deliverable 2.1 conclusions about the needs for...

Sustainability and Performance assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings

SuPerBuildings

Deliverable 2.1 Conclusions about the needs for

development of sustainability indicators and assessment methods

Lead contractor : BBRI

D2.1 Conclusions about the needs for development of sustainability indicators and assessment methods

p. 2/97

Table of contents 1. 1. Table of contents ..................................................................................... 2 Executive summary ....................................................................................... 4 2. Introduction ............................................................................................. 5 3. Current state of harmonisation .............................................................. 6

3.1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 6 3.2. CEN TC350 – Sustainability of construction works ................................ 6

3.2.1. Background .......................................................................................... 6 3.2.2. Current Programme ............................................................................. 7 3.2.3. Methodology ........................................................................................ 8 3.2.4. The Object of Assessment ................................................................... 8 3.2.5. Levels and Benchmarks ....................................................................... 9 3.2.6. Modularity ............................................................................................ 9 3.2.7. Comparison of Assessments ................................................................ 9 3.2.8. Use of Scenarios ................................................................................ 12 3.2.9. Indicators ........................................................................................... 12

3.2.9.1. Environmental Indicators ............................................................. 12 3.2.9.2. Other environmental indicators ................................................... 16 3.2.9.3. Indicators for the Assessment of Social Performance ................. 17 3.2.9.4. Economic Indicators .................................................................... 18

3.2.10. Current status of the standards (June 2010) ...................................... 24 3.3. ISO TC59 SC17 - Building construction - Sustainability in building

construction ............................................................................................ 31 3.3.1. Background ........................................................................................ 31 3.3.2. The standards of SC17 ...................................................................... 31

3.3.2.1. ISO 15392 Sustainable building - General Principles .................. 31 3.3.2.2. ISO CD 21929-1 Building Construction Sustainability in Building Construction – Sustainability Indicators- Part 1 - Framework for the development of indicators for buildings and core indicators .......................... 33 3.3.2.3. ISO NWI21929-2 Sustainability in building construction - Sustainability indicators Part 2: Framework for the development of indicators for civil engineering works” ........................................................................... 36 3.3.2.4. ISO 21930 - Sustainability in building construction - Environmental declaration of building products .................................................................... 36 3.3.2.5. ISO 21931-1 - Sustainability in building construction - Framework for methods of assessment for environmental performance of construction works — Part 1: Buildings ............................................................................. 38 3.3.2.6. ISO TR 21932 Sustainability in building construction – Terminology 39

3.4. Sustainable Buildings Alliance (SBA).................................................... 39 3.4.1. Background ........................................................................................ 39 3.4.2. SBA Framework for Common Metrics (2009) ..................................... 40 3.4.3. What is assessed? ............................................................................. 40

3.5. UNEP SBCI .............................................................................................. 44 3.5.1. Background ........................................................................................ 44 3.5.2. What is measured? ............................................................................ 44


p. 3/97

3.6. LEnSE ...................................................................................................... 45 3.6.1. Background ........................................................................................ 45 3.6.2. WP1 – Identification of sustainability issues and scope definition ....... 46

3.6.2.1. Long list of sustainability issues .................................................. 46 3.6.2.2. Short list of sustainability issues .................................................. 47 3.6.2.3. Short list of sustainability issues and sub-issues ......................... 48

3.6.3. WP2 – Development of a sustainability assessment methodology ..... 51 3.6.3.1. Shortlist of sustainability issues to be developed ......................... 51 3.6.3.2. Development of sustainability issues within the LEnSE project ... 52

3.7. Perfection ................................................................................................ 58 3.7.1. Background ........................................................................................ 58 3.7.2. Current state of the project ................................................................. 59

3.8. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 59 4. Review of existing building evaluation tools ...................................... 61

4.1. Approach and list of evaluated tools ..................................................... 61 4.1.1. Building evaluation tools considered within the project ....................... 61 4.1.2. Questionnaire and Excel file on available indicators and assessment methods 63 4.1.3. Analysis of availability of indicators and assessment methods ........... 64

4.2. Availability of indicators and evaluation methods ................................ 66 4.2.1. Environmental issues and indicators .................................................. 66

4.2.1.1. Availability of environmental issues and indicators within the evaluation tools ............................................................................................. 66 4.2.1.2. Commonly used environmental issues and indicators and their needs for further harmonisation .................................................................... 68 4.2.1.3. Core environmental indicators ..................................................... 75

4.2.2. Economic issues and indicators ......................................................... 75 4.2.2.1. Availability of economic issues and indicators within the evaluation tools 75 4.2.2.2. Commonly used economic issues and indicators and their needs for further harmonisation ............................................................................... 77 4.2.2.3. Core economic indicators ............................................................ 80

4.2.3. Social issues and indicators ............................................................... 80 4.2.3.1. Availability of social issues and indicators within the evaluation tools 80 4.2.3.2. Commonly used social issues and indicators and their needs for further harmonisation .................................................................................... 82 4.2.3.3. Core social indicators .................................................................. 90

4.2.4. Issues and indicators that occur in a few tools but that do not really fit into the framework for classification.................................................................. 90

4.3. Conclusions ............................................................................................ 91 List of references ......................................................................................... 93 Appendices................................................................................................... 95

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire for WP2 – Establishment of the common starting point for the project ................................................................................ 96


p. 4/97

Executive summary Task 2.1 of Work Package WP2 of the SuPerBuildings project aims at collecting information and analysing the situation with regard to the availability of sustainability indicators and measuring methods for buildings in order to come to conclusions about the needs for (further) development and/or harmonisation of (existing) sustainability indicators and assessment methods. In a first part of this task, a number of European and international harmonisation and standardisation activities, i.e. CEN TC 350, ISO TC59 SC17, Sustainable Building Alliance (SBA), UNEP SBCI, LEnSE and Perfection, is reviewed for the current availability and state of harmonisation of sustainability indicators and their assessment methods for buildings. Based on this analysis, it can be concluded that CEN and ISO standards are based on a common life-cycle analysis based approach, supplemented by additional environmental and technical information. However, the standards only fully address environmental performance assessment, while currently work is continuing to address more fully the social performance of buildings. The SBA and UNEP initiatives focus on a much narrower set of metrics than included in the standards. Within the LEnSE project, 31 environmental, social and economic issues are identified and an assessment method is developed, starting from a review of existing evaluation tools and standardisation and harmonisation activities. The current Perfection project, finally, focuses on setting up a framework and a set of indicators concerning the overall quality of the indoor environment of buildings. In a second part of this task, eleven national building evaluation tools, i.e. BREEAM, BNB/DGNB, PromisE, HQE, Valideo, CASBEE, LEED, SBTool CZ, Klima:aktiv Gebaüdestandard, TQB and GPR Gebouw, are reviewed and analysed with regard to the availability of sustainability indicators and assessment methods and their degree of common understanding. Based on this review, both issues and indicators that are not (commonly) covered by the different tools and issues and indicators that are most occurring within the tools are identified. For all issues that are covered by more than one tool, the variation in assessment criteria and methods is looked into in order to draw conclusions on their needs for further development and/or harmonisation. Furthermore, based on the responses of the partners on a questionnaire concerning their national building evaluation tool, both missing indicators and indicators that need (further) development and core indicators are identified and compared to the indicators that are considered by the different tools.


p. 5/97

Introduction 2. The European SuPerBuildings or ‘Sustainability and Performance assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings’ project aims at: developing and selecting sustainability indicators for buildings; developing understanding about performance levels considering new and existing

buildings, different building types and different national and local requirements; developing methods for the assessment and benchmarking of sustainable

buildings; making recommendations for the effective use of benchmarking systems as

instruments of steering and in different stages of building projects. Work package 2 of this project (WP2) ‘Establishment of the common starting point for the project’ has the following main objectives: to summarise the existing results on sustainable building indicators and

assessment and rating systems; to establish a common starting point for the project; to make conclusions about the main topics of sustainable building indicators and

related assessment methods that need further development. For this, the following topics are viewed: the availability of indicators that describe the potential environmental, social and

economic impacts of buildings and the degree of common understanding about these indicators;

the availability of methods, which properly measure performance levels for each indicator, and the degree of common acceptance of these methods;

the degree of variations in indicators and performance levels for benchmarking that is needed for different kinds of buildings and in different areas of Europe;

the availability of aggregation and weighting methods with help of which the results can be expressed with help of key figures or labels.

Based on the topics mentioned above, two tasks are identified within this work package, i.e.: Task 2.1 Indicators and assessment methods, which collects information and

analyses the situation with regard to the availability of indicators and measuring methods (first two topics) in order to come to conclusions about the needs for development of sustainability indicators and assessment methods;

Task 2.2 Benchmarking criteria and weighting methods, which collects information and analyses the situation with regard to the last two topics in order to come to conclusions on how performance levels for benchmarking are set and to develop principles for aggregation and weighting of sustainability indicators.

Based on the results of these two tasks, the WP2 aims at concluding what is the true level of common understanding about indicators, measuring methods, benchmarking criteria and weighting methods. Within this report, the results of Task 2.1 of WP2 are described. In a first part, an overview is given of the current state of harmonisation within some European and international initiatives and standardisation activities with regard to sustainability indicators for buildings. In a second part, a number of existing building evaluation tools is reviewed and the availability and degree of common understanding of the various indicators and assessment methods are analysed.


p. 6/97

Current state of harmonisation 3. 3.1. Introduction In the first part of this report, a detailed overview is given of the current availability and state of harmonisation of sustainability indicators and their assessment methods within a number of European and international initiatives and standardisation activities. For each initiative or activity, the background and programme, the methodology applied, the available standards and the sustainability indicators and their assessment methodologies considered are described. Within this report, the following harmonisation and standardisation activities are considered: CEN TC 350; ISO TC59 SC17; Sustainable Buildings Alliance (SBA); UNEP SBCI; LEnSE; Perfection.

3.2. CEN TC350 – Sustainability of construction

works 3.2.1. Background Around the year 2000, the European Commission began to be concerned that the plethora of national environmental schemes across Europe could begin to create technical barriers to trade within the European Union. A formal mandate to CEN (Mandate M350) was issued by DG ENTERPRISE of the European Commission on 29 March 2004. The stated goal of the Commission (DG Enterprise) was to provide a method for the voluntary delivery of environmental information that supports the construction of sustainable works including new and existing buildings (not all construction works will be included). The information should be presented in a format that would be useful for other parties, such as architects and contractors. The proposed route to achieve this goal is was through voluntary Environmental Product Declarations (EPD). The Mandate requested that CEN:

“provide a method for the voluntary delivery of environmental information that supports the construction of sustainable works including new and existing buildings”.

Based, whenever possible, on international standards. In this context, Type III environmental declarations are defined as:

“quantified environmental data for a product with pre-set categories of parameters based on the ISO14025, standard - together with ISO14040, 14044, and ISO 21930 (a development of ISO14025 for construction


p. 7/97

products) - with a set of rules including as a minimum: categories of parameters to measured, involvement of interested parties, verification and a declaration format”.

The CEN technical committee set up to take this mandate forward (CEN TC350 and its working groups) began its work in late 2005. The standards being developed by the CEN Technical Committee (TC350) are to provide a harmonised, horizontal (i.e. applicable to all products and building types) approach to the measurement of embodied and operational environmental impacts of construction products and whole buildings across the entire lifecycle. The standards are voluntary and will not set benchmarks or levels of performance. Subsequently, the scope of the standards being developed in TC350 has been extended beyond that of Mandate M350, to include economic performance and social performance of buildings as well as environmental performance. The work of the Technical Committee 350 (TC350) has been divided into six working groups: CEN/TC 350/TG “Framework” CEN/TC 350/WG1 “Environmental performance of buildings” CEN/TC 350/WG2 “Building life cycle description“ (suspended in July 2009) CEN/TC 350/WG3 “Product Level” (EPDs, communication formats etc.) CEN/TC 350/WG4 “Economic Performance Assessment of Buildings” CEN/TC 350/WG5 “Social Performance Assessment of Buildings”

3.2.2. Current Programme The current programme and schedule of CEN TC350, as shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2, includes the development of standards (EN) and technical reports (TR) covering the assessment of the environmental, social and economic performance of buildings.

Figure 1: Work Programme of CEN TC350


p. 8/97

Figure 2: TC350 Programme Schedule (May 2010) Key: Del = Deleted (Work Item), DIS = Draft International Standard (ISO), ENQ = Enquiry Ballot, FDIS = Final Draft International Standard (ISO), FV = Formal Vote, prEN = Provisional European Standard, SD = Start Date, TR = Technical Report, TS = Technical Specification, UAP = Unique Acceptance Procedure, WD = Working Draft, WI = Work Item.

There are a number of key concepts included in the CEN TC350 standards, i.e. the following: Methodology; Object of assessment; Levels and benchmark; Modularity; Comparison of assessments; Use of scenarios; Indicators.

These concepts are described in the following sections. 3.2.3. Methodology The standards developed provide a European system for the assessment of environmental, social and economic performance of buildings based on a life cycle approach. The assessment methods given in the standards take into account performance aspects and impacts that can be expressed with quantitative and qualitative indicators. These are measured without value judgements. 3.2.4. The Object of Assessment The standards apply to all types of buildings; of new buildings over their entire life cycle, and of existing buildings over their remaining service life and end of life stage. The object of assessment is the building (or part thereof), including its foundations


p. 9/97

and external works within the area of the building’s site (curtilage) and temporary works associated with the building’s construction.

The system boundary for the assessment include impacts and aspects of the building-integrated technical system and building-related furniture, fixtures and fittings. The system boundary for the assessment excludes impacts and aspects of the appliances and furniture, fixtures and fittings that are not building-related.

Building related furniture, fixtures and fittings are products that are fixed to the building, so that the dismantling of the product decreases the performance of the building and the dismantling or replacement of the product constitute construction operations.

Appliances that are not building-related are domestic, commercial and industrial appliances and other non-building related goods, e.g. entertainment electronics, washing machines, refrigerators, cooking appliances, office electronics and appliances of industrial processes.

Appliances and furniture, fixtures and fittings that are not building-related may be assessed and reported separately.

Although the evaluation of technical and functional performance is beyond the scope of TC350 standards, the technical and functional characteristics are considered by reference to the functional equivalent. The functional equivalent takes into account the technical and functional requirements and forms the basis for comparisons (see below) of the results of the assessment. 3.2.5. Levels and Benchmarks The standards do not do not set the rules for how the different assessment methodologies may provide valuation methods. Nor do they prescribe levels, classes or benchmarks for measuring performance. 3.2.6. Modularity The standards follow the modularity principle of ISO 21930 in that information is organised and presented according specific activities or operations that occur at different stages in a buildings life-cycle, and that the impacts and aspects used to measure performance are recorded in the ‘information modules’ relating to the point at which they occur. Figure 1 shows the information modules in the building lifecycle according to TC350. 3.2.7. Comparison of Assessments It is intended that comparison of the results of assessments should only be made at the building level, and based on the ‘functional equivalent’ (a simplified description of the building or object of assessment). Comparisons need not be made on the basis of the same functional equivalent, but the basis for any comparison must be made clear. For sustainability assessment, the same functional unit must be used for the assessment of each of the individual dimensions of sustainability. The functional equivalent of a building or an assembled system (part of works) must include, but is not limited to, information on the following aspects:


p. 10/97

building type (e.g. office, factory, etc.); pattern of use (e.g. occupancy); relevant technical and functional requirements (e.g. regulatory framework and

client’s specific requirements); required service life.

