
evaluation criteria eg. site evaluation, may hinder<br />
a good rating being targeted, or others may not<br />
be appropriate to certain types of healthcare<br />
facility. If a more appropriate assessment method<br />
became available it would be considered. The<br />
HSE requires a cost benefi t assessment of the<br />
various evaluation criteria set out in the different<br />
environmental certifi cation systems, and of<br />
the costs of implementing these systems to be<br />
undertaken to establish what added value is<br />
achieved with their application. It is proposed<br />
to implement a more rigorous approach and<br />
possibly develop or adopt policy in this area in<br />
the near future (Masterson, 2012).<br />
The Industrial Development Authority (IDA)<br />
developed a strategic roadmap to sustainability<br />
based on the fi ndings of a study, Sustainability<br />
Frameworks <strong>for</strong> Business Parks and Strategic<br />
Sites, undertaken by international consultants<br />
CH2M HILL in 2008. The study focussed<br />
on developing sustainable strategies in three<br />
areas – the built environment, greenfi eld<br />
development and alternative energy sources.<br />
Within the built environment study area they<br />
undertook a comparison of BREEAM and LEED<br />
environmental assessment methods to assess the<br />
appropriateness of each method to IDA activities.<br />
The IDA’s focus is to attract <strong>for</strong>eign investment<br />
that is of high value, requiring high skill levels and<br />
a sophisticated business environment, and as<br />
such, it is essential to offer a competitive product<br />
to the market. They recognised that the provision<br />
of a high per<strong>for</strong>mance building, with low life cycle<br />
costs, was necessary to attract <strong>for</strong>eign investors,<br />
and particularly those from the USA, where large<br />
multi nationals were familiar with the concept of<br />
building environmental assessment. The study<br />
concluded that BREEAM and LEED systems<br />
were equally valid from a technical perspective.<br />
However, it was suggested that the LEED system<br />
would be easier to implement because it was<br />
perceived to be more accessible and transparent<br />
to the design industry (BREEAM can only be<br />
acquired through a licensed assessor) and also<br />
because its credit requirements are well defi ned.<br />
It was also more familiar to the IDA’s clients, 80%<br />
of which come from the USA.
In 2009 the IDA adopted the principles of<br />
LEED as the baseline <strong>for</strong> its future building designs<br />
<strong>for</strong> both manufacturing and offi ce buildings. Most<br />
often the standard LEED Core and Shell profi le<br />
is utilised to obtain ‘design’ certifi cation be<strong>for</strong>e<br />
construction of the facility and subsequent<br />
leasing or sale to clients. However, environmental<br />
assessment is not imposed by the IDA on the<br />
further development of the building – it is the<br />
client’s choice to continue or not, or to use a<br />
different method of assessment – but the IDA does<br />
encourage sustainable management within leasing<br />
agreements. The IDA completed a construction<br />
cost analysis exercise which highlighted that there<br />
is no added cost in achieving LEED Silver Core and<br />
Shell in manufacturing buildings, while an 8% cost<br />
increase in offi ce buildings was predicted. Many<br />
clients continue the LEED assessment on large<br />
offi ce buildings, or use the LBC Materials Red List<br />
(ILFI, 2012) or the RICS-led Ska environmental<br />
assessment method <strong>for</strong> smaller and retrofi t<br />
commercial projects (RICS, 2012).<br />
It is understandable that the IDA has adopted<br />
LEED, as it provides the product which the<br />
majority of its clients require. It is also probable<br />
that if the client requirement altered or if<br />
Irish Building Regulation energy requirements<br />
surpassed the fairly low baseline in LEED, that its<br />
use would be reassessed. It has been suggested<br />
that the USGBC, while not in favour of national<br />
adaptations, could develop a generic method<br />
<strong>for</strong> use in Europe that refl ects EU standards and<br />
requirements (Lohan, 2012).<br />
3.3 Private sector and building<br />
environmental assessment<br />
The RICS certifi cation statistics (RICS, 2011)<br />
indicate that no commercial buildings had been<br />
certifi ed with BREEAM, DNGB, HQE or LEED<br />
systems in Ireland by May 2011. It indicates that<br />
seven commercial buildings have been registered<br />
<strong>for</strong> certifi cation with BREEAM and nine have been<br />
registered <strong>for</strong> certifi cation with LEED systems.<br />
Haucke and Volkening in their analysis <strong>for</strong> IVG<br />
(2011) support this view, with no certifi ed buildings<br />
indicated in its survey data <strong>for</strong> Ireland. Hendrick<br />
(2012) undertook a survey of Irish building industry<br />
use of environmental assessment methods which<br />
indicated that building environmental assessment<br />
was being utilised to a greater extent than the<br />
published statistics would suggest. According to<br />
the survey data BREEAM has market dominance,<br />
having about two thirds of the assessed large<br />
budget, new construction in Ireland, with LEED<br />
having the other one third. The respondents<br />
were primarily architects, who indicated the main<br />
benefi t of the assessment method was improved<br />
design due to the focussed and early design team<br />
decision-making. The most prevalent reason<br />
given by respondents <strong>for</strong> using the assessment<br />
method was marketing value, followed closely by<br />
improving building per<strong>for</strong>mance and specifying<br />
building per<strong>for</strong>mance.<br />
At the 2012 Better Building International<br />
Conference ‘Valuing Green Building’ session<br />
chaired by Roland O’Connell of the Society of<br />
Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI), there<br />
appeared to be disagreement as to whether<br />
there was actually a green premium <strong>for</strong> rent or<br />
investment associated with better environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance. Russell Francis of Colliers indicated,<br />
and Marie Hunt of CBRE Ireland agreed, that<br />
it had not yet been demonstrated in Ireland.<br />
However, Brian Moran of international property<br />
investors and developers Hines, argued that<br />
this was irrelevant as the ‘brown’ discount <strong>for</strong><br />
developers and buildings with poor environmental<br />
records was far more signifi cant - reportedly<br />
large investment funds are now only lending to<br />
developers with credible records in corporate<br />
social responsibility and sustainability. He<br />
suggested that this will become evident over the<br />
coming years as investment funds seek to manage<br />
risk (IGBC, 2012).<br />
51<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
52<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Data supplied in 2012 <strong>for</strong> inclusion in this study<br />
by BRE <strong>for</strong> BREEAM and the USGBC <strong>for</strong> LEED<br />
indicate that there are a small number of certifi ed<br />
buildings in Ireland. The BRE indicates that there<br />
are 17 certifi ed projects and 44 registered<br />
buildings, and LEED indicates two certifi ed and<br />
10 registered projects.<br />
3.4 User Experience of Building<br />
Environmental Assessment in Ireland<br />
There is little evidence in recent Irish surveys<br />
(Hendrick, 2011 and Whoriskey, 2011) to suggest<br />
that users perceive either BREEAM or LEED as<br />
more suitable <strong>for</strong> the assessment of Irish buildings.<br />
However, among users it is accepted that while<br />
LEED is valuable <strong>for</strong> comparative purposes<br />
with international (and in particular American)<br />
buildings, BREEAM is more in line with European<br />
and Irish Building Regulation requirements and<br />
Irish climatic conditions.<br />
3.4.1 Surveys undertaken within<br />
this study<br />
Two surveys were undertaken within this study<br />
period, which targeted the diverse sectors of the<br />
building industry in Ireland - the Better Building<br />
International Conference Survey and the Certifi ed<br />
and Assessed Buildings in Ireland Survey.<br />
The fi rst was a broad-based questionnaire<br />
targeting the interdisciplinary audience at the<br />
Better Building International Conference <strong>for</strong> a<br />
