Chris Butters

In the past decade we have seen a variety oftools for evaluating buildings and otherproducts in an environmental perspective.Many are theoretical and still too unsystem-atic or complicated to be useful in practice.Most are environmental assessment tools,which cover only limited parts of the conceptof sustainability.

Benchmarking and sustainability

Sustainability cannot be precisely defined –nor is this necessary, since sustainable devel-opment refers to a dynamic process from onestate towards another. All buildings, towns orsocieties evolve, for better or worse, throughtime. Our horizons – both our ambition levelsand our technical possibilities – will alsochange. Broadly defined, we can say thatsustainability means positive social and eco-nomic development on a long-term basiswithin the framework of the carrying capac-ity of the earth’s ecosystems.

If human settlements are to fulfil the goalof sustainability, then we need tools to settargets, plan, design, and evaluate. We also

need such tools as a scientific basis for com-paring different projects, and for evaluatinghow they develop over time.

Benchmarking, the setting of definedquantitative goals, is already common insome fields, for example space requirements,energy norms, permissible emission levels,etc. Some people still understand sustainabil-ity as a question of technology, related to pol-lution, wastes, energy and the like. But theseare only the eco-technical or material aspects.There is now universal acceptance that sus-tainability has three components: ecological,economic and social. And all three are essen-tial; rather like a three-legged stool; if one legis missing, the whole thing will fall over.

Existing systems

There are already a number of tools for eval-uating the environmental profile of buildings,as well as other products. Do we needanother? As noted, the main weakness ofthese systems is that they are environmentalassessment tools that do not address sustain-ability in its full sense.

BREEAM, Norway’s Ecoprofile and Arup’sSPeaR are amongst the systems that use a

34

A Holistic Method ofEvaluating SustainabilityThis article presents a holistic method for evaluating sustainability.Primarily developed for buildings and urban development, it canalso be applied to other products – as well as for evaluatingsustainability in a broad sense. It is not an abstract model but aconcrete tool for planning and design as well as evaluation andcomparison of projects. In contrast to existing assessment tools, itoperationalises the concept of sustainability in its full sense. Themethod has been developed by Chris Butters in NABU, NorwegianArchitects for Sustainable Development. Sustainability is evaluatedand presented in the form of a value map.

Chris Butters is ... .

graphic presentation inspired by circular“wind rose” diagrams. This was probably firstapplied to buildings for assessment of indoorclimate, as in the Swedish Örebro-model. Thewind rose visualisation is attractive, but hasbeen transposed to the field of buildings in arather unthinking fashion. The selection ofparameters is often unsystematic. Importantfactors are left out, and different kinds ofparameters are sometimes jumbled together.Wind roses show frequency of wind accord-ing to the compass points, but when one usespoints rather than segments to demarcatevalues, then the area covered becomes visu-ally misleading.

The manner of visualisation is also basi-cally counter-intuitive. Almost withoutexception, these tools show the degree ofnegative environmental effect. Their “goal” isthe zero-point in the middle of the circle; inother words, the worse the building, the big-ger the star it gets. But we read the size of astar intuitively as denoting positive quality.(And we must present the positive, not thenegative image.) So the picture must bestructured in the opposite way.

The highest value in these systems is oftena rather vaguely defined “excellent”, whichdoes not always correspond to the very bestpractice that already exists. Why set an uppergoal of 50 kilowatt hours per m2 when zeroenergy buildings already exist? Users do notget a true picture of what the goal is, or whatis already possible. Though we cannot definesustainability precisely, it is beyond doubtnot a matter of improving today’s systems by10 or 20 %, but of big changes. The horizonwe are aiming for is a long way off, and thishorizon must be communicated graphically.

The Value Map

Although sustainability is an imperfect con-cept, it provides a common basis for holistic,cross-sectoral understanding. The Value Mapvisualises the goal that all architecture, citybuilding and other production should fulfilthe three conditions of sustainability. Ecologyrefers to environment and resources, economyencompasses financial and institutional fac-tors, whilst society encompasses cultural,human and community aspects.

In contrast to the systems described above,the Value Map has the following characteristics:

• the circle is divided into three equal parts,one each for the three basic components ofsustainability

• the value scale is outwards, so that bestresult corresponds to biggest star

• segments, rather than “compass points”, areused to depict values, giving visually cor-rect geometrical weighting

• the selection of parameters is, though pro-visional, systematic

• the values are scaled so that the outer rim,corresponding to a “horizon” of full sus-tainability, is clearly shown to be far off.

Each of the three main areas of sustainabilityis here defined by eight parameters. It isstressed that these parameters are provisional,and that they both can and should vary tosome extent depending on project scale. In afull assessment most will also need a moredetailed breakdown – for example the varioustypes of energy supply and consumption.

For each of the 24 parameters, bench-marks can be defined in detail. Many existalready. Assessment can be done both in a

Building and Urban Development in Norway 35

Oikos: The world as our commonhouse. (Photo: CB)

detailed way and in a simplified form.A relative weighting of the various fac-

tors, which some ecoprofile tools try to do,should not be attempted. Weighting is ahopeless project; it will always be relative,with priorities that will quite rightly varyfrom one project to another. On the otherhand, it seems principally important that thethree areas of ecology, economy and societyshould be given visually equal weight.