Other specific requirements and exposure to climate and to other conditions from the immediate surroundings may be included in the information on the functional equivalent.


p. 11/97

D

Benefits and loads beyond the system boundary

B2 B3 B4 B5

B 6 Operational Energy use

A4

A5 B 7 Operational Water use C1

C2

C3

C4

I II III IV

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4

scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario scenario

B6

B7 Operational water usescenario

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

Was

te

Proc

essi

ng

Dis

posa

l

Reuse -Recovery -Recycling -

potential

De-

cons

truct

ion

dem

oliti

on

Tran

spor

t

scenario

Mai

nten

ance

Rep

air

Rep

lace

men

t scenario

Operational energy use

B1

Raw

mat

eria

l su

pply

Tran

spor

t

Man

ufac

turin

g

Tran

spor

t

Con

stru

ctio

n-in

stal

latio

n pr

oces

Use

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS STAGE USE STAGE END OF LIFE STAGE Benefits and loads beyond the

system boundary

A1-A3

PRODUCT STAGE

Tran

spor

t

Was

te p

roce

ssin

g fo

r reu

se,

reco

very

or a

nd re

cycl

ing

Dis

posa

l

Reuse -Recovery -Recycling -

potential

Raw

Mat

eria

l Sup

ply

Tran

spor

tM

anuf

actu

ring

Tran

spor

t

Con

stru

ctio

n - I

nsta

llatio

n pr

oces

s

Dec

onst

ruct

ion

Ref

urbi

shm

ent

B1

Use

Mai

nten

ance

Rep

air

Rep

lace

men

t

PRODUCT STAGE

CONSTRUCTION PROCESS STAGE USE STAGE END OF LIFE STAGE

BUILDING LIFE CYCLE INFORMATIONSUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

BEYOND THE BUILDING LIFE CYCLE

A1 - 3 A4 - 5 B1 - 7 C1 - 4

prEN15978

Product

prEN15804

Building


p. 12/97

3.2.8. Use of Scenarios Where assessments are made on the basis of specified scenarios these must cover the full building life cycle and be realistic and representative. Equivalent scenarios must be used in each element (social, environmental and economic) assessment. 3.2.9. Indicators TC350 have determined groups of indicators for the assessment of Environmental impacts and aspects. In line with the main purpose of the standards, being assessment of performance at the building level, it is a requirement that all indicators used for assessment at the product level must be capable of being applied at the building level. However, it is not essential for all indicators used at the building level to be reflected by use of the same indicators at the product level. This is particularly true for social performance assessment, where currently the indicators only address aspects related to the Use Stage of the building. Within the standards, the aggregation of separate indicators is not permitted. Aggregation of the same indicator across life-cycle stages of the building is only permitted at the building level when information is available for all information modules – and in which case values for each information module should also be reported separately. 3.2.9.1. Environmental Indicators The environmental indicators, are grouped according to environmental impacts and aspects under the following headings: Indicators for environmental impacts; Indicators for resource inputs; Additional Environmental Information.

Only those indicators that have an agreed basis for standardisation are included in the first versions prEN15978 and prEN15804. Indicators for environmental impacts (LCIA impact categories) Indicator Indicator unit

Global warming potential, GWP kg CO2 equiv

Depletion potential of the stratospheric ozone layer, ODP kg CFC 11 equiv

Acidification potential of land and water sources; AP kg SO2 equiv

Eutrophication potential, EP kg (PO4)3- equiv

Formation potential of tropospheric ozone photochemical oxidants, POCP

kg Ethene equiv

ADP Fossil fuels Depletion of non-renewable fossil-based materials for energy and feedstock

kg Sb equiv

ADP elements Depletion potential of non-renewable material resources (minerals)

kg Sb equiv


p. 13/97

Indicators for resource input Indicator Indicator unit Input of renewable energy resources, primary energy (not including renewable energy resources used as feedstock)

MJ, net calorific value

Input of non-renewable energy resources, primary energy (not including non-renewable energy resources used as feedstock)

? (to be confirmed)

Input of renewable secondary fuels MJ

Input of non-renewable secondary fuels MJ

Input of net fresh water m3

Indicators for additional environmental information Indicator Indicator unit expressed per

functional / declared unit

Hazardous waste to final disposal kg

Non-hazardous waste to final disposal kg

Radioactive waste to final disposal kg

Components for reuse kg

Materials for recycling kg

Materials for energy recovery kg

An EPD, based on the core rules in prEN15804, must include cradle to gate information, for the above indicators. Optionally, for the purposes of supporting a building level assessment, an EPD may contain technical and other environmental information for other stages of the life cycle (e.g. construction stage, use stage, building end of life stage, and beyond the end-of life of the building). This information is intended to assist in the development of scenarios required for assessment at the building level. For example:

Transport from gate to site If additional technical information is provided in the EPD for transport from the production gate to the construction site, the following information shall be provided.


p. 14/97

Parameter Parameter unit expressed per functional/declared unit

Fuel type consumption of vehicle or vehicle type used for transport e.g. long distance truck, boat etc.

Litre of fuel/km

Capacity utilisation (including empty returns) %

Bulk density of transported products kg/m3

Volume capacity utilisation factor (factor: =1 or <1 or 1 for compressed or nested packaged products)

without unit

Installation of the product in the building If additional technical information is provided in the EPD for installation in or on the building, the following information shall be provided to specify the product’s installation scenarios or to support development of the scenarios describing the product’s installation at the level of the building assessment:


Ancillary materials for installation; e.g. kg, or number of pieces etc.

Other resource consumption kg

Quantitative description of energy type (regional mix) and consumption during the installation process

kWh or MJ

Waste on the building site, generated by the product’s installation,

kg

output materials as result of waste management processes at the building site e.g. of collection for recycling, for energy recovery, final disposal

kg materials for recycling or energy recover

kg waste for final disposal

Emissions to ambient air, soil and water kg

Use of energy and use of water If additional technical information is provided in the EPD for building related equipment, technical performance data shall be provided in order to support the calculation of the environmental performance during the building operation.


Type of energy carrier, e.g. electricity, natural gas, district heating

kWh

Output kW


p. 15/97

Net fresh water consumption m3

Characteristic performance (energy efficiency, emissions etc.)

Variation of performance with capacity utilisation

Reference Service Life (RSL) Years

Maintenance and repair If additional technical information is provided for products requiring maintenance and repair, the following information shall be provided to specify the scenarios or to support the development of the maintenance and repair scenarios at the building level:


Maintenance, e.g. cleaning agent, Type of surfactant

maintenance cycle

energy input for cleaning maintenance process, e.g. vacuum cleaning

kg / cycle

X cycles / time

kWh /RSL

Net fresh water consumption during maintenance or repair

m3

Inspection, maintenance or repair process Description or source where description can be found

Inspection, maintenance or repair cycle x cycles /year

ancillary materials, e.g. lubricant, kg

exchange of worn parts during the product’s life cycle, e.g. zinc galvanised steel sheet

kg (specify materials)

energy input during maintenance, energy carrier type e.g. electricity, and amount

MJ

energy input during repair processes, refurbishment, replacement if applicable and relevant

MJ

lost material during maintenance or repair kg

RSL of product to be included as the basis for the calculation of number of replacements on building level

years

End-of-life If additional technical information is provided in the EPD about end-of-life processes, the following information shall be provided for all construction products to specify the end-of-life scenarios used or to support development of the end-of-life scenarios at


p. 16/97

the building level. Scenarios shall only model processes e.g. recycling systems that have been proven to be economically and technically viable.

Processes Parameter unit expressed per functional/declared unit of components, products or materials

Collection process kg collected separately

kg collected with mixed construction waste

Recycling system kg re-used

kg recycled for material recovery

kg recycled for energy recovery

Final deposition kg Product or material for final deposition including lost material

Additional information on emissions to indoor air, soil and water during the use stage The following information shall be provided for products exposed to indoor air during the use stage in order to support scenarios with respect to health at the building level.

Emissions to indoor air according to the horizontal standards on measurement of release of dangerous substances from construction products using harmonised testing methods according to the provisions of CEN TC351 and other procedures of the respective technical committees for European product standards, if requirements exist.

The following information shall be provided for products that are exposed to soil and water after their installation in buildings. The information is provided to support the use stage scenarios for soil and water pollution:

Emissions to soil and water according to the horizontal standards on measurement of release of dangerous substances from construction products using harmonised testing methods and other procedures according to the provisions of CEN TC 351 and the respective Product TCs, if requirements exist. 3.2.9.2. Other environmental indicators The following list of indicators is included in the environmental framework of TC350 as indicators that are used in current practice. However, within TC350, they do not at yet have an agreed basis for European standardisation. Indicators for environmental impacts (LCIA impact categories) biodiversity ecotoxicity; human toxicity; land use change.


p. 17/97

Indicators for resource input use of non renewable resources other than primary energy use of renewable resources other than primary energy

Indicators for additional environmental information use of environmentally sustainable managed materials (grouped per material

type: e.g. PEFC, FSC, responsibly sourced materials BS 8902:2009) use of environmentally sustainable managed fuels (grouped per fuel type: e.g.

Sustainability criteria for bio-fuels ISO 13065)

3.2.9.3. Indicators for the Assessment of Social Performance The CEN TC350 standards for assessment of social performance are limited to the aspects that relate to building users and immediate neighbourhood. Construction and deconstruction stages of the building life cycle including health and safety aspects of construction workers are not part of the current social performance assessment standards. Neither the wider aspects of the social impacts of buildings nor the rules for assessment of social aspects of organisations are included. However, the consequences of decisions or actions that influence the social performance of the object of assessment, are taken into account.

Two types of data are required for the assessment of social performance: 1. Building-related data for the fabric during use stage including, maintenance,

repair, refurbishment and replacement 2. User- and control system-related data for operation of the building and its

elements during use stage. The proposed indicators for assessment of social performance are grouped as follows, although at present details of the specific indicators has yet to be finalised.

Building-related data for the fabric during use stage including, maintenance, repair, refurbishment and replacement:

User- and control system-related data for operation of the building and its elements during use stage:

Health and comfort Thermal performance Humidity Quality of water for use in buildings Indoor air quality Acoustic performance Visual comfort

Safety and security Resistance to climate change Fire safety Security against intruders and

vandalism Security against interruptions of utility

supply (e.g. electricity, water, district heating...

Accessibility Accessibility for people with specific

needs (prams, children, etc.) Maintenance Maintenance Requirement

Health and comfort Thermal performance Humidity Indoor air quality Visual comfort

Safety and security Security against intruders and

vandalism Maintenance Maintenance Requirement

Loadings on neighbourhood Noise Emissions


p. 18/97

Building-related data for the fabric during use stage including, maintenance, repair, refurbishment and replacement:

User- and control system-related data for operation of the building and its elements during use stage:

Loadings on neighbourhood Noise Emissions Glare Shocks/vibrations

3.2.9.4. Economic Indicators In TC350 the economic performance assessment of a building addresses the life cycle costs and other economic aspects, all expressed through quantitative indicators. It excludes the economic risk assessment of a building and return on investment calculations.

The standards includes economic aspects of a building relating to the built environment within the area of the building site. They do not include economic aspects beyond the area of the building site, such as economic impacts of construction of local infrastructure, economic impacts resulting from transportation of the users of the building or economic impacts of a construction project on the local community.

There are two principle indicators proposed, although the standards that will elaborate on the method of implementation has not yet commenced. The indicators are:

Cost Economic performance expressed in cost terms over the life cycle. In this concept the “lowest life cycle cost” building over its life cycle is the most economic one. This implies that the building variants do not differ with respect to their functionality nor with respect to any income streams produced by the building. This concept of economic performance does not include developments on the real estate market, only the cost related to the building over the life cycle. Therefore, only cost data need to be gathered for this approach to economic assessment.

Monetary value Economic performance expressed in terms of monetary value (which is the sum of costs and revenues) over the life-cycle: In this concept the best monetary value building is the most economic one, i.e. the building with the highest (discounted) revenue minus the cost over the life cycle. This concept is close to the income approach in property valuation and includes market-related revenue streams. Therefore for this kind of economic assessment revenue data also need to be gathered.

The following table illustrates examples of economic aspects of building performance through the life cycle of the building.


p. 19/97

TC350 life cycle stage

Cost/Income Category Costs included in category Examples of costs

BEFORE USE STAGE (Modules A1 – A5)

Life- Cycle Cost (LCC) For assessments carried out before the development site is selected, where the site has already been selected this element is not required (A0)

Land costs Land means the space occupied by the site of the building. Costs include purchase or rental costs

Cost of the land on which the building stands

Product Stage (A1-A3)

Aggregated cost of products supplied at factory gate ready for construction

Transport to Site (A4)

Costs incurred between factory and site

Professional Fee (A1-A5) (where these are not included in the construction costs)

Professional fees – any fees paid to the project team for work on the project, including feasibility, planning and design

Project and engineering,

Construction – feasibility, planning, design and construction (A5) including commissioning and handover

Temporary and enabling works: activities to prepare the building site for construction and to provide infrastructure and services (gas, electricity and water) within the site of the building.

Site clearance, etc, where required and not covered within land costs

Construction of asset – all aspects of the procurement and construction of the building, including directly associated parking within the immediate site

Including infrastructure, labour, products, fixtures, fitting-out, commissioning, valuation and handover, security systems. Need to cover the people/equipment issue for security

Fit Out (A5)

Initial adaptation or fit out of asset – fitting out or modification of new buildings

Including infrastructure, fixtures, fitting-out, commissioning, within the curtilage and handover. (excluding unfixed furniture and non-building equipment)

Landscaping (A5)

Landscaping, external works on the curtilage

Costs for external works such as lawn, trees on the land within the curtilage of the building and is not covered within the construction costs

(A1-A5) Taxes and other costs related to permission to build

Taxes on construction goods and services (e.g. VAT.) Costs incurred to obtain


p. 20/97



permission to build, e.g. provision of additional facilities for community benefit as a condition of building

BEFORE USE STAGE (Modules A1 – A5)

(A1-A5) Subsidies and incentives Incomes related to renewable energy, and energy efficiency measures installed on the building, including loans

USE Stage (B1-B7)

Operation and Maintenance (B2)

Building related facility management costs Costs for regular and routine activities such as inspections, caretaking, management of planned service contract, products or materials used for mentioned activities Professional Service


Building related insurance costs Building owner and/or occupiers


Leases and Rentals payable to third parties

Leases and rents, excluding land rental (ground rent)


Cyclical regulatory costs Fire, access inspections declarations relating to energy performance etc.