Sustainable Built Environment, a public event<br />
organized by the IGBC, Cultivate Living and<br />
Learning and Sustainable Building Show in April<br />
2012. Participants at the conference included<br />
building designers, contractors, manufacturers,<br />
developers, providers, managers, policy makers,<br />
regulators and educators.<br />
The study was presented at the conference<br />
as the context <strong>for</strong> a focused session on<br />
Environmental Assessment Tools. Presentations<br />
by the Dutch Green Building Council, which<br />
adopted BREEAM, and Mikael Koch of the<br />
Danish Green Building Council, which choose<br />
DKNB, provided international experience of<br />
adopting and adapting established methods.<br />
The objective of the session was to highlight the<br />
study being undertaken, invite the conference<br />
participants to complete the survey and to<br />
encourage interested stakeholders to become<br />
involved in the broader investigation of an<br />
appropriate environmental assessment method<br />
<strong>for</strong> Ireland.<br />
The aim of the survey was to establish<br />
the extent of knowledge and usage of<br />
environmental assessment among building<br />
designers and contractors, the benefi ts<br />
perceived by building owners, providers and<br />
managers and to assess the possible future<br />
integration of environmental assessment<br />
into national policy and regulation. Refer to<br />
Appendix C.<br />
60 questionnaires were returned, which<br />
represented about 20% of the participants, all of<br />
whom indicated that they were aware of building<br />
environmental assessment, with the greatest<br />
awareness of BREEAM (87%) and LEED (70%).<br />
45 building designers, fi ve building contractors,<br />
two building owner/managers, four building policy<br />
makers and four educators completed the survey.<br />
42% indicated that they had been involved in the<br />
environmental assessment of buildings in Ireland.<br />
When asked which method should be<br />
adopted <strong>for</strong> Ireland 28% indicated BREEAM and<br />
23% indicated DGNB, but many indicated that<br />
they did not have enough knowledge to suggest<br />
which should be adopted. The participants<br />
indicated that an adopted method should be an
internationally recognized one and should assist in<br />
developing interaction with export markets and<br />
supply chains. They indicated the most important<br />
factor in the adoption of a system was a credible<br />
and robust evaluation system. 70% indicated that<br />
they saw no value in developing a national method<br />
solely <strong>for</strong> use in Ireland; however, 85% said that an<br />
adopted method should be adapted to suit Irish<br />
climatic, construction and policy issues.<br />
Value in developing a national method?<br />
No 70% Yes 30%<br />
System to be adopted <strong>for</strong> Ireland?<br />
BREEAM 28%<br />
LEED 10%<br />
DGNB 23%<br />
LBC 13%<br />
Others 8%<br />
Don’t Know 18%<br />
All of the building designers indicated that they<br />
suggested integrating environmental issues to<br />
their clients and design teams and 70% indicated<br />
that they used environmental assessment criteria<br />
as design indicators, while 52% had been involved<br />
in projects that had been assessed using an<br />
environmental assessment method. In their use<br />
of environmental assessment methods they all<br />
reported that the environmental assessment<br />
method was introduced at the briefi ng or early<br />
design stage of the project and indicated that<br />
its use had a positive effect on all aspects of the<br />
project other than building cost.<br />
The majority of building owners indicated<br />
good building practice as being the main reason<br />
<strong>for</strong> undertaking environmental assessment, ahead<br />
of client green marketing. Residential, offi ces and<br />
healthcare buildings were most often assessed, with<br />
the Passivhaus Standard PHPP <strong>for</strong> residential (an<br />
energy, rather than an environmental, assessment<br />
method) and BREEAM <strong>for</strong> non-residential.<br />
Policy makers indicated that building<br />
environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance should be a core<br />
issue in the <strong>for</strong>mation of national policy, and they<br />
expected to see the focus on energy assessment<br />
procedures in current Building Regulations<br />
develop to include broader environmental issues<br />
such as materials, water and waste in the near<br />
future. When asked if the assessment criteria<br />
of a nationally adopted methodology should<br />
be similar to those being developed nationally<br />
<strong>for</strong> green public procurement, all indicated that<br />
avoiding duplication and providing consistency<br />
was important, and all saw existing methods<br />
are being a good basis <strong>for</strong> the development of<br />
green public procurement. They also saw a role<br />
<strong>for</strong> government departments, state agencies and<br />
bodies in the operation and accreditation of a<br />
nationally adopted assessment system.<br />
53<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
54<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
The second survey targeted the design and<br />
construction teams of certifi ed buildings in Ireland.<br />
While system providers indicate that there are 19<br />
certifi ed buildings in Ireland, the buildings remain<br />
anonymous unless the client chooses otherwise.<br />
BRE only provides in<strong>for</strong>mation on three of the<br />
seventeen BREEAM certifi ed buildings and<br />
USGBC provides in<strong>for</strong>mation on both LEED<br />
certifi ed buildings in Ireland.<br />
Survey questionnaires were designed to<br />
target client, design team and contractor and<br />
were distributed to 54 individuals who acted as<br />
client, architect, services engineer or contractor<br />
of 14 building projects in Ireland, including the<br />
fi ve buildings that are publicly claimed by BRE and<br />
USGBC and a number which are anonymous, but<br />
known locally to be certifi ed or assessed but not<br />
certifi ed. Refer to Appendix D.<br />
Building Name System/<br />
Scheme<br />
Flavour<br />
Manufacturing Ltd.<br />
IDA Industrial<br />
Park, Wex<strong>for</strong>d<br />
Decentralised<br />
Government Offi<br />
ces Athlone<br />
Decentralised<br />
Government<br />
Offi ces<br />
Roscommon<br />
Genzyme Ireland<br />
Ltd. IDA Industrial<br />
Park, Water<strong>for</strong>d<br />
BREEAM<br />
Industrial<br />
2008<br />
BREEAM<br />
Offi ces 2008<br />
BREEAM<br />
International<br />
Europe<br />
Commercial<br />
Offi ces 2008<br />
LEED<br />
Construction<br />
Rating Stage<br />
Very<br />
Good<br />
Final<br />
Good Final<br />
Excellent<br />
Interim<br />
Gold Final<br />
Symantec Ltd. LEED Existing Gold Final<br />
Orion Building,<br />
Ballycoolin<br />
Business Park,<br />
Blanchardstown<br />
Building<br />
Buildings certifi ed in Ireland not subject to client<br />
confi dentiality. In<strong>for</strong>mation provided by BRE (BREEAM)<br />
and USGBC (LEED) April 2012<br />
26 questionnaires were returned, which<br />
represents just under 50% of the participants and<br />
includes returns from clients, architects, engineers<br />
and contractors, with a number representative<br />
of the full project team of the targeted projects.<br />
Overall, all but two participants indicated a positive<br />
attitude to the application of an environmental<br />
assessment method to the building project.<br />
Findings support the wide use of BREEAM<br />
rather than LEED, and indicate the client, most<br />
often, as the instigator of the ‘sustainable’<br />
agenda and the application of the environmental<br />
assessment method to the project. All of the<br />
architects and engineers (excepting one engineer<br />
who did not concur with project team members’<br />
responses) indicated that the environmental<br />
per<strong>for</strong>mance aspiration was included as part of<br />
the project design brief, and over 60% indicated<br />
that the requirements of the environmental<br />
assessment infl uenced project design intent. This<br />
required increased design input, and in particular,<br />
notable time to undertake the environmental<br />
assessment of the project. 88% of all participants<br />
indicated that the process was worthwhile; those<br />
who did not think it worthwhile indicated that<br />
‘it did not add anything to project’ or ‘was not<br />
properly applied’. A small number indicated that<br />
they would use an alternative assessment method<br />
in the future.