The method shows the user the relativeeffect of different choices. Even without anexact value, one will clearly be far betterthan another. Exact scores will often matterless than the process that the user goesthrough to arrive at decisions.

The value scale

The scale is from 0 to 5. Value 0 meansextremely poor standard, value 1 is poor, andvalue 2 corresponds to “normal practice” orquality expected in new projects today – forexample latest building requirements. Value3 shows a result well above today’s practice,and value 4 extremely advanced solutions.The outer ring, value 5, corresponds to whatwe at the present time can envisage as moreor less “fully sustainable” – for example anear-zero energy building. Very few projectsin today’s world will touch this outer perime-ter at more than one or two points.

Applications

The Value Map can be applied at many lev-els, from a product to a building, a housing

area or an entire region. It can also be usedin relation to time, to assess how the sustain-ability of a building or community developsfrom year to year. And it can be used tomake comparative studies between projects.

In its simplified form, it provides a check-list and framework for designers, and for dis-cussion amongst participants in a planningprocess. In its detailed form, ideally, it gives acomplete qualitative and quantitative pictureof the condition of a project or community.

If we build a house that requires zeroenergy but is both expensive (economics) andawful to live in (society), is such a product ofany interest at all? Our goal is an optimum ofall requirements, not maximisation of one ortwo. The Value Map visualises these connec-tions; it shows whether a high score in onearea is only at the expense of satisfactoryscores in others. Quality must be assessed inrelation to all three areas.

Architects, engineers, developers – allhave a tendency to view the world in a staticfashion: Our job ends when our product isdelivered. Seen in a sustainable perspective,this is not enough. We have to work with lifecycle assessment – the dynamic reality whichis the life of a building, a town, a commu-nity. Maintenance, renewal and decay arepart of that reality. A successful district maygo into serious decline after some years. Peo-ple use buildings in unexpected ways. Ahouse built to zero energy standard may havea high energy use from day one if the usersmisunderstand or misuse the systems.

In other words, sustainability is not some-thing that can be delivered. Nor can it beevaluated once and for all. It is a conditionthat must be evaluated over time.

36

Quantities and qualities

Research in this field is often coloured bysectoral interests. There is no getting awayfrom the fact that this favourises technicalresearch with visible cost-benefit value.Research is increasingly funded or co-fundedby market interests – for example an energycompany or a manufacturer of materials. Sothere is little incentive in the system to thinkin wholes. What is called interdisciplinaryresearch is often little more than cooperationbetween three or four kinds of engineers. Yetcross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral integra-tion is recognised as being the very key toachieving sustainability.

Material factors can be quantified; thismay be why researchers tend to confine theirwork on sustainability to the few factors,such as energy, water and wastes, which canbe measured in a fairly objective way. Theperformance of a technical system can becalculated (even so, this does not mean that itwill perform that way in practice, as notedabove, since there is a troublesome little vari-able called people which always has the finalsay). It is obvious, on the other hand, thatsocial parameters are not quantifiable butlargely qualitative. This does not mean thatthey cannot be assessed.

Qualitative factors also have to bedesigned at the drawing board stage; thisboth can and must be done, but the resultsare to a far larger degree dependent on users’perceptions. Assessment must be post-occu-pancy, using sociological methods. The fol-lowing are examples of typical issues relatedto quantities and qualities.

Energy

Energy is a typical ecological parameter. Thevalue scale shown here for energy use inhousing already contains simplifications. Wemust distinguish between detached houses,row houses and apartment blocks; differentclimatic zones must be correlated; assessmentof energy use per m2 has its limitations.Embodied energy also has to be taken intoaccount.

Energy saving can be achieved by techni-cal changes, improved information, or simplylifestyle preference. Energy is a complex

issue - it is a sociotechnical, not a technicalfield. A Danish case illustrates this. A largeurban project aimed to reduce energy con-sumption by 25 % through technical upgrad-ing. The project was delayed for various rea-sons. When it ultimately started, it turned outthat energy consumption had already fallenby nearly 20 % – without any building meas-ures – simply because of the informationabout energy which had been given to theresidents in connection with the project pro-posal – before the technical work began!

Management

Economic sustainability denotes a systemthat is robust, diverse, adaptable, and wellenough organised to provide welfare on along-term basis. This implies that it must alsobe based on environmentally sound produc-tion and consumption. Money is only a partof this. Finances, institutions and manage-ment are the instruments that ensure a sus-tainable, or unsustainable, relationshipbetween society and its environment.

Quality and robustness over time dependon how a housing association or city districtis organised, whether citizens and stakehold-ers participate in decision-making, and howefficient the management is. Financial indi-cators, organisational structures and partici-pation can also be assessed objectively tosome extent – but they are qualities whichusers may perceive as poor however good thesystems may appear in theory.