Operational energy use (B6)

Energy costs (default is for usage as defined by EPBD related standards)

Including fuel and electricity for heating, cooling, power, domestic hot water and lighting, costs (as defined by EPBD)

Operational water use (B7)

Water related costs Including, water and sewerage costs


Taxes Rates, local charges, environmental taxes -


Subsidies and incentives Incomes related to renewable energy, emissions, energy efficiency measures on the building, including loans

Replacement (B4)

Revenue from sale of asset or elements, but not part of a final disposal

Revenue from re-use, recycling, energy recovery of interest in salvaged materials


Third party income during operation Rent and service charges to third parties.

Operation and Maintenance Other economic aspects ?


p. 21/97



(B2) Repair (B3)

Repairs and replacement of minor components/small areas

Defined by value size of area, contract terms

Replacement (B4)

Replacement of major systems and components

Including associated design and project management.


p. 22/97



USE Stage (B1-B7) (ending)

Operation and maintenance (B2)

Cleaning Regular or cyclical cleaning and periodic specific cleaning of the building


Grounds maintenance Needs defining to be consistent with the environmental assessment

Within defined site area

Redecoration Including regular periodic and specific decoration

Taxes Taxes on maintenance goods and services.


Disposal Inspections at end of lease period (excluding end of life final disposal)

Final condition inspections to identify remedial works required at end of leasehold period


End of lease Reinstatement, End of Lease inspections

Refurbishment (B5)

Planned Adaptation or planned refurbishment of asset in use

Including infrastructure, fitting out commissioning, validation and handover

End of Life Stage (C1-C4)

Deconstruction (C1)

Deconstruction/ Dismantling, Demolition

End of life inspection, decommissioning, planning, Reinstatement of site to meet contractual requirements, Site cleanup

Transport (C2)

All transport costs associated with the process of deconstruction and disposal of the built asset

On site transport, Transport of materials from site to first place of storage or disposal. (Note: see discussions from WG1)

End of life (C1 - C4)

Fees &Taxes Taxes on goods and services. Landfill and other disposal costs

Recycling (C3)

Costs and/or revenues from reuse, recycling, and energy recovery at end of life.

Costs and/or revenues from re-use, recycling, energy recovery of interest in salvaged materials such metals, aggregates, timber, plastics, etc.

Recycling (C3)

Revenue from sale land Revenue from disposal of interest in land,


p. 23/97



OTHER Other costs outside the scope of this framework

Within the framework of sustainability assessment this standard is limited to the assessment of economic performance of a building. There may be other costs associated with the construction or operation of a building which are outside this framework.

Such costs might include the following: reception, helpdesk switchboard, post, IT services, catering, hospitality, vending, equipment, furniture, internal plants (flowers), stationary, refuse collection, portering, security, ICT internal moves. Costs and revenues due to sale or transfer of the whole building during the building life.


p. 24/97

3.2.10. Current status of the standards (June 2010) The following table summarises the scope and current status of each of the standards and reports of TC350.


p. 25/97

Title Scope Status – June 2010

prEN 15643-1. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings. Part 1: General Framework

This European Standard provides the general principles and requirements, expressed through a suite of standards, for the assessment of buildings in terms of environmental, social and economic performance, taking into account technical characteristics and functionality of a building.

The assessment will quantify the contribution of the assessed construction works to sustainable construction and sustainable development

This standard includes the definitions that will be used in all the TC350 standards, the principles that underpin the assessment; the objectives of assessment, the approach, the relevance of technical and functional requirements, and the stages in the building life cycle to be considered. The standard presents the general requirements for assessment methods; the object of assessment, the functional equivalent (a minimum description of the building – i.e. building type, pattern of use, relevant technical and functional requirements and required service life), use of scenarios, transparency and reporting and communication.

The standard is now at Formal Vote

NB for a description of the CEN stages in developing standards see www.cen.eu

prEN 15643-2. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings. Part 2: Framework for the assessment of environmental performance.

This European Standard provides the general principles and requirements, expressed through a suite of standards, for the environmental performance assessment, taking into account technical characteristics and functionality of a building.

Provisional standard is now being recommended for Formal Vote. If agreed, it will be sent to CMC in July in order to initiate this process.


p. 26/97


prEN 15643-3. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings. Part 3: Framework for the assessment of social performance

This European Standard provides the general principles and requirements, expressed through a suite of standards, for the social performance assessment, taking into account technical characteristics and functionality of a building.

Draft standard is now going through its first CEN Enquiry stage

prEN15643-4. Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of buildings. Part 4: Framework for the assessment of economic performance

This European Standard provides the general principles and requirements, for the economic performance assessment of buildings The economic performance assessment of a building addresses the life cycle costs and other economic aspects relating to the built environment within the area of the building site.

It excludes:

the economic risk assessment of a building and return on investment calculations

economic aspects beyond the area of the building site, e.g. such as economic impacts of construction of local infrastructure or economic impacts resulting from transportation of the users of the building or economic impacts of a construction project on local community.

The economic performance is expressed through quantitative indicators for cost or monetary value (which is the sum of costs and revenues).

Draft standard is now going through its first CEN Enquiry stage


p. 27/97


prEN 15978 - Sustainability of construction works - Assessment of environmental performance of buildings - Calculation methods

The purpose of this standard is to provide calculation rules for the assessment of the environmental performance of new and existing buildings.

This standard is intended for the evaluation and assessment of design options and specifications for new and existing buildings and refurbishment projects.

The approach to the assessment covers all stages of the building life cycle and is based on data obtained from Environmental Product Declarations (EPD), their "information modules" (see prEN 15804) and, when appropriate, other information related to the environmental performance of the building as a whole. It includes all building-related construction products, processes and services, over the life cycle of the building. The interpretation and valuation of the results of the assessment are not within the scope of this standard.

The standard provides:

the description of the object to be assessed (the building) the system boundary that applies the indicators and calculation procedures to be used the requirements for the data necessary for the assessment the use of EPD (formerly a separate Work Item – now to be

incorporated in this standard) the requirements for the presentation of results in reporting and

in communication

A revised Provisional Standard has been sent to CEN for a second Enquiry ballot. If accepted, the target is to finalise the document ready for Formal Vote at the end of August. How the standard deals with re-use, recycling and energy recovery from materials beyond the building lifecycle remains an issue of debate which could delay its completion.


p. 28/97


WI 3500003 Sustainability of construction works - Use of environmental product declarations

This standard will describe the requirements for applying environmental product declarations (EPDs) in combination with other EPDs. It will provide the rules for converting and combining the product-, process- or service-related information taking account of the need to avoid data gaps, data overlaps and double counting. It will also include requirements for checking consistency, completeness and comparability as well as equivalence in quality of data derived from different EPDs.

As much of its content is already included in the second ENQ version of prEN 15978 is now proposed to incorporate this draft standard into prEN15978.

WI 3500007 Sustainability of Construction Works - Building Life Cycle (TR)

This technical report was intended to describe the building life cycle, focusing on processes and scenarios that are used to describe items such as service life, technical performance and other performance requirements.

Work suspended.


p. 29/97


prEN 15804 Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - core rules for the product category of construction products

This European standard provides core product category rules for all construction products. It provides a structure to ensure that all Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) of construction products, construction services and construction processes are derived, verified and presented in a harmonised way.

The core PCR:

defines the parameters to be declared and the way in which they are collated and reported,

describes which stages of a product’s life cycle are considered in the EPD and which processes are to be included in the life cycle stages,

defines rules for the development of scenarios, includes the rules for calculating the Life Cycle Inventory and the

Life Cycle Impact Assessment underlying an EPD, including the specification of the quality of the applied data,

includes the rules for calculating and reporting predetermined environmental and health information that is not covered by LCA for a product, construction process and construction service where necessary,

defines the conditions under which construction products can be compared based on the information provided by EPD.

The information needed for a Type III environmental declaration (EPD) is expressed in information modules, through a limited number of predetermined quantifiable indicators plus additional information. The information modules (see figure 4) allow easy organisation and expression of data packages throughout the life cycle of the product.

Provisional standard issued and accepted by National Standards Bodies Amendment of the document now in progress although how it deals with re-use, recycling and energy recovery from materials beyond the building lifecycle remains an issue of debate which could delay its completion. A decision on whether the document can be subject to a ‘fast track’ acceptance through UAP is being sought. If accepted, the UAP will commence late in 2010


p. 30/97


The most important outcome of the standard is that the EPD is expressed in a form that will allow its aggregation (summation/combination with other EPD) to provide complete information for buildings. This standard does not deal with aggregation for the building level, nor does this standard describe the rules for applying EPD in building assessment; these are the subject of prEN15978.

prEN 15942 Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Communication format - Business to Business

This standard will describe the formats to be used for the business-to-business communication of environmental information, given in an EPD produced according to prEN 15804.

The scope of the standard covers communication formatting, and rules and guidance for the reporting of EPD based on principles for comparability, traceability and ensuring audience understanding through consistent communication of information in a common format.

Provisional Standard issued by CEN received a positive vote. Amendment of the document, in response to the comments has commenced and the document is being prepared for FV.

For CEN/TR 15941 Sustainability of construction works - Environmental product declarations - Methodology for selection and use of generic data

This Technical Report TR provides guidance on the selection and use of different types of generic data available for practitioners and verifiers involved in the preparation of EPD in order to improve consistency and comparability. The TR indicates the types and possible sources of data that exist and gives guidance on how to judge their selection.

Published July 2009


p. 31/97

3.3. ISO TC59 SC17 - Building construction - Sustainability in building construction

3.3.1. Background Standards committee ISO TC59 SC17 (here after referred to as SC17) and its working groups are responsible for the development of standards relating to the Sustainability of Construction Works, which are among the main precursors to the work of CEN TC350 referred to above. The scope of the work in TC59 covers standardisation in the field of building and civil engineering, including: general terminology for building and civil engineering; organisation of information in the processes of design, manufacture and

construction; general geometric requirements for building, building elements and component

including modular coordination and its basic principles, general rules for joints, tolerances and fits; general rules for other performance, requirements for buildings and building elements including the coordination of

these with performance requirements of building components to be used in building and civil engineering; geometric and performance requirements for components that are not in the scope of other ISO TC.

Within this context SC17 is responsible for “Standardization related to the built environment in the field of sustainability. This includes environmental, economic and social aspects of sustainability as appropriate. The working groups of SC17 are as follows: WG 1: General Principles and Terminology WG 2: Sustainability Indicators WG 3: Environmental Declarations of Building Products WG 4: Framework for Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings WG 5: Framework for the assessment of civil engineering works 3.3.2. The standards of SC17 3.3.2.1. ISO 15392 Sustainable building - General Principles This standard presents general principles of sustainability related to buildings and other construction works. These general principles form the basis for a suite of standards intended to address specific issues and aspects of sustainability relevant to building and civil engineering of construction works.

The aim of ISO 15392 is to set out the objectives for sustainability in building construction and from these derives general principles, it forms the basis for deriving evaluation criteria and indicators for the assessment of the contribution of buildings to sustainable development and enables decision makers to apply the principles in their decision-making. The standard does not set the political agendas, or provide priorities related to specific concerns, which are established in international agendas, e.g. Agenda 21. However, requirements and targets related to political goals can be related to the identified general principles for sustainability in building construction.


p. 32/97

The standard is not intended to provide the basis for assessment of organizations or other stakeholders, but does acknowledge the importance of their role in the context of sustainability in building construction. The objectives for sustainable construction the standard sets are: improvement of the construction sector and the built environment; reduction of adverse impacts while improving value, where impacts as well as

value may be judged against any combination of the three primary aspects of sustainability;

stimulation of a pro-active approach; stimulation of innovation; decoupling of economic growth from increasing adverse impacts on the

environment and/or society; reconciliation of contradictory interests or requirements arising from short-term

and long-term planning or decision-making. In conjunction with these objectives, the nine principles are the following (in alphabetical order without indication of importance): Continual Improvement This encompasses the improvement of all aspects of sustainability related to the built environment including the buildings and other construction works over time. It includes the performance of construction works as well as processes, and addresses means of assessment, verification, monitoring and communication. Equity

This principle encompasses the balanced and objective consideration of intergenerational, interregional and intra-societal ethics, including environmental protection, economic efficiency and social needs.

Global Thinking and Local Action This principle encompasses the consideration of the global consequences of local actions taking account of local and regional concerns, to ensure that: .

1) When acting locally, the regional and global relevance and consequences are considered.

2) When establishing and applying global strategies, the local implications, relevance, demands and resources are considered.

Holistic Approach This principle encompasses the inclusion of all relevant and related aspects of sustainability when considering and assessing sustainability aspects of buildings and other construction works. A holistic approach addresses all aspects of sustainability over the life cycle of the building or other construction works. Responsibility This principle encompasses the moral responsibility for, rather than legal or financial consequences of, actions carried out by individuals or groups of individuals. The development of local skills and institutional capacity supports the sustainability of construction works.


p. 33/97

Involvement of Interested Parties This principle encompasses the taking into account of the contribution and requirements of interested parties relative to their respective areas of responsibility and timing of their involvement. Long-Term Consideration This principle encompasses the taking into account of the short, medium and long-term implications in decision-making. As a minimum it includes the following: performance over time (as the ability of fulfilling a defined level of function

throughout the use phase); life cycle thinking (i.e. considering the consequences of a choice made in one

stage of the life cycle, on the other stages); legacy – the consideration of the impacts that are handed down as a result of

development. The legacy may extend well beyond the physical boundaries of the development.

The legacy can be physical (e.g. the buildings and infrastructure), environmental (e.g. environmental benefit or damage), social (e.g. cultural heritage, skills, capacity building) or economic (e.g. employment, economic growth). Precaution and Risk This principle encompasses the avoidance of risks by applying the precautionary principle, or considering the most unfavourable impacts through risk management: Precaution (avoidance of risks)

The precautionary principle aims to avoid risks - it sets concerns of future generations as the basis for the analysis of risk potentials.

Risk Management (management of identified risks) Risk management is a set of coordinated activities including risk assessment, risk treatment, risk acceptance and risk communication.

Transparency This principle encompasses the presentation of information in a manner that is open, comprehensive and understandable and, like the underlying data, traceable, with verifiable credibility. For sustainability of buildings and other construction works, transparency relates to information about products as well as decision-making processes. For that purpose an appropriate review and verification route of relevant documentation may need to be established. Note: SC17 WG1 has recently commenced work on a new document which will provide guidance on the implementation of the general principles given in ISO 15932. 3.3.2.2. ISO CD 21929-1 Building Construction Sustainability in Building

Construction – Sustainability Indicators- Part 1 - Framework for the development of indicators for buildings and core indicators

This Standard describes and gives guidelines for the development of sustainability indicators related to buildings and defines the core indicators of buildings.


p. 34/97

The Standard defines a framework for sustainability indicators for buildings based on the premise that sustainable construction achieves the required technical performance of the construction with the minimum of environmental impact while encouraging economic, social and cultural improvement at a local, regional and global level. The standard follows the general principles presented in ISO 15932. The aim of the standard is to define the processes to be followed, when addressing the sustainability of a building in order to support the assessment of the sustainability of buildings and constructive assets using a common framework and a set of indicators: translates general principles of sustainable construction into sustainability

indicators and adapts general sustainability principles that are included in a framework for the assessment of building sustainability,

defines the core sustainability indicators, shows how to use sustainability indicators with regard to buildings and

constructive assets and shows the process of using sustainability indicators.