Was the process deemed to be<br />
worthwhile?<br />
Worthwhile 88%<br />
Not Worthwhile 12%<br />
Was the expected environmental<br />
rating achieved?<br />
Achieved 78%<br />
Not Achieved 22%<br />
Seven of the nine completed projects achieved the<br />
building environmental rating that they set out to<br />
achieve, while two indicated a lower rating, mainly<br />
due to issues outside design team control eg.<br />
site location. With regard to the completed and<br />
occupied building projects most indicted that the<br />
requirements of the environmental assessment<br />
led to a measurable increase in build cost over<br />
that expected while all but one, indicated positive<br />
feedback from building occupants and a positive<br />
impact on the building running costs.<br />
Did the assessment involve more time<br />
than expected?<br />
As Expected 22%<br />
More Time 66%<br />
A Lot More Time 11%<br />
Did the assessment requirements lead<br />
to a more than expected cost?<br />
Expected Cost 63%<br />
More Cost 37%<br />
The client, design team and contractor of one<br />
of the completed and occupied private sector<br />
projects all concurred in a worthwhile, successful<br />
assessment and certifi cation process; however,<br />
they all agreed that undertaking the assessment<br />
required more design time and cost to undertake<br />
the assessment than expected. While there was<br />
no measurable increase in build cost <strong>for</strong> the<br />
project, there has been positive feedback from<br />
the client on a positive impact on the running<br />
costs and from occupants who enjoy enhanced<br />
indoor environmental quality.<br />
55<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
56<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
3.4.2 Environmental Assessment<br />
System Providers Workshops<br />
The system providers of BREEAM, LEED, DGNB<br />
and LBC, which were selected <strong>for</strong> comparative<br />
evaluation, were invited by the IGBC to present<br />
their building environmental assessment systems<br />
at the IGBC Environmental Assessment System<br />
Providers In<strong>for</strong>mation Workshops through<br />
April and May 2012. BREEAM, DGNB and LBC<br />
presented at a workshop and LEED provided a<br />
webinar presentation. Each of the workshops<br />
attracted a large, diverse and interested audience,<br />
which included building designers, manufacturers<br />
and contractors, providers and managers, and<br />
policy makers. The presentations assisted in<br />
raising awareness of the systems and contributed<br />
to the study fi ndings.<br />
The presentations instigated lively discussion on<br />
the adoption and adaptation of an environmental<br />
assessment method <strong>for</strong> Ireland and indicated that<br />
the Irish construction industry wish to engage with<br />
the process. Many expressed the view that with<br />
such diverse systems available, and adaptation<br />
possible with some, it would not seem necessary<br />
to develop a new method <strong>for</strong> Ireland.<br />
3.5 Implementing environmental<br />
assessment effectively <strong>for</strong> Ireland<br />
The Key Findings are provided in the Summary<br />
section of this document. The fi ndings of the<br />
study identify issues that require engagement<br />
to determine how the IGBC Board can move<br />
<strong>for</strong>ward on this issue. In order to facilitate<br />
discussion, issues pertaining to the fi ndings are<br />
outlined in the Summary.<br />
A distinction is made between the issues<br />
related to the product (assessment method)<br />
and the process (system required to support<br />
the methods’ use). The issues to be addressed in<br />
relation to the development of an environmental<br />
assessment method, and the implementation of<br />
an effective system <strong>for</strong> Ireland, in the author’s<br />
opinion, requires the IGBC to undertake the<br />
following action:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Provision of a framework <strong>for</strong> the achievement<br />
of sustainable buildings in Ireland, identifying<br />
the role of environmental assessment in its<br />
achievement;<br />
Engagement with industry stakeholders<br />
and policy makers to explore the alignment<br />
of a national assessment approach with<br />
future international and national policy, GPP<br />
guidelines and Building Regulations;<br />
Selection and application of a limited number<br />
of assessment methods to be applied to<br />
representative Irish buildings to provide a full<br />
comparative technical analysis, to highlight the<br />
issues to be addressed in method adoption<br />
and the specifi c evaluation criteria that<br />
require adaptation <strong>for</strong> Irish conditions;<br />
Further consultation with existing system<br />
designers and providers to assess the impact<br />
of application on all stakeholders (including<br />
clients, designers, contractors, manufacturers<br />
and suppliers), the resources required <strong>for</strong><br />
achievement of certifi cation, and the process<br />
of adopting, adapting and implementing a<br />
suite of schemes and certifi cation system<br />
in Ireland;<br />
Further engagement with system stakeholders<br />
to determine, and provide where possible,<br />
training and user support;<br />
Development of strategies suitable <strong>for</strong><br />
a successful implementation and market<br />
adoption of the selected system, identifying<br />
those members of industry who may be<br />
directly involved or responsible <strong>for</strong> delivery of<br />
the system, and those whose participation or<br />
support may be necessary <strong>for</strong> its success;<br />
Publication of a programme of key actions<br />
and players to further the delivery of an
appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,<br />
transparent and verifi able building<br />
environmental assessment system <strong>for</strong> Ireland.<br />
57<br />
3. <strong>IRELAND</strong> AND <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> <strong>ASSESSMENT</strong><br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
58<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
4<br />
APPENDICES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Dear<br />
The Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) was set up to provide leadership in the move to a sustainable built<br />
environment. The IGBC is a not <strong>for</strong> profi t Independent membership organisation open to all organisations<br />
who commit to working to the trans<strong>for</strong>mation of the built environment. All of the stakeholders in the<br />
built environment are represented, Local Authorities, Universities, Professional construction and Planning<br />
Institutes, Government agencies, Manufacturers, Property professionals, Planners, Architects, Engineers,<br />
contractors, facility managers, Developers, and Utility companies. We thus represent the only organisation<br />
who can deliver the widespread and systematic adoption of certifi cation of green buildings in Ireland.<br />
The IGBC is currently seeking expressions of interest from providers of Environmental Assessment Methods/<br />
systems with the aim of exploring the introduction or greater distribution of an existing environmental<br />
assessment system <strong>for</strong> use in Ireland. A task group has been set up to study best practice globally and the<br />
feasibility of developing or adapting an existing tool. The task group will report in April to our Interim Board<br />
and this will <strong>for</strong>m the basis <strong>for</strong> a decision on how to proceed. The report will assess the need <strong>for</strong> a tool in<br />
Ireland, compare a number of the international rating tool systems and explore the fi nancial feasibility of<br />
supporting an Environmental Assessment Method/ system either through the IGBC or in partnership with<br />
Government.<br />
We are asking you to make an expression of interest in writing that sets out how your organisation would<br />
work with us in achieving this aim. You must consider the scale of Ireland and level of construction. Please be<br />
reasonably specifi c and brief. It can include the following:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
The possibility <strong>for</strong> adaptation of your system specifi cally to take account of Irish building regulations,<br />
regional variations such as climate, construction techniques, European law etc. You may give brief case<br />
studies of how this process has been managed in other countries and the time scale <strong>for</strong> development of<br />
Irish ‘version’ and timescale <strong>for</strong> full implementation of certifi cation system.<br />
The possibility of creating a specifi c new tool where these are not within your certifi cation system eg<br />
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
retrofi t, single housing etc and the time scale required if possible<br />
The level of input the IGBC or other Irish Stakeholders could or would have into the adaptation of your<br />
certifi cation system.<br />
The likely order of cost <strong>for</strong> the adaptation process <strong>for</strong> each category of building, eg. offi ces, schools,<br />
residential, development areas<br />
The costs of certifi cation, order of costs and licensing arrangements with the IGBC<br />
Any additional costs to the IGBC if sole licensed provider of tool in Ireland <strong>for</strong> auditing, annual fees.<br />
Please provide order of costs <strong>for</strong> any training that you would provide<br />
Any other relevant in<strong>for</strong>mation as to why your environmental assessment method is best placed to<br />
become widespread in the Irish market<br />
If you do not allow the national adaptation of your system or do not permit the national licensing of<br />
your system please suggest other means by which you could work with the IGBC that would be mutually<br />