Security

Security is a typical societal, qualitativeissue. To a degree it can also be assessedquantitatively – for example neighbourhoodstatistics on criminality – but it is largelysubjective. Like many of the other societalparameters it thus requires post-occupancysurveys.

Such factors have to be considered at thedesign stage, and of course they can be. Plan-ners have experience of how different hous-ing layouts affect criminality, for example.We can design for security with buildingform, street lighting, alarm systems, etc. Butthe users may still have a different, lived per-ception of the security of the area. An area

Building and Urban Development in Norway 37

What is sustainable urbandevelopment?Sustainable urban develop-ment is largely a question oftransformation processeswithin existing cities - aprocess of improving amessy and very imperfectreality. More than the indivi-dual pieces of urban fabric,it is the overall spatial andinfrastructural conditionsthat are most important,and these are even moredifficult to change. Citiesmust also be viewed toget-her with their regional hin-terland.

Sustainable urban deve-lopment needs eco-techno-logy, institutions and peo-ple. It requires a long-termvision and a communitydynamic. There are nowlarge-scale projects inScandinavia and Europe.The City of Oslo Urban Eco-logy programme is a goodexample of a sustainabilityframework. Some initiativesfocus on specific aspectssuch as transports, wastes,etc, including well-knownEU and international net-works such as ICLEI andCEMR. But the intentionsare as yet not often suppor-ted by large-scale politicalor financial commitment.

Mixed use, low ecologi-cal footprint and a healthyenvironment comprise thekeywords. The best projectsaddress social qualities asmuch as ecological onesand, in the spirit of Agenda21, build heavily on userparticipation.

(See colour brochure onUrban Ecology by the OsloPorts Authority / NABU, dis-tributed free at IFHP-2004)

can also change, become run-down and crim-inalised. Again we are reminded how sustain-ability is not something that can be deliveredonce and for all, but must be assessed contin-ually, in dialogue with the real users, andwith time as the sternest judge.

Sustainability and architecture

NABU’s work is based on a broad under-standing of sustainability; not just ecologicaldesign but a holistic field – thus encompass-ing the whole of architecture and planning.This is reflected in the policy document pro-duced for our parent organisation, theNational Association of Norwegian Archi-tects, where we describe sustainability as acornerstone for the profession.

It is important to note that sustainabledesign combines well-established knowledgeand new factors - and integrates solutions innew ways. Much of the ecological knowledgeis new, but the social qualities achieved inNordic housing, for example, are well recog-nised and are several decades old.

The Value Map provides some sorelyneeded clarity in understanding sustainabil-ity. The concept had its roots in the environ-mental failures of our societies, and ecologyis still the area that needs particular improve-ment in design; however, environment isonly one aspect of sustainable development.Quite simply, sustainability is about quality:social, aesthetic, technical, economic, andenvironmental.

Energy and resource-conscious architectureis ecological, but is not sustainable if it is non-

38

Pilestredet Park urban ecology project, Oslo: generallygood eco-technology, especially materials recycling. Butextremely dense, no user participation, and sky-high costs.Old surgical block converted to apartments. (Thon AS.Photo: Stein Stoknes)

Nordic cluster housing – Oksval 3, Nesodden: excellentsocial qualities, car-free, low costs, integrated into nature,moderate space use and footprint. Poor energy andresource efficiency (old standards). Excellent planningfrom the 1970s! (Rosland architects. Photo CB)

Four examples. Note: these are illustratio

functional, ugly or just too expensive. On theother hand, architecture that is beautiful can-not be designated sustainable for that reasonalone. There is no reason today why a buildingor urban plan cannot be both beautiful andreasonably costed – as well as ecological.

Conclusion

The design and assessment method describedhere has a broad range of applications. It canbe applied in both simple and detailed form.It is important that the “horizon” clearlyshows a high level of ambition correspondingroughly to what we can conceive of today as“fully sustainable”. Above all, the Value Mapvisualises sustainability for the first time in acomprehensive manner.

The Value Map has already been tested inNorway and other countries, and now needsfurther development, including the parame-ters and benchmarks as well as a softwareprogram.

Technical and other specialists need towork with the interdependence of quantitiesand qualities, of objective and subjective val-ues. We must shift our focus from environ-mental assessment to sustainability – fromeco-technology to the whole picture. And ifsustainable development is our goal then weneed integrated design processes and evalua-tion tools. Our methodology must renderexplicit the fundamental links between ecol-ogy, economy and society.

Building and Urban Development in Norway 39

Typical slum – Capetown: Use of land, private cars andenergy are all near zero (they can’t afford any!). 100 %recycled materials. Totally flexible, the whole thing can bemoved in an hour. Extremely low cost. On the other handempowerment, sanitation, health and security are a disas-ter. Very “sustainable” – in one sense – these are some ofthe planet’s most resource-saving people. (Photo: CB)

Sustainable district Südstadt, Tübingen, Germany: low energybuilding, car-free areas, public transport, high biodiversity,user participation processes, reasonable costs: No specialtheme - integrated solutions. Excellent in most aspects!Apartments in massive timber. (Eble Architects. Photo: CB)

ons only and not based on full evaluations