The framework includes a list of core indicators, which consider the environmental, social and economic impact (Figure 4) for three levels: location specific indicators, site specific indicators and building specific indicators.


p. 35/97


p. 36/97

3.3.2.3. ISO NWI21929-2 Sustainability in building construction - Sustainability indicators Part 2: Framework for the development of indicators for civil engineering works”

This work is still in its preliminary stages and focuses on the development of indicators for civil engineering works.

3.3.2.4. ISO 21930 - Sustainability in building construction - Environmental declaration of building products

The purpose of this standard is to describe the principles and framework for environmental declaration of building products, including consideration of the reference service life of the building products, over a building’s life cycle. The standard forms a basis for type III environmental declaration programmes leading to type III environmental declarations of building products as described in ISO 14025.

The standard contains specifications and requirements for the EPD of building products in accordance with the principles and procedures set out in ISO 14025 and ISO 15392. Where the standard contains additional specifications and requirements specific to EPD of building products it complements ISO 14025 for the EPD of building products. In addition, the environmental declaration principles as described in ISO 14020 apply.

The standard provides a framework for and the basic requirements for product category rules (PCR) as defined in ISO 14025 for type III environmental declarations of building products.

The standard, along with ISO 14025, ISO14040 and ISO14044, provides the foundation for the TC350 standard prEN15804.

According to ISO21930 the following indicators shall be used to express the impacts and aspects related to building products:

Environmental impacts expressed in terms of the impact categories of LCIA climate change (greenhouse gases); depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer; acidification of land and water sources; eutrophication; formation of tropospheric ozone (photochemical oxidants).

Use of resources and renewable primary energy — Data derived from LCI and not assigned to the impact categories of LICIA) depletion of non-renewable energy resources; depletion of non-renewable material resources; use of renewable material resources; use of renewable primary energy; consumption of freshwater.


p. 37/97

Waste to disposal — Data derived from LCA and not assigned to the impact categories of LCIA) The waste allocated to the building product during its life cycle is classified in the EPD as hazardous waste, or non-hazardous waste.

Emissions to water, soil and to indoor air Releases to ground- and surface water, as well as emissions to indoor air, are declared in accordance with national standards and practice. Information on human health and comfort due to chemical, biological and physical emissions is required for further evaluation on the building level of human health and comfort. Additional environmental information An EPD shall include, where relevant, additional information, such as given in a) to j), related to environmental issues, other than the environmental information derived from LCA, LCI or information modules and other than emissions to water and to indoor air. This information may be: a) information on environmental issues, such as

1) impact(s) and potential impact(s) on biodiversity, 2) toxicity related to human health, the environment or both, and 3) geographical aspects relating to any stages of the life cycle (e.g. a discussion

on the relation between the potential environmental impact(s) and the location of the product system);

b) data on building product performance, if environmentally significant; c) organization's adherence to any environmental management system, with a

statement on where an interested party can find details of the system; d) any other environmental certification programme applied to the building product

and a statement on where an interested party can find details of the certification programme;

e) other environmental activities of the organization, such as participation in recycling or recovery programmes, provided details of these programmes are readily available to the purchaser or user and contact information is provided;

f) information that is derived from the LCA but not communicated in the typical LCI- or LCIA-based formats;

g) instructions and limits for efficient use; h) hazard and risk assessment on human health and the environment; i) information on absence or level of presence of a material in the building product

that is considered of environmental significance in certain areas; see ISO 14021:1999, 5.4 and 5.7 r);

j) preferred waste management option for used building products; k) potential for incidents that can have impact(s) on the environment, such as

the end-of-life stage, from deconstruction, reuse, demolition, recycling and disposal,

energy-, water-saving etc. and other improvements, such as acoustical improvements,

energy content of the building product for energy recovery in the end of life, recycled content (see ISO 14021:1999, 7.8.1.1) or recycling rates.


p. 38/97

3.3.2.5. ISO 21931-1 - Sustainability in building construction - Framework for methods of assessment for environmental performance of construction works — Part 1: Buildings

This International Standard provides a general framework for improving the quality and comparability of methods for assessing the environmental performance of buildings and their related external works. It identifies and describes issues to be taken into account in the use and development of methods of assessment of environmental performance for new or existing buildings in their design, construction, operation, maintenance, refurbishment and deconstruction stages.

The standard was one of the starting points for the TC350 standards, and follows similar principles, i.e. assessment is based on life-cycle principles, but use a much broader based set of indicators than those include by TC350. The indicators included essentially mirror those found in ISO21930 as follows:

Indicators of Global Environmental Impacts climate change depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer acidification of land and water sources; eutrophication; formation of tropospheric ozone (photochemical oxidants).

Indicators of local environmental impacts local impacts on bio-diversity and ecology (flora and fauna); load on local infrastructure such as services, foul sewers, etc.; change of microclimate; impact on surface drainage.

Other Environmental Aspects As well as environmental impacts the standard includes indicators related to other environmental aspects. Aspects are measures that are to feature or properties of the building or its management that lead to a environmental change (impact). The following environmental aspects related to resource use are included: use of resources, which shall include use of non-renewable energy resources use of non-renewable material resources, use of renewable material resources, use of renewable primary energy, and consumption of freshwater.

Aspects related to waste include production and segregation of waste to disposal of: hazardous waste, non-hazardous waste.

The following environmental aspects of the building and its site: land use related to building site. sun shading and glare on any neighbouring property wind effect risk and emission to surface water and ground water; risk and emission to soil.


p. 39/97

Finally, the following environmental aspects related to the management processes for construction, delivery, operation and maintenance are also included: waste production and disposal, materials re-use, recycling, recovery nuisance emissions; pollution emissions; water use wastewater treatment; repair, conservation and renewal of products used in the building; conservation and enhancement of the site environment to promote biodiversity;

and environmental emergency management.

3.3.2.6. ISO TR 21932 Sustainability in building construction – Terminology

This technical report describes the results of work within ISO TC59 to establish consistent terminology for concepts related to the subject field of sustainability in building construction. The work was primarily undertaken by SC 17 - Working Group 1 on General Principles and Terminology.

The report collects terms used and defined in other standards within SC17 and to ensure that the utilization and meaning of the terms is consistent and coherent. This report does not contain a complete list of terms of relevance to the thematic field, but contains terms and definitions that have been used in the documents developed under ISO/TC59/SC17 related to sustainability in building construction. Some of the terms and definitions are repeated from ISO publications, others are derived from ISO publications on environmental management and environmental life cycle assessment.

Many of the terms and definitions included in the report are the result of recently developed concepts. The gradual evolution of these concepts inevitably means that the “sustainability in building construction” terminology will continue to develop and that therefore the document will need regular revision and updating.

It is expected that the information contained within the report may also be given consideration within ISO TC59 SC2 on Terminology and harmonization of languages for possible inclusion in ISO 6707-1 Vocabulary on General Terms.

3.4. Sustainable Buildings Alliance (SBA) 3.4.1. Background The Sustainable Building Alliance is a not for profit membership organisation, whose objectives are to accelerate the adoption of sustainable building practices through the promotion of shared methods of building performance assessment and rating. To achieve this SBA’s goal is to develop common metrics that can be used within any building performance assessment and rating system and that will provide a means to monitor and compare ecological and sustainability performance of buildings.


p. 40/97

3.4.2. SBA Framework for Common Metrics (2009) The members of the Sustainable Buildings Alliance have agreed an initial set of common metrics for building assessment as a framework to guide the development of performance assessment systems for buildings so that there can be consistency between methods at an international level. The framework does not set targets, as these will need to set at a National Level, but it does provide details of the scope and coverage, in terms of the building life-cycle and indicators, for each of the metrics proposed with the following guiding principles as the starting point..

Openness & transparency - In developing and applying the framework, there will be transparency. The framework will clearly demonstrate applicability to ensure consistency and fairness of application

Consistency - Measurement for the whole building on its site, (but excluding surrounding infrastructure)

Modularity - Measurement over the building’s full life cycle broken down into modules; the Before Use (Construction) stage; In-use (Operational) stage, and End of Life stage; and with each module being capable of being assessed and reported independently

Pragmatism - A ‘core’ set of preferred measures that are possible now

Auditable - Metrics that can be independently assessed, where this is required

Realistic - The 80:20 rule applies. It is not possible to include absolutely all contributions to each metric in the framework (and it would be too costly to do so)

Flexibility - Allowing for inclusion of other additional ‘optional’ measures, acknowledging (and allowing for) local procedures and processes (e.g. methods, national regulations etc.), and encouraging transparency - particularly in additional optional measures.

The Metrics The approach to the calcualtion of the metrics follows closely that of ISO and CEN referred to above, although in the first ‘2009 version’ of the framework for the chosen common metrics are limited to six, namely: Carbon Emissions (Global Warming Potential - GWP) Energy consumption Water consumption Waste production Indoor Environment Quality represented by: o Thermal comfort o Indoor air quality

3.4.3. What is assessed? As in TC350 and SC17, the object of assessment is the building, including its foundations and external works within the perimeter of the building site, but excluding the surrounding infrastructure. This has to be described in terms of its physical and time-dependent characteristics over its entire life cycle. However, in the pilot version of the framework (2009) not all stages that are required.


p. 41/97

SBA Common Metrics - Life cycle stages included in the 2009 version Indicator Before use stage Use Stage End of Life Stage

Product Stage Construction Stage

Ope

ratio

n of

bui

ldin

g-

inco

rpor

ated

ser

vice

s

Ope

ratio

n of

non

bui

ldin

g-

inco

rpor

ated

app

lianc

es

Mai

nten

ance

, rep

air

and

refu

rbis

hmen

t

Tran

spor

t (of

peo

ple)

Dec

onst

ruct

ion

Disposal Stage

Raw

Mat

eria

l Pro

cess

Tran

spor

t

Man

ufac

turin

g

Tran

spor

t

Con

stru

ctio

n In

stal

latio

n Pr

oces

s

Tran

spor

t

Rec

yclin

g, re

use

and

ener

gy r

ecov

ery

Was

te D

ispo

sal

GWP Energy Water Waste * * IEQ Stages included for each indicator

Required in 2009 version

Optional in 2009 version

Not included in 2009 version

Not relevant

* The 2009 version only includes for the operational stage the nuclear wastes linked to energy production The following shows for each stage and indicator the expected sources of information. Within each of the stages, the availability of building- and/or product-specific data may also be limited, in which case the framework allows the use of generic data (specific or averaged) or recommended values and the use of scenarios for certain parameters.


p. 42/97

SBA Common Metrics - Expected sources of information Indicator Before use stage Use Stage End of Life Stage

Product Stage Construction Stage

Ope

ratio

n of

bui

ldin

g-

inco

rpor

ated

ser

vice

s

Ope

ratio

n of

non

bui

ldin

g-

inco

rpor

ated

app

lianc

es

Mai

nten

ance

, rep

air

and

refu

rbis

hmen

t

Tran

spor

t (of

peo

ple)

Dec

onst

ruct

ion

Disposal Stage

Raw

Mat

eria

l Pro

cess

Tran

spor

t

Man

ufac

turin

g

Tran

spor

t

Con

stru

ctio

n In

stal

latio

n Pr

oces

s

Tran

spor

t

Rec

yclin

g, re

use

and

ener

gy r

ecov

ery

Was

te D

ispo

sal

GWP Energy Water Waste * * Expected sources of information

Cradle to Gate EPD/LCA

Standardised energy calculation Estimation based on scenarios

Cradle to Grave EPD/LCA or adapted from Cradle to Gate EPD/LCA based on scenarios for the building.

IEQ Indicator Design In-use Thermal Comfort % Time out of Range of Reference Temperature

(Max and Min , Winter and Summer)

Indoor Air Quality - CO2 Indoor Air Quality - Formaldehyde Construction products and materials In the 2009 framework, for GWP, Energy, Water and Waste indicators, the following elements have been chosen to be included as constituting the main sources of impact: Roof Load-bearing structure Exterior and basement walls including windows Internal Walls Floor Slabs Foundation Floor Finishes/Coverings

The following elements are optional for inclusion in the 2009 version: Refrigeration/Coolants Decorative wall finishes/coatings (e.g. wallpaper, paints) Doors Heating/Cooling/Lighting Equipment and any power-generating equipment (e.g.

wind turbines/PV/solar heating) Equipment for Internal Transport (Lifts, Escalators) Water and Sewerage systems Electrical distribution systems


p. 43/97

If these elements are excluded then 10% of the assessed impact of the building elements considered should be added to the total in each stage assessed. Building Services Impacts during the use stage are calculated for operational energy and water use. For operational energy-related impacts (GWP, energy, nuclear waste), the following processes are included: Technical building systems: o heating o cooling or air conditioning o ventilation o heating for provision of domestic hot water o lighting

The following processes contribute a relevant share of energy-related impacts, but in the available assessment methods are less widely used; therefore, their inclusion is optional in the 2009 framework. When included they must be identified and reported separately: Internal transports (e.g. lifts, escalators) appliances that are not building-related o computers and IT equipment o refrigerators o washing machines o dishwashers o dryers o other ‘small power’ devices.

For operational water consumption the following processes are included: building-related services o urinals o WCs o taps (internal and external) o baths o showers o greywater / rainwater systems

appliances that are not building-related o dishwashers o washing machines o water softeners (where present) o waste disposal units (where present).

Other requirements The common metric framework also sets requirements that are broadly in line with CEN TC350 for Calculation of the impacts Scenarios Data quality in terms of:

o Rime related coverage (age of data, period of data collection, seasonal data, long term data)

o Technology coverage o Geographical coverage


p. 44/97

o Consistency o Completeness o Uncertainty (the reliability of the source, data differences)

Presentation of results.

3.5. UNEP SBCI 3.5.1. Background The Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative (SBCI) is hosted by UNEP Division of Technology, Industry and Economics (DTIE). DTIE has the mandate to encourage decision makers in industry and government to develop and implement policies, strategies and practices that are cleaner, safer and make efficient use of natural resources. As part of its work, UNEP-SBCI has provided a forum for the building sector, particularly those stakeholders involved in developing tools and methods for assessing and rating the environmental performance of buildings, to come together and develop the common metrics including.

The purpose of a Common Carbon Metric for buildings is to provide globally applicable common metrics for measuring and reporting the energy use in and GHG emissions from existing building operations to support international, regional, national, and local policy development and industry initiatives.