benefi cial and assist in the greater uptake of environmental assessment of buildings.<br />
Please note that the in<strong>for</strong>mation that you provide may be used towards in<strong>for</strong>ming the decision of the Interim<br />
Board of the Irish Green Building Council to start further discussions with one or more providers. However<br />
this does not indicate acceptance of any fi nancial arrangements set out in your expression of interest.<br />
If you wish to contact me by e-mail pat@igbc.ie or by telephone 353 1 681 5862 with any questions please<br />
do so.<br />
Yours Faithfully<br />
Pat Barry<br />
Secretary Irish Green Building Council<br />
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Questionnaire <strong>for</strong> European Green Building Councils<br />
1.<br />
2.<br />
3.<br />
4.<br />
5.<br />
6.<br />
7.<br />
8.<br />
9.<br />
10.<br />
11.<br />
12.<br />
13.<br />
14.<br />
15.<br />
16.<br />
What was the general make up or profi le of the GBC task group <strong>for</strong> rating tools?<br />
Did it involve stakeholders beyond the membership of the GBC. For example was the likely buy in of<br />
government and other non member stakeholders to the tool considered?<br />
What was the timeframe <strong>for</strong> a decision, from assembling of the task group to a fi nal decision?<br />
Was fi nal decision by consensus or by majority decision?<br />
What level of research into other tools was carried out into making decision. Research, academic, international<br />
experience etc.<br />
What were the most important issues considered when making decision to choose tool?<br />
Were there any particular circumstances, context within the county that infl uenced the choice, e.g. climate,<br />
national policy priorities, EU priorities etc.<br />
Did the fi nancial viability, eg contract with existing tool provider infl uence decision?<br />
What was the general usage of tools in your county prior to your decision?<br />
Was the development of a new tool considered. i.e. one developed exclusively <strong>for</strong> your country.<br />
Did the usage of an already existing tool in your country infl uence the choice of tools.<br />
Does the Government or other public agencies use the tool as part of their Green Public Procurement of<br />
buildings.<br />
How much national autonomy do you consider to have over the tools that you have chosen<br />
Do you consider this important. Would you prefer to have more autonomy?<br />
How adaptable do you consider the tool/tools that you have chosen to support?<br />
What is the level of take- up of the tool in your country since you introduced it?<br />
17.<br />
What would you have done in a different way?<br />
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
1.FILL THIS SECTION PARTICIPANT PROFILE<br />
LEED<br />
Name<br />
Organisaon<br />
Role<br />
DGNB<br />
LIVING <strong>BUILDING</strong> CHALLENGE<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> MANAGER<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> POLICY MAKER<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> REGULATOR<br />
Have you been involved in the environmental cercaon of a building in Ireland?<br />
Do you see any merit in developing a new method solely <strong>for</strong> use in Ireland?<br />
Yes No<br />
BREEAM LEED Other<br />
Which of the exisng environmental assessment methods do you think should be adopted in Ireland and why?<br />
BREEAM<br />
Should your chosen method be modied to suit Irish climac, construcon and policy issues?<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
What would you consider the most important factor in the development of an environmental assessment method to be?<br />
BROAD <strong>ENVIRONMENTAL</strong> EVALUATION<br />
ACCESSIBLE AND USER FRIENDLY<br />
CREDIBLE AND ROBUST EVALUATION<br />
GOOD TECHNICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> DESIGNER<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> CONTRACTOR<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> OWNER, PROVIDER<br />
Which assessment methods are you aware of?<br />
Comment:<br />
Comment:<br />
Are you interested in becoming more involved in the IGBC study?<br />
If so, please provide your email address:<br />
Email:<br />
Are you a:<br />
Are you aware of building environmental assessment?<br />
25 April 2012, The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin<br />
International Conference <strong>for</strong> a<br />
Sustainable Built Environment<br />
1. FILL THIS SECTION - PARTICIPANT PROFILE<br />
<br />
Environmental Assessment Methods<br />
Yes No
2. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> DESIGNER or CONTRACTOR<br />
2. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> DESIGNER or CONTRACTOR<br />
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE<br />
Is sustainability one of the core issues in your practice?<br />
How did you become aware of environmental assessment?<br />
Do you suggest integrating environmental issues to your client /design team?<br />
Do you use environmental assessment criteria as design indicators?<br />
Name and function of Building:<br />
Did the building assessment process have a negative, no or positive impact on?<br />
THE DESIGN PROCESS<br />
NEGATIVE<br />
THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS<br />
NEGATIVE<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> PERFORMANCE<br />
NEGATIVE<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> COST<br />
NEGATIVE<br />
<strong>BUILDING</strong> MARKET VALUE<br />
NEGATIVE<br />
CLIENT<br />
DESIGN TEAM MEMBER<br />
CONFERENCE<br />
PUBLICATION<br />
WWW<br />
OTHER<br />
BREEAM<br />
LEED<br />
OTHER<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Have you been involved in a project that has evaluated environmental assessment of a building (but may not be<br />
certified)<br />
Yes No<br />
If your answer is YES please answer the following:<br />
What stage was the environmental assessment method introduced?<br />
BRIEFING<br />
EARLY DESIGN STAGE<br />
DEVELOPED DESIGN<br />
TENDER<br />
Which assessment method, and version have you used?<br />
Is your experience of environmental assessment a positive one?<br />
If not, why not?<br />
NO POSITIVE<br />
NO POSITIVE<br />
NO POSITIVE<br />
NO POSITIVE<br />
NO POSITIVE<br />
Yes No
3. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> OWNER, PROVIDER and MANAGER<br />
3. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> OWNER, PROVIDER or MANAGER<br />
Are environmental issues integrated in your process of providing and/or maintaining buildings?<br />
Are you involved in the environmental assessment of buildings?<br />
If your answer is yes, please answer the following:<br />
For what reasons are you undertaking environmental assessment?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Building project?<br />
Which building occupancy profile?<br />
Which assessment method and version have you used?<br />
If not, why not?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Based on experience, rate the following benefits in order of achievement:<br />
Has there been any feedback from occupants?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Has your experience of environmental assessment a positive one?<br />
If not, why not?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
POLICY REQUIREMENT<br />
CLIENT GREEN PROFILE<br />
GREEN MARKETING TOOL<br />
GOOD <strong>BUILDING</strong> PRACTISE<br />
OTHER<br />
NEW BUILD<br />
EXISTING<br />
RESIDENTIAL<br />
OFFICE<br />
RETAIL<br />
MANUFACTURING<br />
SCHOOL<br />
OTHER<br />
BREEAM<br />
LEED<br />
OTHER<br />
Yes No<br />
IMPROVED <strong>BUILDING</strong> PERFORMANCE<br />
INCREASED VALUE OF GREEN<strong>BUILDING</strong><br />
INCREASED MARKETING GREEN PROFILE<br />
REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS<br />
INCREASED OCCUPANT SATISFACTION<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No
4. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> POLICY MAKER OR REGULATOR<br />
4. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A <strong>BUILDING</strong> POLICY MAKER OR REGULATOR<br />
Should building environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance be a core issue in the <strong>for</strong>mation of national policy?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Do you see building environmental assessment remaining as a voluntary mechanism?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Yes No<br />
Would you expect that the focus on energy assessment procedures in current Building Regulation will broaden to include broader environmental<br />
issues such as materials, water or waste in the near future?<br />
Do you consider that Life Cycle Analysis and Costing should be evident in a nationally adopted environmental assessment method?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Should the assessment criteria of the nationally adopted methodology be similar to those currently being developed nationally in accordance with EU<br />
Directives <strong>for</strong> Green Public Procurement?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Do you consider that the environmental assessment criteria within existing methods are a credible basis <strong>for</strong> achieving Green Public Procurement?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Are there aspects not currently considered by existing environmental assessment methods that should be included in Green Public Procurement<br />
guidance?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
Do you see a role <strong>for</strong> Government Departments, State Agencies and Bodies in the operation and accreditation of a nationally adopted assessment<br />
system?<br />
COMMENT:<br />
FURTHER COMMENT:<br />
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE.<br />
PLEASE RETURN TODAY TO THE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION DESK OR TO VIVIENNE BROPHY, UCD ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP, SCHOOL OF<br />
ARCHITECTURE, RICHVIEW, BELFIELD, DUBLIN 4.
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
Re: Certifi ed and Assessed Buildings in Ireland Survey<br />
Dear ,<br />
I write to you from the Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) who are currently undertaking research investigating<br />
environmental assessment methods. The IGBC members have highlighted building environmental assessment<br />
as pertinent issue to be addressed. This research will be the fi rst step in a process that will aim to provide a<br />
recommendation on the utilisation of environmental assessment methods in Ireland.<br />
To achieve this objective we are requesting design teams and contractors involved with buildings that have undergone<br />
assessment and possible certifi cation to complete a short questionnaire, which I have attached.<br />
This questionnaire has been sent to all members of the design team <strong>for</strong> (inset project name here). I hope that you<br />
will agree to help in our research. As a respondent you are requested to provide your name: however when the<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation is collated, all references to particular buildings, design teams and respondents will be removed.<br />
The completed questionnaire should be returned to me in the pre-addressed and stamped envelope, ideally within<br />
the next week phase. If you have any queries regarding this questionnaire please don’t hesitate to contact me by<br />
telephone: 01 7162770 or by email: vivienne.brophy@ucd.ie.<br />
In anticipation thank you <strong>for</strong> your cooperation. Your participation in this research study will assist, we hope, in the<br />
selection of a suitable environmental assessment tool in Ireland.<br />
Yours faithfully,<br />
Vivienne Brophy IGBC Interim Board Member<br />
P.S. If this letter has reached you in error and you know of someone more relevant to complete the survey, please <strong>for</strong>ward<br />
this in<strong>for</strong>mation on to us or on to the relevant person. Thank you very much.<br />
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
Building<br />
Project Experience<br />
Overall Experience Energy Use Executive Decisions Project Experience /Value <strong>for</strong> money<br />
Methodology Project<br />
Feedback<br />
time<br />
Client<br />
Project Name<br />
Project Location<br />
Role on Project<br />
Project Cost<br />
Assessment Cost<br />
Assessment methodology Used LEED BREEAM Other Please name:<br />
How did you become aware of the<br />
assessment methodology used?<br />
Was an environmental aspiration<br />
included as part of the design brief?<br />
Was there a notable time requirement<br />
on your behalf?<br />
Did the environmental assessment<br />
involve more or less time that you<br />
expected?<br />
Was there a quantifiable change in the<br />
quality of the building?<br />
Did the assessment cost more than you<br />
expected it to?<br />
Did the assessment lead to a<br />
measurable increase in the build cost?<br />
Did the sustainability rating of the<br />
building improve the marketability of<br />
the building? (If relevant)<br />
Was the site location in<strong>for</strong>med due to<br />
the environmental assessment?<br />
Did life cycle costing affect decisions on<br />
the installed systems<br />
(Life Cycle Costing is based on the<br />
predetermination of initial outlay of<br />
costs based upon the items whole life<br />
cost; running, maintenance, removal,<br />
etc)<br />
Did the building receive a Building<br />
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display Energy<br />
Certificate (DEC) and if so what rating<br />
was achieved?<br />
Were any energy efficiency systems<br />
installed in the building?<br />
Has there been positive feed back from<br />
the building occupants?<br />
Has there been a positive impact on the<br />
expected building running costs?<br />
Do you feel that the whole process<br />
could be deemed as worthwhile?<br />
Did you achieve the Environmental<br />
Rating that you set out to achieve?<br />
If you were to be involved in another<br />
project would you specify the use of a<br />
sustainability methodology?<br />
Design Team on<br />
this Project<br />
Design team on<br />
another Project<br />
Yes No<br />
<br />
<br />
Other Client /<br />
Building<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Less Time As expected<br />
More time than<br />
expected<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Less Cost As expected<br />
Less Cost As expected<br />
More cost than<br />
expected<br />
More cost than<br />
expected<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
If so please<br />
comment:<br />
If so please<br />
comment:<br />
If so please<br />
comment:<br />
If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Please<br />
comment:<br />
Please<br />
comment:<br />
Seminar /<br />
Conference<br />
If yes: Would you specify the<br />
methodology previously used?<br />
A lot more<br />
time<br />
A lot more<br />
cost<br />
A lot more<br />
cost<br />
Internet /<br />
Other<br />
Too Much<br />
time<br />
Too Much<br />
cost<br />
Too Much<br />
cost
Building<br />
Project<br />
Overall Experience Energy Use Design Influence Project Experience /Value <strong>for</strong> money<br />
Methodology Project<br />
Feedback<br />
Experience time<br />
Design Team<br />
Project Name<br />
Project Location<br />
Role on Project<br />
Project Cost<br />
Assessment Cost<br />
Assessment methodology used<br />
How did you become aware of the<br />
assessment methodology used?<br />
Was an environmental aspiration<br />
included as part of the design brief?<br />
Was there a notable time<br />
requirement on your behalf?<br />
Did the environmental assessment<br />
involve more or less time that you<br />
expected?<br />
Was there a quantifiable change in<br />
the quality of the Building?<br />
Did the assessment cost more than<br />
you expected it to?<br />
Did the assessment lead to a<br />
measurable increase in the build<br />
cost?<br />
Did the environmental rating of the<br />
building improve the marketability of<br />
the building? (If relevant)<br />
Did the requirements of the<br />
environmental methodology<br />
influence the design intent <strong>for</strong> the<br />
project?<br />
Did the methodology require design<br />
that would not have normally been<br />
undertaken?<br />
Did the building receive a Building<br />
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display<br />
Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so<br />
what rating was achieved?<br />
Were any energy efficiency systems<br />
installed in the building?<br />
Has there been positive feed back<br />
from the building occupants?<br />
Has there been a positive impact on<br />
the expected building running costs?<br />
Do you feel that the whole process<br />
could be deemed as worthwhile?<br />
Did you achieve the Environmental<br />
Rating that you set out to achieve?<br />
If you were to be involved in another<br />
project would you specify the use of<br />
an environmental methodology?<br />
LEED BREEAM Other<br />
Client<br />
Design team<br />
member<br />
Yes No<br />
<br />
<br />
Other Client /<br />
Building<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Less Time As expected<br />
More time<br />
than<br />
expected<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Less Cost As expected<br />
Less Cost As expected<br />
More cost<br />
than<br />
expected<br />
More cost<br />
than<br />
expected<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No Please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No Please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No<br />
If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No If so please<br />
comment:<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Please<br />
comment:<br />
Please<br />
comment:<br />
Please<br />
name:<br />
Seminar /<br />
Conference<br />
A lot more<br />
time<br />
A lot more<br />
cost<br />
A lot more<br />
cost<br />
If yes: Would you specify the<br />
methodology previously used?<br />
Internet /<br />
Other<br />
Too Much<br />
time<br />
Too Much<br />
cost<br />
Too Much<br />
cost
Project Project Project<br />
Building<br />
Construction<br />
Overall Experience Energy Use<br />
Experience Experience Experience<br />
Methodology<br />
Project<br />
Feedback<br />
Requirements<br />
Value <strong>for</strong> Money Time<br />
Cost<br />
Contractor<br />
Project Name<br />
Project Location<br />
Role on Project<br />
Project Cost<br />
Assessment Cost<br />
Was an environmental methodology<br />
requirement included as part of the<br />
tender documents?<br />
If yes:<br />
If No:<br />
Was a completed environmental<br />
assessment required as part of final<br />
handover?<br />
Was the incurred impact on cost as<br />
expected?<br />
Was there any specific issues that<br />
incurred beyond expected cost?<br />
Was the incurred impact on<br />
programme as expected?<br />
Was there any specific issues that<br />
incurred beyond expected delays?<br />
Was there a quantifiable change in<br />
the quality of the building?<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Less Cost As expected<br />
Less Time As expected<br />
Yes No<br />
<br />
<br />
More cost than<br />
expected<br />
More time than<br />
expected<br />
If so please comment:<br />
Did the environmental rating of the<br />
building improve the marketability of<br />
Yes No<br />
the building? (If relevant)<br />
Was there additional requirement<br />
required <strong>for</strong> the following:<br />
If so please comment:<br />
Sourcing Materials Yes No If so please comment:<br />
Transportation of Building Materials Yes No If so please comment:<br />
Construction impacts on site and<br />
surroundings<br />
Yes No<br />
If so please comment:<br />
Waste Management Yes No If so please comment:<br />
Building commissioning Yes No If so please comment:<br />
Building Monitoring and Maintenance<br />
Did the building receive a Building<br />
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display<br />
Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so<br />
what rating was achieved?<br />
Were any energy efficiency systems<br />
installed in the Building?<br />
Has there been positive feed back<br />