3.5.2. What is measured? The Common Carbon Metric is the calculation used to define measurement, reporting, and verification for GHG emissions associated with the operation of buildings types of particular climate regions. It does not include value-based interpretation of the measurements such as weightings or benchmarking. While it is not a building rating tool, it is consistent with methods for assessing the environmental performance of buildings used globally such as the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), World Resources Institute (WRI) GHG Protocol, and International Standards Organization (ISO) 15392:2008 Sustainability in Building Construction and general principles of ISO 14040/44:2006 on Life Cycle Assessment. Emissions associated with building energy use are included; purchased electricity, purchased coolth/steam/heat, and/or on-site generated power used to support the building operations. If available, emissions associated with fugitives and refrigerants used in building operations should be reported separately. While all stages of a building’s life-cycle (including construction and demolition) produce carbon emissions, the building’s operational phase accounts for 80-90% of emissions resulting from energy use mainly for heating, cooling, ventilation, lighting and appliances. Therefore, this is the stage of the building’s life-cycle that is the focus of the Common Carbon Metric. The actual reporting is done in weight of carbon dioxide equivalent (kgCO2e) emitted per square meter per year = kgCO2e/m2/year (by building type and by climate region).


p. 45/97

GHG emissions are calculated by multiplying the Energy Intensity times the official GHG emission coefficients, for the year of reporting, for each fuel source used. Energy Intensity = kWh/m2/year (kilo Watt hours per square meter per year) (If available, occupancy data should be correlated with the building area to allow Energy Intensity per occupant (o) to be calculated = kWh/o/year). GHG conversion factors for each fuel type are those used under national reporting for flexible mechanisms for the Kyoto Protocol for the six GHG ((Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous Oxide (N2O), Hydro-fluorocarbons (HFC’s), Per-fluorocarbons (PFC’s), and Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF6)) Carbon Intensity = kgCO2e/m2/year or kgCO2e/o/year (kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent per square meter or per occupant per year) This globally harmonized method for energy use and GHG emissions provides is expected to form a basis for establishing baselines, performance benchmarking, and monitoring building performance improvements.

3.6. LEnSE 3.6.1. Background The European research project LEnSE – Methodology Development towards a Label for Environmental, Social and Economic Buildings – was supported by the European Commission within the Sixth Framework Program and responds to the growing need for assessing a building’s sustainability performance [35][36]. The main objective of this project is to develop a methodology for the assessment of the sustainability performance of existing, new and renovated buildings, which is broadly accepted by the European stakeholders involved in sustainable construction. In order to achieve this goal, three sub-objectives were set: To develop a list of issues, which need to be included in the assessment

methodology; To develop a methodology for assessment of the overall sustainability of existing

buildings, major renovations and plans for new buildings, taking into account the existing methodologies and initiatives and ongoing standardisation activities;

To set up a strategic consultation of the stakeholders in order to ensure a methodology accepted and used by the stakeholders.

The objectives of the LEnSE project are translated into the following four work packages: WP1 – the identification of issues and scope definition; WP2 – development of a sustainability assessment methodology; WP3 – consultation and communication with stakeholders; WP4 – project management, meetings and quality assurance.

The project started in 2006 and ran until December 2007.


p. 46/97

3.6.2. WP1 – Identification of sustainability issues and scope definition

Work package WP1 of the LEnSE project focuses on the identification of issues to be included in the proposed methodology, on the definition of the scope of the identified issues and on the boundary of the method. In the following sections, an overview is given of the results of this work package concerning sustainability indicators and issues. 3.6.2.1. Long list of sustainability issues In a first step, a detailed review of a large number of existing assessment methodologies allowed setting up of a long list of possible environmental, social and economic sustainability issues to be included within the LEnSE assessment methodology. This long list of issues is given in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Long list of sustainability issues within the LEnSE project [35].


p. 47/97

3.6.2.2. Short list of sustainability issues In a second step, the long list of issues was reviewed and critical issues were identified in order to create a more concise list of issues. This was done by applying two guiding principles, i.e.: That the scope of issues included is sufficiently wide to cover the relevant

sustainability topics; Each issue is practical in terms of developing content and completing an actual

assessment. This step resulted in a shortlist of sustainability issues, arranged in eleven categories. Each category represents either an environmental, social or economic sustainability theme. This shortlist of issues is presented in Figure 4.


p. 48/97

Figure 4: Short list of sustainability issues within the LEnSE project [36]. 3.6.2.3. Short list of sustainability issues and sub-issues In a third and last step, the sustainability issues within the shortlist of issues were translated into groups of sub-issues that are representative of the initial short list and the principles of the structure of the methodology. In this way, the focus shifts from the intent of the issues onto indicators of sustainability performance. Consequently,


p. 49/97

a list of sustainability indicators with an indication of their intent and potential indicators for measuring their performance was created for each major category of issues. These lists are given in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7 for respectively the environmental, social and economic issues.

Figure 5: Overview of environmental issues within the LEnSE project [36].


p. 50/97

Figure 6: Overview of social issues within the LEnSE project [36].


p. 51/97

Figure 7: Overview of economic issues within the LEnSE project [36]. 3.6.3. WP2 – Development of a sustainability assessment

methodology The main aim of work package WP2 of the LEnSE project concerns the development of the framework and content for a LEnSE sustainability assessment methodology. Here, one task, i.e. definition of the assessment content of the method and developing a limited number of issues for testing, relates directly to the further development of the sustainability issues identified within WP1. 3.6.3.1. Shortlist of sustainability issues to be developed Based on the shortlist of issues and sub-issues, generated within WP1, a limited, but representative range of 31 sub-issues was set up in order to further develop these issues and to test the methodology. An overview of this issues, classified per category (i.e. environmental, social and economic), is given in Table 1.


p. 52/97

Table 1: Overview of developed sub-issues within the LEnSE project [36]. Environmental sub-issues Social sub-issues Economic sub-issues

Climate change Transport – depletion of

non renewable primary energy

Biodiversity Ecological impact

Resource use and waste Responsible sourcing of

major building elements Land use Hazardous waste for

disposal: radioactive waste

Environmental management and geophysical risk Environmental

management system Minimising regional

specific climatologic risk

Occupant wellbeing Occupants satisfaction Internal user amenities Building safety

assessment Accessibility Provision of key

amenities Public transport

accessibility Provision of safe and

adequate cycle lanes and facilities

Provision of carpooling Security Site security and spatial

arrangement Building security

Social and cultural value Community impact

consultation Considerate constructors External neighbourhood

impacts Design quality

Financing and management Function analysis Risk and value

management Whole life value Life cycle costs –

component level Life cycle costs –

strategic level Option appraisal Exchange value Added value Building adaptability Improve ease of

maintenance Externalities Connectivity with local

employment Specification / use of

locally produced materials

3.6.3.2. Development of sustainability issues within the LEnSE project As is already mentioned before, within the LEnSE project, a detailed assessment methodology was developed for a shortlist of 31 sustainability issues regarding the environmental, social and economic performance of buildings. For each issue, information is given concerning its intent, performance benchmark, requirements for assessment, supporting documentation, additional information and recommendations for future development. Within the following paragraphs, each of these developed LEnSE issues is briefly described regarding its intent and the applied assessment method. Environmental issues Transport – depletion of non renewable primary energy This issue accounts for the depletion of non-renewable primary energy and for the CO2 emissions because of commuter travel to and from the building’s location (non domestic buildings only). The performance benchmark for this issue consists of the predicted or actual CO2 emissions from staff commuting, expressed as kgCO2/person/year. In order to


p. 53/97

determine the level achieved by the building, this amount is compared to specific reference values, varying between 150 and 1650 kgCO2/person/year. Ecological impact This issue accounts for the ecological value of the land selected for development and, where appropriate, for the enhancement or protection of this ecological value. The ecological performance must be determined by measuring the existing ecological value of the site prior to its development and any measures taken to protect or enhance that ecological value. This must then be compared to specific benchmarks. The ecological performance of the site is determined via four measures, for each of which specific benchmarks are worked out, i.e.: Value of the site’s existing plant vegetation; Value of the site’s local fauna (e.g. birds, foxes, ...); Value of the site’s surrounding landscape; Measures undertaken to enhance or protect the ecological value of the site.

Responsible sourcing of major building elements This issue aims at ensuring that the extraction/manufacture of major building materials used in new buildings is carried out with good environmental practice. The benchmark for this issue corresponds to a certification score, which is calculated based on the major building material volumes and the certification scheme proportions. Land use This issue refers to the minimisation of the consumption of undeveloped land by encouraging the use of previously developed or contaminated land and its eventual remediation. The performance benchmark for this issue is based on the type of land used, which is expressed as the previous state of the land before construction. The latter is categorised within seven different performance levels. Here, it is presumed that contaminated sites have been remediated, so that the national pollutant limits are observed and the site is fit for development. Hazardous waste for disposal: radioactive waste This issue aims at reducing a building’s indirect radioactive waste production, as a result of the demand for nuclear fuelled electricity generation. The evaluation of this issue is based on a comparison of the amount of radioactive waste, produced by the assessed building because of its energy consumption, with reference values, varying between lower than 10 % and higher than 111 % of the reference value. The latter corresponds to the average production of radioactive waste (expressed in cm³/kWh) for the same type of building as that being assessed. Environmental management system This issue aims at rewarding developers and building owners that have worked or are working towards producing an environmental management system or EMS that is suitable for the size and the kind of the company, thereby encouraging appropriate management and mitigation of building related organisational environmental impacts.


p. 54/97

Since an EMS relates to management, a process-based benchmark is proposed for this issue. Minimising regional specific climatologic risk This issue refers to the minimisation of problems, resulting from possible climatologic perturbations of the region, by adapting building designs, use or operation. Furthermore, it aims at avoiding construction in risky zones. The evaluation of this issue is based on an assessment of the degree of risk (intensity and probability) of a region for four climatologic events, i.e. flooding, wind, storm and avalanches, as well as on the degree of building adaptation. Social issues Occupants satisfaction This issue accounts for user experience in creating a comfortable and productive internal environment. The assessment of this issue is based on occupant’s opinion on the building, which is assessed by carrying out an occupant survey. Internal user amenities This issue refers to the provision of spaces for privacy (e.g. study, rest, contemplation) or conviviality (e.g. co-housing, cafeteria in an office building) within the building and their contribution to wellbeing of the occupants. Since the latter is only possible if these spaces are designed to account for the occupants and their needs, a participatory process is essential on this issue. Because there is no absolute performance level regarding such a subjective issue, a process-based benchmark is used for assessing this issue. Building safety assessment This issue accounts for a building’s spatial arrangement, access and services on the grounds of safety. The building’s performance must be determined by measuring the relevant aspects of building safety and must be compared to specific reference levels. Different possible hazards to occupants are taken into account here, i.e. fire risk and risk of accidents. Provision of key amenities The provision of key amenities in the proximity of the building encourages sustainable and integrated communities, while easier access to such facilities also reduces transport-related greenhouse gas emissions. The building’s performance must be determined by measuring the number of and the distance to all relevant amenities in the proximity of the assessed building’s main entrance. The eventual performance level is defined by comparing this measurement with a preset number of minimum requirements. Public transport accessibility This issue refers to the recognition of buildings that are accessible by and encourage the use of public transport networks.


p. 55/97

The assessment of this issue is based on the calculation of the public transport accessibility index, which is calculated based on the walking distance to public transport nodes, the frequency of service at each node and the percentage of car parking provision for the building users (the latter is not applicable to domestic buildings). Provision of safe and adequate cycle lanes and facilities This issue aims at recognising and encouraging the provision of both adequate and safe cycle paths, leading on to and off the site, that link up with external cycle route ways, and on site cyclist facilities. The scope of this issue, and therefore the benchmark, depends on the situation (e.g. domestic or non-domestic buildings). The latter is based on a checklist of the quality of cycle lanes, as well as available facilities for cyclists. To set the scope, three categories are distinguished, i.e. cycle lanes, bicycle parking system and cyclist facilities. Provision of carpooling This issue aims at encouraging carpooling in order to help reduce peak-hour congestion and therefore commuting time and commuting related stress, all of which have a knock effect in reducing environmental and economic impacts. The assessment of this issue is based on the number of building occupants per parking space and on the number of car share policy objectives implemented. Site security and spatial arrangement This issue aims at ensuring that necessary steps to promote a safe and secure environment and to minimise the risk and fear of crime are performed. Points are obtained for actions, leading towards site security and crime prevention. The requirements for these actions are based on European standards. Building security This issue aims at protecting the building and its users against crime and the fear of crime. The benchmark for this issue consist of a comparison between the real protection level and the protection level, required by regulation, and is based on the risk level (result of risk assessment) for the specific building type and purpose. Community impact consultation This issue aims at encouraging the participation of the local community and different target groups in the planning and design process of the project. The assessment of this issue is based on the presence or not and on the quality of such a community consultation. Considerate constructors This issues aims at ensuring that constructors are considerate and good neighbours, as well as clean, respectful, safe, environmentally conscious, responsible and accountable during the construction/renovation/demolition phase of the building.


p. 56/97

The assessment of this issue is based on the number of measures taken. Examples of such measures are information of the neighbours, elaboration of a safety plan, checking of the building site with the help of a safety surveyor, avoiding harmful substances (e.g. carcinogenic substances), sorting of waste, allowing workers to attend continuing education when relevant, ... External neighbourhood impacts This issue aims at reducing the negative effects of the building for neighbouring properties (e.g. solar access, wind effects, reduction of privacy and noise and light pollution). The building’s impact on the neighbouring properties is evaluated using a specific checklist, with points awarded for each issue. Rating for this issue depends on the number of points awarded to the building. The impact of the building on the neighbouring properties comprises the following aspects: Solar access to neighbouring properties; Increase of background noise level; Light pollution; Reduction of privacy for existing buildings; Wind effects.