from the building occupants?<br />
Has there been a positive impact on<br />
the expected building running<br />
Do you feel that the whole process<br />
could be deemed as worthwhile?<br />
Did you achieve the Environmental<br />
Rating that you set out to achieve?<br />
If you were to be involved in<br />
another project would you<br />
encourage the use of a<br />
environmental methodology?<br />
What was the environmental methodology required?<br />
Did your company have any previous experience in this<br />
methodology?<br />
Was there an allowance included <strong>for</strong> enivironmental assessment in<br />
the tender price <strong>for</strong> the project?<br />
If Yes: Was the allowance included <strong>for</strong> an accurate representation of<br />
the incurred cost involved in complying with the methodology<br />
requirements?<br />
At what stage of the project was the environmental methodology<br />
introduced?<br />
Was there an agreed uplift in construction cost based upon the<br />
introduction of the methodology?<br />
If Yes: Was the uplift an accurate representation of the incurred cost<br />
involved in complying with the methodology requirements?<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
If yes: Was a specific level<br />
required?<br />
If so please comment:<br />
If so please comment:<br />
If so please comment:<br />
Please comment:<br />
Please comment:<br />
If yes: Would you specify the<br />
methodology previously used?<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
Yes No<br />
A lot<br />
more<br />
cost<br />
A lot<br />
more<br />
time<br />
Too Much<br />
cost<br />
Too Much<br />
time<br />
t
5<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Aggeri, F. (1999). Environmental Policies and<br />
Innovation – a knowledge-based perspective<br />
on cooperative approaches. Research Policy,<br />
28, pgs. 699-717.<br />
Alinghizadeh Khezri, N. (2011). Building<br />
Environmental Assessments and Low<br />
Energy Architecture. Thesis submitted <strong>for</strong><br />
MSc Sustainable Architecture, Norwegian<br />
University of Science and Technology<br />
(NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Internet:<br />
NTNU. Available at: http://www.ntnu.no/ Last<br />
accessed: 9 March 2012.<br />
Ali-Toudert, F. (2007). Towards Urban<br />
Sustainability: Trends and Challenges of<br />
Building Environmental Assessments Methods.<br />
Portugal SB07. Sustainable Construction,<br />
Materials and Practice – Challenge of the<br />
Industry <strong>for</strong> the New Millennium. Internet:<br />
IOS. Available at: www.booksonline.IOSpress.<br />
com/ Last accessed: June 2012.<br />
Australian Sustainable Built Environment<br />
Council (ASBEC). (2011). Australian Building<br />
Rating Tools – NABERS and Green Star.<br />
Internet: NABERS. Available at: http://www.<br />
nabers.com.au/ Last accessed: 31 July 2012.<br />
Air Quality Sciences (AQS). (2009). Building<br />
Rating Systems (Certifi cation Programs):<br />
A Comparison of Key Programs. Internet:<br />
AQS. Available at: http://www.aerias.org/ Last<br />
accessed: 10 February 2012.<br />
Benchmark Centre. (2010). Testing<br />
Certifi cation Systems <strong>for</strong> Sustainable Buildings.<br />
Report by Benchmark Centre <strong>for</strong> the Danish<br />
Construction Sector in collaboration with<br />
Danish Building Research Institute. Provided<br />
by Green Building Council Denmark.<br />
Brophy, V. (2005). Current building design<br />
procedures in Ireland – a potential barrier<br />
to sustainable design and construction.<br />
MArchSc thesis in the School of Architecture,<br />
Landscape and Civil Engineering, University<br />
College Dublin. Available in UCD<br />
Architectural Library.<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Building Research Establishment (BRE). (2011).<br />
What is BREEAM? Internet: BRE. Available at:<br />
http://www.bre.org/ Last accessed: 8<br />
March 2012.<br />
Building Research Establishment (BRE). (2012).<br />
Personal Communication with David Leonard,<br />
BREEAM International and Bespoke Manager,<br />
April 2012.<br />
Burke, S. (2012). Personal communication<br />
with Sinead Burke, Offi ce of Public Works.<br />
March 2012.<br />
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P. and Kok, N. (2012).<br />
Supply, Demand and the Value of Green<br />
Buildings. Report <strong>for</strong> RICS Research. Internet:<br />
RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.org/<br />
research. Last accessed: 29 March 2012.<br />
Cole, R. (2003). Building environmental<br />
assessment methods: A measure of success.<br />
IeJC. May 2003.<br />
Cole, R. (2004). Changing context <strong>for</strong><br />
environmental knowledge. Building Research<br />
& In<strong>for</strong>mation, 32(2), March-April, pgs 91-109.<br />
Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental<br />
assessment methods: redefi ning intentions<br />
and roles. Building Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation,<br />
33(5), pgs 455-467.<br />
Cole, R. (2006). Shared Markets: coexisting<br />
building environmental assessment methods,<br />
Building Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 34(4), pgs<br />
357-371.<br />
Cole, R. (2011). Motivating Stakeholders<br />
to deliver environmental change. Building<br />
Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 39(5), pgs 431-435.<br />
Commission of the European Communities<br />
(COM). (2006). COM 545 - Action Plan<br />
<strong>for</strong> Energy Effi ciency: Realizing the Potential.<br />
Internet: COM. Available at: http://www.<br />
ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 16 March 20012.<br />
Commission of the European Communities<br />
(COM). (2008a). COM 400 - Public<br />
Procurement <strong>for</strong> a Better Environment.<br />
Communication from the Commission of<br />
the European Parliament, The Council, the<br />
71<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
72<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
European Economic and Social Committee<br />
and the Committee of the Regions. Internet:<br />
COM. Available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/<br />
Last accessed: 29 February 2012.<br />
Commission of the European Communities<br />
(COM). (2008b). COM 397 – Sustainable<br />
Consumption and Production and Sustainable<br />
Industrial Policy Action Plan. Communication<br />
from the Commission of the European<br />
Parliament, The Council, the European<br />
Economic and Social Committee and the<br />
Committee of the Regions. Internet: COM.<br />
Available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/ Last<br />
accessed: 16 March 2012.<br />
Construction Products Association (CPA).<br />
(2012). CEN/TC350 Standards. Internet: CPA,<br />
Available at: http://www.constructionproductssustainability.org.uk/<br />
Last accessed: 21<br />
January 2012.<br />
Crookes, D. and deWit, M. (2002).<br />
Environmental economic valuation and its<br />
application in environmental assessment: an<br />
evaluation of the status quo with reference to<br />
South Africa. Journal of Optimization Theory<br />
and Applications, Vol 11 (5). 2002.<br />
Department of Communications, Marine<br />
and Natural Resources (DCMNR) (2007).<br />
Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future <strong>for</strong><br />
Ireland - Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020.<br />
Internet DCMNR. Available at: http://www.<br />
dcenr.ie/ Last accessed: 16 March 2012.<br />
Department of Communications, Energy<br />
and Natural Resources (DCENR) (2009).<br />
Maximising Ireland’s Energy Effi ciency – the<br />
National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan 2009-<br />
2020. Internet DCENR. Available at: http://<br />
www.dcenr.ie/ Last accessed: 16 March 2012.<br />
Department of the Environment, Community<br />
and Local Government (DECLG). (2011).<br />
National Action Plan on Green Public<br />
Procurement (draft <strong>for</strong> public consultation).<br />
Internet: DECLG. Available at: http://www.<br />
declg.ie/ Last accessed: 19 March 2012.<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Department of the Environment, Community<br />
and Local Government (DECLG). (2012). A<br />
Our Sustainable Future – A Framework <strong>for</strong><br />
Sustainable Development <strong>for</strong> Ireland Internet:<br />
DECLG. Available at: http://www.environ.ie/<br />
Last accessed: 7 June 2012.<br />
Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges<br />
Bauen (DGNB) (The German Sustainable<br />
Building Council). (2011). Excellence Defi ned.<br />
Sustainable building with a systems approach,<br />
DGNB brochure. Internet: DGNB. Available at<br />
http://www.dgnb.de/ Last accessed: 6<br />
March 2012.<br />
Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen<br />
(DGNB) (The German Sustainable Building<br />
Council). (2012). Personal Communication<br />
with Frank Heinlein, Director of Strategic<br />
Management, April 2012.<br />
Ding, G.K.C. (2008). Sustainable Construction<br />
– The Role of Environmental Assessment<br />
Tools. Journal of Environmental Management,<br />
86 (2008) 451 – 464.<br />
Dolan, J. T. (2012). Personal communication<br />
with John Dolan, Senior Building Services<br />
Engineer, Planning / Building Unit, Department<br />
of Education and Skills. May 2012.<br />
du Plessis, C. and Cole, R. (2011). Motivating<br />
Change: Shifting the Paradigm. Building<br />
Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 39:5, 436-449.<br />
Eichholtz, PMA., Kok, N. and Quigley, JM.<br />
(2010). Doing Well by Doing Good: Green<br />
Offi ce Buildings. American Economic Review,<br />
100, pgs 2494-2511.<br />
Eider, A. (2010). Best practice on green or<br />
sustainable public procurement and new<br />
guidelines. Report from EU fw7 Open House<br />
Project WP1. Internet: Open House. Available<br />
at http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/ Last<br />
accessed: 28 February 2012.<br />
European Commission (EC). (2004a).<br />
Directive on the coordination of procedures<br />
<strong>for</strong> the award of public works contracts, public<br />
supply contracts and public services contracts.