Design quality This issues ensures that the building reaches a high standard of architectural merit and design quality, as defined by the users of the building and the neighbouring community. The assessment of this issue is based on the average score from the ‘design quality’ questionnaire, which has to be completed by a combination of building users and neighbours that live or work in the vicinity of the building in order to represent a cross-section of stakeholders. Economic issues Function analysis This issue aims at encouraging a systematic analysis of the building’s functional requirement, concentrating on the actual needs, aspirations and demands of the client and building users to ensure a more economically sustainable building, fit for purpose. The assessment of this issue consists of a process-based approach. Risk and value management This issue aims at maximising the building value and reducing the risk by establishing a clear consensus about the project objectives and how they can be achieved. The building’s performance under this sub-issue must be determined by comparing to a specific set of stages of implementation. Lifecycle costs – component level This issue aims at recognising and encouraging the assessment of the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of a building component in a manner, so that the information can be used to aid decision making concerning the design options that provide best value.


p. 57/97

The performance benchmark is based on a checklist of the quality of the LCC, as well as the completeness of the assessment. Lifecycle costs – strategic level This issue aims at recognising and encouraging the assessment of the Life Cycle Costs (LCC) of a building in a coordinated and standardised manner, so that the information can be used to aid decision making concerning the design options that provide best value. The performance benchmark is based on a checklist of the quality of the LCC, as well as the completeness of the assessment. Option appraisal This issue uses multi criteria analyses, including risk, value management and LCC, in order to appraise design and make decisions based on best value and not just costs. The performance benchmark is based on a checklist of the completeness of the assessment, as well as the quality. Exchange value This issue ensures the enhancement in value of the building as a commodity to be traded in the future. Its assessment is based on a set of measures adopted in order to improve future exchange value. Added value This issue determines whether the building provides a productive working environment and therefore adds value to organisational aims and objectives. This sub-issue is appropriate only for existing non-domestic buildings that have been occupied for a minimum of twelve months. The assessment of this issue is based on an average score from the ‘design quality’ questionnaire, filled in by the users of the building. Building adaptability Adaptable buildings can be adjusted in order to fulfil the changing demands of the building users and thus has a positive influence on the lifetime of the building. The building adaptability is assessed, independently of the building typology and environment, where it is located. Six steps are defined, resulting in a flexibility index of the building, i.e. the following: Building extensions; Support and infill; Bearing structure; Building envelope; Technical installations; Infill.

Improve ease of maintenance This issue aims at recognising a building that has considered ease of maintenance throughout its life cycle.


p. 58/97

The weighted maintenance index number (F1/F0), as well as the level of exposure of the building, must be determined and then compared to a specific set of reference values. Connectivity with local employment This issue recognises and rewards buildings, which aim at sustaining or improving the local/regional economy by locating in an area, in which the unemployment rate is higher than the national average, and by employing people that live in the locality of the building. The assessment of this issue is based on a comparison of the regional unemployment rate with the national average unemployment rate. Specification/use of locally produced materials This issue aims at increasing the use of locally produced materials, thus supporting the regional economy and reducing the environmental impacts resulting from transportation of materials. The assessment of this issue is based on the proportion of key building materials, by value, produced within the locality of the site and the existence of a local purchasing policy, compared to reference values. 3.7. Perfection 3.7.1. Background The ongoing European Coordination Action for Performance Indicators for Health, Comfort and Safety of the Indoor Environment – Perfection – is supported by the European Commission within the Seventh Framework ProgramError! Reference source not found.. It is a coordination action, for which the main objective is the development of a framework and a set of indicators concerning the overall quality of the indoor environment of buildings. The focus lies on issues, such as comfort, health and safety, but also on accessibility, positive stimulation of people and sustainability. The long-term aim of Perfection is to help enabling the application of new building design and technologies that improve the impact of the indoor built environment on the human wellbeing. The project concept consists of the following six components: The inventory of current standards, regulations, technologies and ongoing and

recent research activities and policies related to optimal indoor environment; The analysis of current indoor performance indicators and their applicability,

positioned within a generic framework, and identifying areas, where new indicators for health and safety should be developed;

Experiences from use cases of building design and technologies exploiting the indicators in different building types;

The identification of incentives and barriers for the wide use of performance indicators;


p. 59/97

A roadmap and recommendations for building design and technologies and support for policies;

A wide dissemination of the findings through an extensive expert network. The project was introduced in the FP7-ENV 2007-1 call. It started on the 1st January 2009 and will run for 3 years. It is carried out by eleven members, i.e. BBRI (Belgium), VTT (Finland), Apintech (Greece), CTU (Czech Republic), ARMINES (France), Kornadt (Germany), ICTAF (Israel), SITI (Italy), TUE (The Netherlands), ASM (Poland) and BRE (U.K.), and is linked to an extensive network of experts representing industry, academia and research from all over Europe. Within this project, 4 work packages are identified, i.e. the following: WP1 – Indoor indicators, which aims at drawing up an inventory of current

performance indicators, standards, regulations, guidelines, research activities and policies used in design and construction of the built environment with focus on health and comfort (indoor environmental quality), accessibility, feeling of safety and positive stimulation indicators, including an analysis of important and missing indicators;

WP2 – Use of indicators and new designs and technologies, which aims at ensuring the important user engagement and mapping how different tools serve the successful use of performance indicators. Case studies of different building types are used as a means to validate the applicability of both indicators and tools;

WP3 – Policy recommendations, which aims at identifying incentives and barriers affecting the successful adoption of indoor performance indicators;

WP4 – Dissemination, which aims at widely and intensely publicising the Perfection initiative and its products in policy, research, business and EC DG oriented events, at receiving valuable feedback and establishing further cooperation and at producing all the required quality publications, in support of the project activities (web, leaflets, etc.), as well as in order to disseminate its results (case studies based publication).

3.7.2. Current state of the project At this moment, a generic framework of core building performance indicators is set up, the different indicators are being described and an evaluation method is being developed for each of the indicators. The results of this action will soon be published on the project website www.ca-perfection.eu. The latter may be valuable for the SuPerBuildings project. 3.8. Conclusions Based on the above information on international and European harmonisation and standardisation activities concerning sustainability issues and indicators, a number of conclusions can be drawn. The methods and methodologies, developed in TC350 and in ISO TC59 SC17, are, at the fundamental level, based on a common life-cycle analysis based approach, supplemented by additional environmental and technical information, necessary to carry out assessment at the building level.


p. 60/97

At the implementation level, i.e. the method of assessment for construction products and buildings, the standards only fully address environmental performance assessment. They only partly address social aspects, although work is continuing, particularly in CENTC350, to address more fully the social performance of buildings.

The standards represent ‘tools’ for the systemic evaluation of defined parameters, which can be used as part of valuation (rating) systems. This is the approach that has been adopted through the SBA common metrics, albeit for a much narrower set of metrics than included in the standards.

Whilst acknowledging the importance of the life-cycle, the UNEP-SBCI common metric is currently only focusing on a single measure during the use stage of the building – while the approach to gathering data for the metric is of interest - the single metric itself is too narrow to form other than a small part of the assessment of sustainability.

Within the LEnSE project, a shortlist of building sustainability issues and sub-issues is set up, based on a review of existing evaluation tools and harmonisation and standardisation activities. Subsequently, 31 environmental, social and economic issues are selected and an appropriate assessment method is developed for these issues.

The ongoing Perfection project, finally, focuses on the development of a framework and a set of indicators concerning the overall quality of the indoor environment of buildings. The focus lies on issues, such as comfort, health and safety, but also accessibility, positive stimulation of people and sustainability are covered.


p. 61/97

Review of existing building evaluation tools 4. In a second part of this report, a number of existing building evaluation tools is reviewed and analysed regarding the availability of indicators and assessment methods and their degree of common understanding. 4.1. Approach and list of evaluated tools In order to identify the needs for further development and/or harmonisation of sustainability indicators and evaluation methods, a number of existing building evaluation tools is analysed for the availability of indicators, describing the potential environmental, social and economic impacts of buildings, as well as the availability of methods, which properly measure performance levels for these indicators. By comparing the sustainability indicators and their assessment methods, considered within the different evaluation tools, conclusions can be drawn on both those indicators that are (almost) not covered by the tools and thus may need (further) development, and those indicators that are covered by most tools, but that may need some harmonisation. 4.1.1. Building evaluation tools considered within the project The eleven building evaluation tools that are analysed within this project correspond to the national tools of the different partners, plus the tools LEED and CASBEE (see Table 2). Table 2: Overview of the reviewed building evaluation tools. Name of the tool Country of

origin Date of

first entry into

operation

Versions (in operation or under development)

Information provided by

BREEAM & Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH)

U.K. 1990 new buildings – Code for Sustainable Homes

refurbishments – Code for Sustaina-ble Homes & BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment

BRE

BNB/DGNB Germany 2009 new-built office buildings

housing large scale renova-

tion of office buildings

operation and maintenance of office buildings

educational establishments

infrastructure buildings

KIT-U


p. 62/97

urban development / neighbourhoods

PromisE Finland ? residential buildings office buildings retail buildings new and existing

VTT

HQE France 2008 offices and educa-tion – new and large scale renovation

project management systems

operation management – non-residential buildings

CSTB

Valideo Belgium 2008 office buildings – new, renovation and existing

multi-residential buildings

BBRI

CASBEE Japan 2001 pre-design new construction new construction –

brief version existing building existing building –

brief version renovation renovation – brief

version urban development urban area +

buildings home (detached

house) property appraisal temporary

construction individual areas

BBRI

LEED U.S.A. 1998 core & shell new construction

and major renovation

schools neighbourhood

development retail healthcare homes commercial interiors operation and

maintenance

BBRI

SBTool CZ Czech Republic

2009 new residential buildings

new office buildings

CVUT

Klima:aktiv Gebaüde-

Austria 2005 residential buildings – houses – new

ÖGUT


p. 63/97

standard buildings residential buildings

– passive houses – new buildings

residential buildings – houses – refurbishment

residential buildings – passive houses – refurbishment

TQB Austria 2002 2009/2010

residential buildings non-residential

buildings (office buildings)

ÖGUT

GPR Gebouw The Netherlands

1992 residential buildings (new + existing)

office buildings (new + existing)

schools (new + existing)

industrial buildings (new + existing)

swimming pools (new construction only)

sports halls (new construction only)

station buildings (new and existing construction)

area development / urban planning

W/E

4.1.2. Questionnaire and Excel file on available indicators and

assessment methods The starting point for the analysis of the existing building evaluation tools consists of both the responses from the different partners of the project on a questionnaire concerning their national building evaluation tool and the consultation of the specific evaluation tools, if available and accessible, and available information at BBRI on the tools LEED and CASBEE (see Appendix 1). Within the questionnaire, information is collected on the characteristics of the tool and the assessment methodologies applied, on the available sustainability indicators and their needs for further development and/or harmonisation and on sustainability indicators that are considered by the partners as core indicators. Furthermore, the partners were asked to fill in a separate Excel file, providing more detailed information on the available indicators and their assessment methodologies (see Figure 8).


p. 64/97

Figure 8: Excel file providing detailed information on the available indicators and their assessment methodologies. 4.1.3. Analysis of availability of indicators and assessment

methods In order to be able to draw conclusions from all available information on the sustainability indicators and their assessment methodologies within the questionnaire and the Excel file, different steps are taken. At first, a framework of issues that are potentially covered by the different methods for sustainability assessment of buildings is made. This framework for classification of indicators is based on the shortlist of issues within the European LEnSE project [35][36], on relevant ISO standards [12] and on additional indicators that occur within the considered tools. For practical reasons, the indicators are subdivided into three groups, i.e. environmental, economic and social issues and indicators (see Figure 9, Figure 10 and Figure 11). Here, it has to be mentioned that this choice is rather arbitrary, since these three components of sustainability are often interrelated and the indicators often have consequences on more than one issue (e.g. energy use has an impact on CO2 emissions (environmental issue), but also on energy bills (economic issue), ...). However, the subdivision of issues has no impact on the conclusions of this analysis.

Figure 9: Framework for classification of environmental issues and indicators, with indication of the source (i.e. ISO standards and/or LEnSE project), on which each issue or indicator is based.


p. 65/97

Figure 10: Framework for classification of economic issues and indicators, with indication of the source (i.e. ISO standards and/or LEnSE project), on which each issue or indicator is based.

Figure 11: Framework for classification of social issues and indicators, with indication of the source (i.e. ISO standards and/or LEnSE project), on which each issue or indicator is based. In a second step, all indicators and their corresponding assessment methods within the different tools are classified within this overall framework of issues. Finally, based on these data and on the information within the questionnaires, an analysis of available sustainability indicators and their assessment methods within the different existing tools is made through an identification of

o issues, that are not (commonly) covered by the tools; o issues, that are covered by all or most of the tools; o issues, that appear in very few tools and that do not really fit within the

considered framework, but that remain interesting; a comparison of assessment methods for issues that are covered by more than

one tool; an identification of issues that are considered by the partners as core indicators

and a comparison of these core indicators with the issues that are covered by all or most of the tools.

The results of this analysis are given in the following sections.


p. 66/97

4.2. Availability of indicators and evaluation methods As is mentioned above, the sustainability indicators within the different building evaluation tools are subdivided into three groups, i.e. environmental, economic and social issues and indicators. Within the following sections, the results for each of these three groups are described in detail and conclusions are drawn concerning the availability of issues and indicators within the evaluation tools, the degree of common understanding on these indicators and/or their assessment methods and possible needs for further harmonisation and the indicators that are considered as core indicators. 4.2.1. Environmental issues and indicators A first group of issues and indicators corresponds to the potential impacts of buildings on the local and global environment (see Figure 9). Here, distinction is made between two sub-groups of issues, i.e. [12]: consequential indicators, expressing environmental impacts in terms of building

performance or location either quantitatively or qualitatively. These indicators correspond in fact to measures that can be taken in order to reduce the impact of the building on the environment (e.g. a minimisation of energy use reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases and thus minimises climate change);

impact indicators, directly measuring the impact of the building on the environment. Here again, distinction is made between two sub-groups, i.e.:

o LCA indicators, referring to the impact categories within a standard lifecycle assessment (e.g. global warming potential);

o LCI data, referring to the basic data within an LCA (e.g. amounts of waste produced).

4.2.1.1. Availability of environmental issues and indicators within the

evaluation tools The availability of environmental issues and indicators within the different building evaluation tools, considered here, is illustrated in Figure 12. Here, the coloured box means that one or more indicators within the tools cover the issue.


p. 67/97

Figure 12: Availability of environmental indicators within the reviewed building evaluation tools. From Figure 12, conclusions are drawn on both not (commonly) and most covered environmental issues and indicators within the different evaluation tools. Not (commonly) covered environmental issues and indicators The environmental issues and indicators that are not covered by any of the tools or that occur within only one tool, are the following (see also Table 3): LCI indicators for land use, use of (non) renewable resources, water consumption

and production of (non) hazardous or radioactive waste (treated within one or none of the tools). Here, it has to be mentioned that this does not mean that those issues are not treated at all, since they may be (partly) covered by consequential indicators (e.g. water consumption, waste production and land use and ecology).

Environmental issues and indicators that are covered by only a few of the tools are the following (see also Table 3): LCA indicators, other than CO2 emissions ( 3/11).

This list of not (commonly) covered environmental issues and indicators within the reviewed evaluation tools is compared to the environmental indicators that are identified by the partners in their response on the questionnaires as missing or to be further developed. The latter list consists of the following indicators (see also Table 3): Ecological value of the site (landscape degradation, evaluation of site ecology

and ecological footprint of the site). Although this issue is already considered within 8 of the 11 tools, this topic occurred as missing or to be further developed within 3 out of the 8 responses on the questionnaires;

Radioactive waste disposal (mentioned within 3 of the questionnaires); LCA information on materials (mentioned within 3 of the questionnaires); Needs for irrigation (mentioned within 1 of the questionnaires); Local depletion, caused by winning of primary surface resources (clay, gravel,

sand, ...) (not considered in the tools, but mentioned within 1 questionnaire); Impact from using different types of wood (mentioned in 1 questionnaire, but

taken into account within most tools as sustainable sourcing of wood).


p. 68/97

Table 3: Overview of not (commonly) covered environmental indicators within the evaluation tools (underlined issues) and of indicators that are mentioned by one or more of the partners as missing or to be further developed (issues in italic).

Environmental indicators Availability within the evaluation tools

Mentioned as missing or to be further

developed within the answers on the questionnaires

LCI data - water consumption - land use - waste - depletion of resources

0/11 1/11 1/11 1/11

1/8 LCA indicators

- climate change - materials - use of wood

3/11 – 8/11

3/8 1/8

Ecological value of the site - landscape degradation - evaluation of site ecology - ecological footprint

(6/11-8/11) 3/8

Waste and radioactive waste (9/11) 3/8 Needs for irrigation (5/11) 3/8 When comparing both lists (see Table 3), it can be concluded that there is some agreement between the issues that are considered by the partners as missing or to be further developed (see issues in italic in Table 3) and the issues that are in fact not (commonly) covered by the evaluated tools (see underlined issues in Table 3). However, some of the issues, considered by the partners as missing or to be (further) developed, are already rather well covered by the evaluation tools (see issues in Table 3, for which the availability within the tools is indicated between brackets). Most covered environmental issues and indicators The environmental issues that are considered within all or at least eight of the eleven building evaluation tools are the following (see Figure 12): Primary energy consumption (operational) (all tools); Minimise water consumption (all tools); Materials (9/11); Waste production during the use phase (9/11); Global warming potential (CO2 emissions) (8/11); Ecological value of the site (8/11).

4.2.1.2. Commonly used environmental issues and indicators and their

needs for further harmonisation Many of the environmental issues and indicators within the classification framework occur within most of the building evaluation tools, considered here (see Figure 12). This means that most of the environmental issues and indicators are commonly used within the assessment of buildings. However, the way these indicators are assessed often differs between the different tools and a wide range of variation in approaches exists. The most important differences between the different evaluation tools relate to: the grouping, number and content of sub-indicators;


p. 69/97

the level of detail; the use of either qualitative or quantitative criteria for assessment (qualitative

criteria are more subjective); the use of either performance based criteria or a checklist of measures to be

taken (with large differences between the considered measures); the system boundaries considered (e.g. CO2 emissions only for the use phase or

also for the production of materials, primary energy use only for heating or inclusive household appliances, ...).

Within the following paragraphs, all environmental indicators that are covered by more than one tool are briefly described in order to get some insight in the variation and common agreement in assessment methodologies that are used within the different building evaluation tools. Land use and ecology Two main issues, i.e. land use and ecology, are considered here. These issues are further subdivided into several sub-issues, although the latter are not always taken into account within all tools (see Figure 12). Furthermore, the evaluation of the sub-issues differs between the different tools. Both qualitative and quantitative criteria are taken into account for the different sub-issues, such as the following: Land use:

o minimise land consumption (building footprint): the type and quality of the land used (e.g. unoccupied land or

reuse of land, contaminated or non-polluted land, brownfield, ...); % of building area / % of land used; % of permeable surface or green surface; m² usable floor / m² external floor; the compactness of the building; the density of occupation (m² floor area / person);

o re-use of land: % of land that was previously developed and is now reused for the building;

Ecology: o ecological value of the site:

ecological value of the land (based on the quality of fauna, flora and scenery);

number of plant / animal species and/or habitats; appearance of rare species on the land; purity of the building site;

o mitigate impact on site ecology: checklist of measures to be taken (e.g. green spaces, planting

rate, presence of plants on the building, landscaping of the ground, identifying site characteristics, conservation of biological resources, external area covered with greenery, choice of foliage, building planting index, ...);

number and type of measures taken in order to mitigate the impact on the site ecology;

measures taken to protect the ecological value of the land; o enhancing site ecology:

presence of site master plan or report of ecologist; greening the premises; restore fauna and increase flora present on the site (expressed in

number of species);


p. 70/97

checklist of measures to be taken (e.g. green spaces, provision of vegetated open space, use of greenery on roofs and facades, ...);

number and type of measures taken to enhance site ecology. Construction phase The impacts of the construction phase can affect both the local and global environment and the neighbourhood. Furthermore, the safety and quality of the construction site are often taken into account. The criteria that are used for assessment of the sub-indicators within the different assessment tools are mainly qualitative or based on a checklist of measures and are the following: Safety and quality of the construction site (least considered within the tools):

o handling; o systematic commissioning (e.g. contractor with environmental

management policy and/or system); o logistics; o presence of safety data sheets or adequate documentation; o certification, environmental risk analysis, code of practice, quality control,

third party auditing; o person in charge of communication, environment, traffic, ...

Impact on the local and global environment and on the neighbourhood: o monitoring, reporting and setting targets or measures in order to limit the

impact of CO2 emissions, energy use, water consumption, water, air or soil pollution, dust production, noise nuisance, use of and pollution by chemicals, waste production and treatment, ... during both the transport phase and the construction phase;

o setting targets for responsible sourcing of materials used on the construction site.

Materials Within the issue of materials, three sub-indicators can be recognised, i.e. rational use of materials, impact on the environment and impact on health. Although most evaluation tools take into account the effects of the use of materials, the criteria for the evaluation may differ slightly. Most criteria are quantitative and based on calculations, literature data / certification or direct analyses. The evaluation occurs by comparing the quantitative results with a set of reference values. The most used criteria, yet not applied by all tools, are the following: Rational use of materials:

o presence, % or amount of materials that are reused / reusable; o presence, % or amount of materials that are recycled / recyclable; o presence, % or amount of materials that are renewable; o presence, % or amount of materials that are regional / local;

Materials with low environmental impact: o presence, % or amount of materials that are certified or responsibly

sourced (e.g. type 1 environmental label, FSC or PEFC label for wood, ...);

o use of materials with low environmental impact, which is indicated based on literature data or on an LCA analysis;

Health: o presence, % or amount of materials with low concentrations or emissions

of VOCs, HFCs, formaldehyde, halogens, carcinogens, PVC, solvents, ....;

o % of materials that are in direct contact with the indoor air and that can therefore negatively affect the indoor air quality.


p. 71/97

Primary energy consumption (operational) One of the main categories within the environmental assessment of buildings refers to the energy consumption and its environmental effects during the use phase of the building. Here, a wide range of indicators and sub-indicators is used, varying from general indicators, taking into account the entire energy consumption of the building, to more detailed indicators, focussing on only a part of the energy consumption of the building, such as energy use for heating, lighting, .... In all building evaluation tools, one or more indicators relating to the energy use are taken into account, but the level of detail, the number of sub-indicators and the elements considered differ widely. The evaluation varies from quantitative indicators that are measured as much as possible to a checklist of measures in order to reduce the energy demand of the building. In most tools, the national building regulation is taken as a reference. The evaluation criteria that are most used for the different sub-issues, yet not by all tools, are the following: Total energy use:

o total primary energy use or demand over the entire lifecycle of the building, expressed in kWh/m².y or in MJ/m².y and calculated using an LCA or based on a simplified or other calculation method;

o non-renewable primary energy use or demand over the entire life cycle, expressed in kWh/m².y or MJ/m².y, calculated using LCA or a simplified method;

o final energy demand, expressed in kWh/m².y; o global energy performance level, expressed as E-value and compared to

regulation; o actual electricity consumption, calculated based on a consumption-based

energy certificate in comparison to regulation (e.g. EPB); o presence of sub-metering, monitoring or recording of substantial primary

energy uses; o commissioning; o energy efficiency of the whole system of or sub-systems, compared to

regulation; o optimise energy performance, expressed as % of energy savings

compared to national standards, calculated based on simulation; o provision of energy efficient equipment, technologies or white goods; o optimisation of energy use; o installation of low- or zero-carbon technologies; o use of technologies that enable significant energy savings; o heat leaks, expressed in W/m².K, compared to a reference value; o air permeability or air tightness of the outer surface of the building,

expressed in m³/h.m², compared to reference value; o measures to minimise heat loss and air infiltration through the building

fabric; o energy consumption management; o quality of inspection; o environmental impact from energy use, expressed in CO2 equivalents;

Heating: o heating demand, expressed as kWh/m².y; o actual heating energy consumption, calculated based on a consumption-

based energy certificate in comparison to regulation (e.g. EPB); o global insulation level, expressed as K-level, compared to national

regulation; o building thermal load, compared to national regulation;


p. 72/97

o thermal bridges of the building envelope, expressed as calculated U value compared to limit value;

o use of gas or oil condensing boiler; o district heating with waste heat or CHP; o cooling demand;

Domestic hot water: o use of gas or oil condensing boiler; o energy demand for domestic hot water, expressed in kWh/m².y; o solar thermal water heating system; o hot water buffer storage; o washing machine and dishwasher with connection to hot water;

Lighting: o energy efficient external lighting (type used); o energy efficient internal lighting (type used); o labelling of lighting for appropriate use; o limit non-regulatory external lighting;

Ventilation: o no need for mechanical cooling; o reduced energy means for drying cloths; o energy-efficiency of ventilation system;

Internal transport: o energy efficient escalators (e.g. based on type and speed of escalator); o use of escalators that reduce unnecessary operation when there is no

passenger demand; Renewable energies:

o renewable energy utilisation, expressed as MJ/m².y; o proportion of total primary energy demand that consists of renewable

energy (expressed in %), based on LCA or simplified method; o use of local renewable energy, expressed in % of needs covered or as

MJ/m².y; o number and type of efforts made; o feasibility study on use of local renewable energy; o use of photovoltaic; o biomass heating; o alternative energy sources; o use of heat pump.

Water The issue ‘water’ is subdivided into three sub-issues, i.e. minimise water consumption, minimise surface water runoff and limit on-site water pollution. All of the evaluated tools treat the issue about minimisation of water consumption, while the other two issues are much less considered. The evaluation criteria are both qualitative and quantitative and are mainly the following: Minimisation of water consumption:

o total freshwater used, expressed in m³/y or in m³/person/year, compared to national standards, reference values or regulation;

o % of water saved by taking specific measures compared to reference values;

o use of rainwater, expressed in %; o use of recycled grey water, expressed in %; o local leak detection; o monitoring of water consumption;


p. 73/97

o checklist of measures taken in order to limit freshwater consumption in bathrooms, for cooling, for air humidification, for heating, for drinking, for cleaning, for watering green spaces, for irrigation, ... (e.g. water saving measures or systems for toilets, use of pressure reducers, ...);

Minimisation of surface water runoff (qualitative assessment based on a checklist of measures):

o take into account runoff of water when planning the building; o design buildings in order to avoid, reduce and delay the discharge of

rainfall to public sewers and watercourses; o measures to optimise rainwater seepage into the soil, expressed as water

tightness coefficient or permeability of the site; o measures to encourage retention of rain water after storms – storm water

management plan; o presence of irrigation system;

Limitation of on-site water pollution (qualitative assessment based on a checklist of measures):

o wastewater identification, (pre-)treatment and/or recycling on site; o reduction of impact on sewers, soil and groundwater; o presence of innovative wastewater technologies; o measures taken to limit water pollution; o use of environmentally friendly detergents; o use of oil separators.

Waste production during the use phase Both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment are used here: Quantitative assessment based on:

o amounts of waste generated, expressed in t/y or in m³/100 m² or % of waste for key materials;

o recycling rate of waste streams, expressed in %; o disposal index of the building; o radioactive waste generation due to energy consumption, expressed in

cm³ radioactive waste/m² heated floor; Qualitative assessment based on:

o presence of rooms for collection, sorting, storage, compaction and/or composting of waste;

o quality of waste management; o measures taken in order to optimise waste treatment, e.g. improve

recycling or reuse of waste and limit landfill or disposal; o measures taken in order to limit waste production at the source; o measures to guarantee safety and health of waste areas.

Environmental management and geophysical risk The different evaluation tools consider different types of geological and/or climatologic risks. The main risks and evaluation criteria within this issue are the following: Flood risk:

o location of the site within a region with low or high flood risk; o measures against flooding;

Earthquake: o location of the site within a region with low or high earthquake risk (based

on local risk maps); o resistance of the building against earthquakes;

Avalanches and storms:


p. 74/97

o location of the site within a region with low or high storm or avalanches risk (based on local risk maps).

LCA indicators Most of the evaluated tools cover the LCA indicators on global warming potential, ozone depletion potential, photochemical ozone creation potential, acidification and eutrophication. However, other LCA indicators, such as abiotic and biotic depletion and human and eco-toxicity, are much less taken into account. Furthermore, the way of evaluating these indicators differs between the different tools. The LCA indicators and their different evaluation criteria are the following: Global warming potential:

o use and/or global warming potential of refrigerants; o global warming potential related to the manufacture, installation, use and

disposal of foamed thermal and acoustic insulating materials; o CO2 equivalent emissions over the course of the life cycle, broken down

into a value of kg CO2-equiv/m².y, calculated using an LCA or a simplified method and compared to a reference value;

o CO2 equivalent quantities generated by the use of energy, expressed in kg CO2-equiv/m².y;

o embodied CO2 emissions, expressed in kg CO2-equiv/m² and based on

LCA; Ozone depletion potential:

o NOx emissions from delivered space heating energy, expressed in mg/kWh;

o ozone depletion potential, expressed in kg NOx/m², calculation of the end energy use in the building and calculation of the amount of NOx per year by using the emission factors for kg NOx/1 MJ delivered or expressed in mg/kWh;

o R11-equivalent emissions over the course of the life cycle, broken down into a value of kg R11-equiv/m².a, calculated using LCA or a simplified method;

o energy equipment is chosen that uses zero-ODP components; Photochemical ozone creation potential:

o photochemical ozone forming potential over the course of the life cycle, broken down into a value of kg C2H4-equiv/m².y, calculated using LCA or a simplified method;

Acidification potential: o expressed in kg SO2 equiv/m², calculation of the end energy use in the

building and calculation of the amount of SO2 per year by using emission factors for kg SO2/1 MJ delivered;

o acidification potential over the course of the life cycle, broken down into a value of kg SO2-equiv/m².y, calculated using LCA or a simplified method;

Eutrophication potential: o eutrophication potential over the course of the life cycle, broken down into

a value of kg PO4-equiv/m².y, calculated using LCA or a simplified method;

o nitrogen/nitrous oxide to land/air; Abiotic depletion:

o considered within only one tool, calculation based on LCA and using a shadow price weighting factor of 0.16 euro/kg;

Biotic depletion: o considered within only one tool, calculation based on LCA and using a

shadow price weighting factor of 0.16 euro/kg;


p. 75/97

Human toxicity: o considered within only one tool, calculation based on LCA and using a

shadow price weighting factor of 0.09 euro/kg; Eco-toxicity:

o considered within only one tool, calculation based on LCA and using a shadow price weighting factor of 0.03 or 0.06 euro/kg.