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.<br />
europa.eu/ Last accessed: 21 February 2012.<br />
European Commission (EC). (2004b).<br />
Directive coordinating the procurement<br />
procedures of entities operating in the water,<br />
energy, transport and postal services sectors.<br />
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.<br />
europa.eu Last accessed: 21 February 2012.<br />
European Commission (EC). (2008). GPP<br />
Training Toolkit. Internet: EC. Available at:<br />
http://www.ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 29<br />
February 2012.<br />
European Parliament and the Council of<br />
the European Union (EU), (2002). Directive<br />
2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and<br />
the Council on the Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
Buildings. [Internet]. EU. Available at: http://eurlex.europa.eu/<br />
Last accessed: 20 April 2012.<br />
European Parliament and the Council of<br />
the European Union (EU), (2006). Directive<br />
2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and<br />
the Council on the Energy use Effi ciency and<br />
Energy Services. [Internet]. EU. Available at:<br />
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20<br />
April 2012.<br />
European Parliament and the Council of<br />
the European Union (EU), (2010). Directive<br />
2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and<br />
the Council on the Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance of<br />
Buildings (Recast). [Internet]. EU. Available at:<br />
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20<br />
April 2012.<br />
Fenner, R.A. and Ryce, T. (2008). A<br />
comparative analysis of two building rating<br />
systems. Part 1: Evaluation. In Proceedings of<br />
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering<br />
Sustainability, 161, March 2008 Issue ESI, pgs<br />
55 – 63.<br />
Flora, R. and Moser, M. (2000). Driving Market<br />
Demand <strong>for</strong> Green Buildings in Pittsburg. In:<br />
Boonstra, C., Rovers, R., Pauwels, S. (eds.),<br />
Proceedings of the International Conference<br />
Sustainable Building 2000. Best: Aneas<br />
Technical Publishers.<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Fowler, K. M. and Rauch, E. M. (2006).<br />
Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary.<br />
Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory,<br />
operated <strong>for</strong> the U.S. Department of Energy.<br />
Internet: Mendeley. Available at: http://www.<br />
mendeley.com/ Last accessed: 10 March 2012.<br />
Franzitta, V., La Gennusa, M., Peri, G., Rizzo,<br />
G. and Scaccianoce, G. (2011). Towards a<br />
European Eco-label brand <strong>for</strong> residential<br />
buildings: Holistic or by-components<br />
approach? Energy, 36, pgs. 1884-1892. Elsevier.<br />
Haucke, F and Volkening, N. (2011). The<br />
Sustainability Strategies of European Property<br />
Companies – An analysis. IVG Research Lab<br />
4/2011. Internet: IVG. Available at: http://www.<br />
ivg.de/ Last accessed: 8 March 2012.<br />
Hendrik, S. (2012). What impact could building<br />
rating tools have in helping to drive more<br />
sustainable building practice in Ireland? Thesis<br />
<strong>for</strong> MSc Architecture: AEES, University of East<br />
London.<br />
Hourigan, N. (2009). The Development of a<br />
Building Environmental Assessment Method<br />
<strong>for</strong> Ireland. MArchSc thesis in the School of<br />
Architecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering,<br />
University College Dublin. Available in UCD<br />
Architectural Library.<br />
Inbuilt, (2010). BREEAM versus LEED. White<br />
Paper. Internet: INBUILT. Available at: http://<br />
www.inbuilt.co.uk Last accessed: May 2012.<br />
International Council <strong>for</strong> Local Environmental<br />
Initiatives (ICLEI). (2008). Green Public<br />
Procurement and the European Ecolabel.<br />
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.<br />
ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20 February<br />
2012.<br />
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010).<br />
Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance Certifi cation of Buildings<br />
- a policy tool to improve energy effi ciency.<br />
The Policy Pathway Series. Internet: IEA.<br />
Available at: http://www.iea.org/ Last accessed:<br />
21 February 2011.<br />
International Living Building Institute (ILBI).<br />
(2010). Living Building Challenge 2.0 - A<br />
73<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
74<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Visionary Path to a Restorative Future.<br />
Internet: ILBI. Available at: https://ilbi.org/ Last<br />
accessed: 5 March 2012.<br />
International Living Future Institute (ILFI),<br />
(<strong>for</strong>merly the ILBI). (2012). Materials Red List.<br />
Internet: ILBI. Available at: https://www.ilbi.org/<br />
Last accessed: 25 May 2012.<br />
International Organisation <strong>for</strong> Standardisation<br />
(ISO). (2011). Sustainability in building<br />
construction - Sustainability indicators - Part 1:<br />
Framework <strong>for</strong> the development of indicators<br />
and a core set of indicators <strong>for</strong> buildings.<br />
Internet: ISO. Available at: http://www.iso.org/<br />
Last accessed: 25 January 2011.<br />
International Real Estate Business School<br />
(IREBS). (2011). Potential of Creating a Global<br />
Certifi cation System <strong>for</strong> Sustainable Buildings.<br />
ED Batna, S. Internet: IREBS. Available at: http://<br />
www.irebs.de/ Last accessed: 1 March 2012.<br />
Irish Green Building Council (IGBC). (2012).<br />
Report on Better Building International<br />
Conference <strong>for</strong> a Sustainable Built<br />
Environment, Royal Hospital Kilmainham,<br />
Dublin. 25 April 2012. Internet: IGBC.<br />
Available at: http://www.igbc.ie/ Last accessed:<br />
21 May 2012.<br />
Joint Research Centre’s Institute <strong>for</strong><br />
Prospective Technological Studies (JRC IPTS).<br />
(2011). Green Public Procurement Offi ce<br />
Buildings Technical Background Report.<br />
Report <strong>for</strong> EC, DG Environment. Internet: JCT.<br />
Available at: http://www.susproc.jrc.ec.europa.<br />
eu/ Last accessed: 22 February 2012.<br />
Jones Lang LaSalle. (2008). Green Building<br />
Rating Systems: Going Beyond the Labels –<br />
October 2008. Internet: JLDS. Available at:<br />
www.joneslanglasalle.com/ Last accessed: 29<br />
February 2012.<br />
Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P. and Hill, R. (2006).<br />
Advancing key outcomes of sustainability<br />
building assessment. Building Research and<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation, 34:4, pgs 308-320.<br />
Kenneth, S. (2009). BREEAM and LEED to<br />
work together on New Global Standard.<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Building UK, March 2009.<br />
Kibert, C. J. (2007). The next generation of<br />
sustainable construction. Building Research<br />
and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 35:6, pgs 595-601.<br />
Larsson, N. and Macias, M. (2012). Overview<br />
of the SBTool assessment framework. Internet:<br />
iiSBE. Available at: http://www.iisbe.org/ Last<br />
accessed: 15 July 2012.<br />
Larsson, N. and Poel, B. (2002). Solar Low<br />
Energy Buildings and the Integrated Design<br />
Process – An introduction. International<br />
Energy Agency (IEA) Task 23. Arnhem: IEA.<br />
Lee, W L., Chau, C K., Yik, F W., Burnett, J. and<br />
Tse, M. S. (2002). On the study of the creditweighting<br />
scale in a building environmental<br />
assessment scheme. Building Research and<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation, 37, pgs 1385-1396.<br />
Lewis, M. (2002). What is the Value of LEED<br />
Certifi cation? Environmental Design +<br />
Construction, June 2002.<br />
Lohan, M. (2012). Personal Communication<br />
with Michael Lohan, Property Manager, IDA<br />
Ireland. May 2012.<br />
Longlife (2009). Longlife project in<strong>for</strong>mation.<br />
Internet: Longlife. Available at: http://www.<br />
longlife-world.eu/ Last accessed: 1 March<br />
2012.<br />
Lutzkendorf, T. and Lorenze, D. (2007). Using<br />
an integrated per<strong>for</strong>mance approach in<br />
building assessment tools. Building Research<br />
and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 34:4, pgs 334-356.<br />
Lutzkendorf, T., Fan, W. and Lorenz, D. (2011).<br />
Engaging fi nancial stakeholders: opportunities<br />
<strong>for</strong> a sustainable built environment. Building<br />
Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 39:5, pgs. 483-503.<br />
Masterson, E. (2012). Personal communication<br />
with Eleanor Masterson, Deputy Chief<br />
Architectural Advisor, HSE Estates. June 2012.<br />
Mateus, R. and Braganca, L. (2011).<br />
Sustainability assessment and rating of<br />
buildings: developing the methodology SBTool<br />
PT-H. Building and Environment, 46, pgs<br />
1962-1971.
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Munch, J. (2009). Sustainability Assessment<br />
of Buildings. Masters thesis <strong>for</strong> DTU<br />
Management, Technical University of Denmark.<br />
Internet: DTU. Available at: http://www.dtu.dk/<br />
Last accessed: 30 March 2012.<br />
Natural Step. (2012). Our Approach - the<br />
Natural Step Framework. Internet: Natural<br />
Step. Available at: http://www.naturalstep.org/<br />
Last accessed: 5 April 2012.<br />
New Zealand Green Building Council<br />
(NZGBC). (2006). Green Building Assessment<br />
Tool Research project. Final report prepared<br />
<strong>for</strong> the Ministry <strong>for</strong> the Environment. Internet:<br />
Ministry <strong>for</strong> the Environment. Available at:<br />
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ Last accessed: 11<br />
March 2012.<br />
O’Brien, Brian (2012). Personal<br />
communication with Brian O’Brien, Irish<br />
representative of ILFI, April 2012.<br />
O’Connor, A. (2012). Personal communication<br />
with Aidan O’Connor, Department of the<br />
Environment, Communitany and Local<br />
Government. June 2012.<br />
Organisation <strong>for</strong> Economic Cooperation and<br />
Development (OECD). (2009). Environmental<br />
Per<strong>for</strong>mance Reviews: Ireland 2010. Internet:<br />
OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ Last<br />
accessed: 19 March 2012.<br />
Open House (2012). Open House project<br />
in<strong>for</strong>mation. Internet: Open House. Available<br />
at http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/ Last<br />
accessed: 28 February 2012.<br />
Offi ce of Public Works (OPW). (2007).<br />
Sustainability Policy of the Offi ce of Public<br />
Works (OPW). Internet: OPW. Available at:<br />
http://www.opw.ie/ Last Accessed: 15 July<br />
2012.<br />
Parker, J. (2009). BREEAM or LEED –<br />
strengths and weaknesses of the two main<br />
environmental assessment methods. BSRIA.<br />
Internet: BSRIA. Available at: http://www.bsria.<br />
co.uk/ Last accessed: 2 February 2012.<br />
Poston, A., Emmalual, R. and Thomson, C.<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
(2010). Developing holistic frameworks <strong>for</strong><br />
the next generation of sustainable assessment<br />
methods <strong>for</strong> the built environment. In Egbu,<br />
C. (Ed) Proceedings 26th Annual ARCOM<br />
Conference, 6-6 September 2010. Leeds, UK.<br />
Association of Construction Management, pgs<br />
1487-1496.<br />
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte,<br />
K-W. (2009). International Comparison of<br />
Sustainable rating Tools. JOSRE, vol 1, no 1,<br />
2009. Internet: Costar. Available at: http://www.<br />
costar.com/josre/ Last accessed: 6<br />
March 2010.<br />
Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A. and Schulte,<br />
K-W. (2011). A Comparison of International<br />
Sustainable Building Tools – An Update. In<br />
Newell, G. (Ed) Proceedings 17th Annual<br />
Pacifi c Rim Real Estate Society Conference,<br />
16-19 January 2011. Gold Coast, Australia.<br />
Internet: PRRES. Available at: http://www.<br />
prres.net/ Last accessed: 8 March 2012.<br />
Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C, and<br />
Alonso, C. (2009). A Comparative Study of<br />
Building Energy Per<strong>for</strong>mance Assessment<br />
between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star<br />
Schemes. Proceedings Eleventh International<br />
IBPSA Conference, July 27-30, 2009. Glasgow,<br />
Scotland. Internet: IBPSA. Available at: http://<br />
www.ibpsa.org/ Last accessed: 31 July 2012.<br />
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors<br />
(RICS). (2011). Going <strong>for</strong> ‘Green’. Sustainable<br />
Building Certifi cation Statistics Europe.<br />
Internet: RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.<br />
org/ Last accessed: 5 January 2011.<br />
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors<br />
(RICS). (2012). Ska Rating. Internet: RICS.<br />
Available at: http://www.rics.org/ Last accessed:<br />
25 May 2012.<br />
Sayce, S, Ellison, L, Parnel, P. (2007).<br />
Understanding investment drivers <strong>for</strong> UK<br />
sustainable property. Building Research and<br />
In<strong>for</strong>mation, 35:6 pgs 629-643.<br />
Saunders, T. 2008. A Discussion Document<br />
75<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL
76<br />
REFERENCES<br />
IRISH GREEN <strong>BUILDING</strong> COUNCIL<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
Comparing International Assessment Methods<br />
<strong>for</strong> Buildings. BRE, Glasgow.<br />
Sustainable Building Alliance (SBA). (2010).<br />
A framework <strong>for</strong> common metrics. Internet:<br />
SBA. Available at: http://www.sballiance.org/<br />
Last accessed: 15 July 2012.<br />
Schultmann, F., Sunke, N. and Kruger, P. K.<br />
(2009). Global Per<strong>for</strong>mance Assessment<br />
of Buildings: A critical discussion of its<br />
meaningfulness. Internet: SASBE. Available at:<br />
http://www.sasbe2009.com/ Last accessed: 10<br />
March 2012.<br />
Sleeuw, M. (2011). A Comparison of BREEAM<br />
and LEED Environmental Assessment<br />
Methods. A report to the University of East<br />
Anglia Estates and Building Division. Internet:<br />
UEA. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/ Last<br />
accessed: 1 May 2012.<br />
Todd, JA., Crawley, D., Geissler, S. and Lindsay,<br />
G. (2001). Comparative Assessment of<br />
environmental per<strong>for</strong>mance tools and the<br />
role of the Green Building Challenge. Building<br />
Research and In<strong>for</strong>mation, 29 (5), pgs. 324-<br />
335.<br />
Toth, FL. and Hizsnyik. E. (1998). Integrated<br />
environmental assessment methods: evolution<br />
and applications. Environmental Modeling and<br />
Assessment, 3(3), pgs 193-207.<br />
Udall, R. and Schendler, A. (2005). LEED is<br />
Broken….lets fi x it. Grist magazine. Internet:<br />
Aspen Snowmass. Available at: www.<br />
aspensnowmass.com. Last accessed: 14 March<br />
2012.<br />
UK Green Building Council. (2009). Making<br />
the case <strong>for</strong> a Code <strong>for</strong> Sustainable Buildings.<br />
A Report by the Code <strong>for</strong> Sustainable<br />
Buildings Task Group. Internet: UKGBC.<br />
Available at: http://www.ukgbc.org/ Last<br />
accessed: 7 February 2012.<br />
UK Green Building Council. (2010). BREEAM<br />
Consultation – UK GBC consults members<br />
on the future direction of BREEAM.<br />
Consultation Findings Report. Internet:<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
❚<br />
UKGBC. Available at: http://www.ukgbc.org/<br />
Last accessed: 7 February 2012.<br />
UK Green Building Council. (2011). The<br />
Ecolabel <strong>for</strong> Buildings: A proposal <strong>for</strong> effective<br />
implementation. UKGBC Draft Publication.<br />
United States Green Building Council<br />
(USGBC). (2011). In<strong>for</strong>mation on Rating<br />
Systems and Certifi cation Tools. Internet:<br />
USGBC. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/<br />
Last accessed: 14 March 2012.<br />
United States Green Building Council<br />
(USGBC). (2012a). BREEAM Equivalency <strong>for</strong><br />
LEED. Internet: USGBC. Available at: http://<br />
www.usgbc.org/ Last accessed: 21 July 2012.<br />
United States Green Building Council<br />
(USGBC). (2012b). Personal communication<br />
with Jennivine Kwan, Vice President,<br />
International Operations, April 2012.<br />
Usher, PJ. (2004). Traditional ecological<br />
knowledge in environmental assessment and<br />
management. Artic, 53(2), pgs 183-193.<br />
Whoriskey, P. (2011). A Future Irish<br />
Construction Industry Environmental<br />
Assessment Method: BREEAM or LEED?.<br />
Undergraduate Thesis <strong>for</strong> BSc in Construction<br />
Management, Dublin Institute of Technology.<br />
Yates, A., Baldwin, R., Howard, N. and Roa, S.<br />
(1998). BREEAM 98 <strong>for</strong> Offi ces. BRE Report<br />
no. 350, Wat<strong>for</strong>d: BRE.