4.2.1.3. Core environmental indicators Within the questionnaire, the partners were also asked to identify core indicators or indicators that certainly have to be treated within a sustainable building evaluation. The environmental issues and indicators that are identified by the partners as core indicators are the following (see also Table 4): Energy (mentioned within all questionnaires); Materials (mentioned within 5 of the questionnaires); Climate change (mentioned within 4 of the questionnaires); Land use and ecology (mentioned within 4 of the questionnaires); Water management (mentioned within 3 of the questionnaires); Waste (mentioned within 2 of the questionnaires).

Table 4: Comparison between core environmental issues and most covered issues within the building evaluation tools.

Core environmental issues Mentioned within the questionnaires

Availability within the evaluation tools

Primary energy consumption 7/7 11/11 Materials 5/7 9/11 Climate change 4/7 8/11 Land use and ecology 4/7 8/11 Water management 3/7 11/11 Waste production 2/7 9/11 When comparing the issues, considered as core indicators within the questionnaires, with the most covered issues within the building evaluation tools (see Table 4), it can be concluded that there is a large agreement between them. This indicates that the indicators that are considered as core indicators by all or most of the partners are also effectively treated within all or most of the evaluation tools. 4.2.2. Economic issues and indicators A second group of indicators relates to the economic performance of buildings. Here, distinction is made between different issues, i.e. value management, whole life costs, asset value, maintenance and local and regional economic impacts of the building. 4.2.2.1. Availability of economic issues and indicators within the

evaluation tools The availability of economic issues and indicators within the different building evaluation tools, considered here, is illustrated in Figure 13. Here, the coloured box means that one or more indicators within the tools cover the issue.


p. 76/97

Figure 13: Availability of economic indicators within the reviewed building evaluation tools. From Figure 13, conclusions are drawn on both not (commonly) and most covered economic issues and indicators within the different evaluation tools. Not (commonly) covered economic issues and indicators Three economic issues are not covered by any of the tools, i.e. the following (see also Table 5): Improve building user productivity; Changes in economic system, referring to an optimisation of diverse and long-

term local employment opportunities, a use and purchase of locally produced materials and an increase in the asset value of the site;

Housing affordability and commercial viability. The other economic issues are taken into account within minimum three out of the 11 tools. The least occurring issues and indicators are the following: Service life (treated by 3 out of 11 tools); Management (treated by 4 out of 11 tools).

The above list of not (commonly) used economic issues and indicators within the reviewed evaluation tools is compared to the economic indicators that are identified by the partners in their response on the questionnaires as missing or to be further developed. The latter list consists of the following issues (see also Table 5): Lifecycle costs (mentioned within 6 of the questionnaires); Flexibility / adaptability (mentioned within one of the questionnaires).


p. 77/97

Table 5: Overview of not (commonly) covered economic indicators within the evaluation tools (underlined issues) and of indicators that are mentioned by one or more of the partners as missing or to be further developed (issues in italic).

Economic indicators Availability within the evaluation tools



Changes in economic system - optimise diverse and long-

term local employment - use and purchase of locally

produced materials

- increase asset value of the site

0/11 (+ LEnSE)

1/11, but rather from environmental point of

view

Improve building user productivity 0/11 (+ LEnSE) Housing affordability and commercial viability

0/11

Lifecycle costs (5/11) 6/8 Flexibility/adaptability (9/11) 1/8 Both lists differ strongly (see Table 5). The not (commonly) indicators within the different tools (underlined issues in Table 5) are not considered as such by the experts, while the indicators that are considered by the partners as missing or to be further developed (issues in italic in Table 5) are already rather well covered by the evaluation tools (see numbers between brackets, concerning the availability of the issues within the tools). Most covered economic issues and indicators The economic issues that are considered within at least seven of the eleven building evaluation tools are the following (see also Figure 13): Building adaptability (9/11); Ease of maintenance (7/11).

4.2.2.2. Commonly used economic issues and indicators and their needs

for further harmonisation Most of the economic issues and indicators within the classification framework occur within most of the building evaluation tools, considered here (see Figure 13). This means that most of the economic issues and indicators are commonly used within the assessment of buildings. However, the way these indicators are assessed often differs between the different tools and a wide range of variation in approaches exists. The most important differences between the different evaluation tools relate to: the grouping, number and content of sub-indicators; the level of detail; the use of either qualitative or quantitative criteria for assessment (qualitative

criteria are more subjective); the use of either performance based criteria or a checklist of measures to be

taken (with large differences between the considered measures); the system boundaries considered (e.g. consideration of lifecycle costs only for

the use phase of the building or for its entire lifecycle, including construction, use and end-of-life phase).


p. 78/97

Within the following paragraphs, all economic indicators that are covered by more than one tool are briefly described in order to get some insight in the variation and common agreement in assessment methodologies that are used within the different building evaluation tools. Service life The evaluation of this indicator is qualitative and refers to whether the service life of the building, the building components and the different materials and equipment are taken into account when planning and designing the building and whether the construction choices, the materials used and the equipment installed are adapted to the service life of the building. Integrated planning and preparation This indicator refers to the planning and designing phase of the building and the different steps to be taken. The evaluation is qualitative and based on the following widely varying criteria or measures to be taken: Commissioning: an appropriate project team member has been appointed to

monitor commissioning on behalf of the client to ensure commissioning will be carried out in line with current best practice;

Integrated planning: o presence of integrated design; o holistic planning of the building; o an interdisciplinary design team covers the most important disciplines of

the project (design, structural and services engineering and building physics);

o integrated planning process including the requirements for sustainability certification into the planning process;

Optimisation and complexity of the approach to planning: the availability, extent and quality of the strategies and documentation on energy, water, waste, measurement, abilities of alteration, revitalisation and recycling and ease of cleaning and maintenance are assessed and a verification of the design documentation is carried out by an independent third party beyond the legal requirements and options appraisal;

Quality of executing companies; Prescriptions for careful design, construction, use and demolition.

Management The evaluation of this indicator is qualitative and based on a checklist of initiatives, actions or measures concerning the management of the building considered, such as the following: Presence of a building user guide and/or regular updating of the management

information; Publication of information on the environmental, economic and social

characteristics of the building; Presence of post-occupancy evaluation of the building; Quality of management personnel or contract.

Reduce whole life costing The evaluation of this indicator is based on a checklist of items or on the implementation of a lifecycle cost analysis (LCC). The most used evaluation criteria are the following:


p. 79/97

LCC: net present value, expressed in euro/m², including either all lifecycle costs (construction, operation and end-of-life) or only the operation costs, and/or quality of the LCC;

Cost control: monitoring, recording and controlling costs during the operation phase;

Option appraisal: presence and quality of assessment of different options; Exchange value of the building.

Building adaptability This indicator is evaluated by most of the evaluation tools. However, the evaluation methods and criteria differ. The most used criteria for this indicator are the following: Quantitative assessment based on:

o % of space that can be freely organised; o ceiling height; o depth of the building; o size of the spaces; o layout of the building; o building reuse; o occupation density (m²/occupant); o floor load margin, expressed in N/m² and calculated based on plans;

Qualitative assessment based on: o flexibility and ease of alteration of spaces; o flexibility and ease of alteration of the different parts of the building; o possibilities for additional power and media cabling; o flexibility of equipment; o ease of removal and separation of equipment and systems; o location of vertical circulation zones; o location of installations; o type of building facade; o modularity or possibility to freely move inner walls; o use of prefabricated elements.

Ease of maintenance Although most tools consider this indicator, the way of evaluation differs. Most criteria are qualitative and are mainly the following: Consideration of ease of maintenance during planning and designing of the

building; Accessibility of the different parts and equipments of the building for cleaning,

maintenance and replacement activities; Assessment of intervals and extent of inspections, maintenance and replacement

of building components and services; Presence of environmentally friendly and health conscious cleaning or quality of

the cleaning personnel; Presence and quality of building maintenance manual; Use of products, materials and equipment that are easily and/or environmentally

friendly maintainable; Weighted maintenance index as a function of level of exposition of the building,

maintenance intensity, accessibility and criticality of failure of elements, quality of conception and execution,…


p. 80/97

4.2.2.3. Core economic indicators The economic issues and indicators that are identified by the partners as core indicators are the following (see also Table 6): Management and maintenance (mentioned in 6 of the questionnaires); Lifecycle costs (mentioned in 5 of the questionnaires); Building adaptability (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires); Process quality (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires); Innovation (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires).

Table 6: Comparison between core economic issues and most covered issues within the building evaluation tools.

Core economic issues Mentioned within the questionnaires


Ease of maintenance 6/7 7/11 Lifecycle costs 5/7 5/11 Building adaptability 1/7 9/11 Process quality / planning and preparation

1/7 5/11

Innovation 1/7 When comparing both lists (see Table 6), it can be concluded that there is some agreement between them, which indicates that the economic indicators that are considered as core indicators by the partners are also common within the evaluation tools. 4.2.3. Social issues and indicators A third and last group of sustainability issues and indicators relates to the social performance of buildings. Here, distinction is made between different issues, i.e. comfort and health, safety and security, user wellbeing, accessibility and access to transport and social and cultural value of the building. 4.2.3.1. Availability of social issues and indicators within the evaluation

tools The availability of social issues and indicators within the different building evaluation tools, considered here, is illustrated in Figure 14. Here, the coloured box means that one or more indicators within the tools cover the issue. From Figure 14, conclusions are drawn on both not (commonly) and most covered social issues and indicators within the different evaluation tools.


p. 81/97

Figure 14: Availability of social indicators within the reviewed building evaluation tools. Not (commonly) covered social issues and indicators The social issues and indicators that are not covered by any of the tools or that are considered by only one or two of the tools, are the following (see also Table 7): Vibrations (not treated by any of the tools); Social and ethical responsibility, referring to taking into consideration the needs

and requirements of the neighbourhood, as well as socially responsible and ethical procurement of goods and services (considered in only 1 tool);

Consideration of user’s needs, referring to a pre-occupancy consultation of the future users of the building (considered in two of the tools).

This list of not (commonly) covered social issues and indicators within the reviewed evaluation tools is compared to the social indicators and issues that are identified by the partners in their response on the questionnaires as missing or to be further developed. The latter list consists of the following indicators (see also Table 7): User-related indicators, including user requirements, individual lifestyles and

preferences and usability of the building (mentioned in 3 of the questionnaires); Protection from domestic accidents (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires); Space efficiency (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires); Building aesthetics and context (mentioned in 1 of the questionnaires).


p. 82/97

Table 7: Overview of not (commonly) covered social indicators within the evaluation tools (underlined issues) and of indicators that are mentioned by one or more of the partners as missing or to be further developed (issues in italic).

Social indicators Availability within the evaluation tools



Vibrations 0/11 Social and ethical responsibility 1/11 (+ LEnSE) User related indicators

- consideration of user’s needs

- individual lifestyles and preferences

- usability

2/11 (+ LEnSE)

3/8

Protection from domestic accidents (3/11) 1/8 Space efficiency (2/11) 1/8 Building aesthetics and context (4/11) 1/8 Both lists above differ slightly (see Table 7). Especially user related indicators are considered as missing or to be further developed by both the tools and the partners. Most covered social issues and indicators The social indicators that are considered in all building evaluation tools are the following (see also Figure 14): Indoor air quality; Provision of safe and adequate bicycle lanes and facilities.

Furthermore, the social indicators that are covered by at least eight of the building evaluation tools are the following (see also Figure 14): Visual comfort (10/11); Thermal comfort (10/11); Access to public services and amenities (10/11); Acoustic comfort (9/11); Access for users with physical impairments (9/11); Access to public transport (8/11).

4.2.3.2. Commonly used social issues and indicators and their needs for

further harmonisation Most of the social issues and indicators within the classification framework occur within most of the building evaluation tools, considered here (see Figure 14). This means that most of the social issues and indicators are commonly used within the assessment of buildings. However, the way these indicators are assessed often differs between the different tools and a wide range of variation in approaches exists. The most important differences between the different evaluation tools relate to: the grouping, number and content of sub-indicators; the level of detail; the use of either qualitative or quantitative criteria for assessment (qualitative

criteria are more subjective);


p. 83/97

the use of either performance based criteria or a checklist of measures to be taken (with large differences between the considered measures);

the system boundaries considered. Within the following paragraphs, all social indicators that are covered by more than one tool are briefly described in order to get some insight in the variation and common agreement in assessment methodologies that are used within the different building evaluation tools. Visual comfort Almost all of the building evaluation tools treat this indicator. Most tools use both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment. In the case the indicator can be measured, it is measured, although a checklist of measures to be taken into account often remains necessary. The most used evaluation criteria for the different sub-issues are the following (almost all tools consider these issues): Access to daylight:

o access to daylight: yes or no; o intensity of daylight, expressed as the calculated daylight factor in lux and

compared to reference values, regulation or standards; o % of floor area that is adequately day lit; o uniformity of daylight, expressed as a uniformity factor or in lux/h in

comparison to reference values; Artificial lighting:

o internal and external lighting levels or average luminance, measured, expressed in lux and compared to regulation or standards;

o uniformity of artificial lighting (calculated); o presence of manual lighting control by users; o lighting zones; o measures to limit visual nuisance; o comfortable quality of the light emitted or colour index expressed in K

(colour temperature) or IRC; o luminance of luminaries (cd/m2); o the lighting system is conceived in order to avoid stroboscopic effects

Adequate view to the outside for all users: o view to the outside: yes or no; o % of users with adequate view out; o presence of view out, expressed as the availability, number and

orientation of windows and openings and proved by photographs; Glare and reflections control:

o presence of an (occupant-controlled) shading system (e.g. internal or external blinds), quality and type of control (e.g. automatic or manual);

o presence of measures against glare from daylight and/or artificial light; o glare rating luminaries (calculated); o glare from light fixtures (horizontal); o reflexion coefficient of walls, ceilings and floors.

Thermal comfort As is also the case for visual comfort, thermal comfort is considered by almost all of the building evaluation tools. Most tools use both a quantitative and a qualitative assessment. In the case the indicator can be measured, it is measured, although a checklist of measures to be taken into account often remains necessary. The most used evaluation criteria for the different sub-issues, yet not applied by all tools and rather widely varying, are the following:


p. 84/97

Thermal comfort in winter and summer: o monitoring of room air and surface temperature; o temperature control by occupants; o take into account thermal comfort when planning and designing the

building; o setting of thermal comfort level during winter and summer; o vertical temperature gradient; o maximum temperature and time of this maximum temperature; o presence of solar protection and protection to heat radiation from sun; o design ventilation and heating based on thermal comfort in winter and

summer; o infiltration of heat to the interior or annual heating and cooling load and

thermal transmission loss coefficient and summer insulation acquisition coefficient, expressed in MJ/m².y or W/m².K;

o zoned heating and cooling; o thermal insulation and air tightness, expressed in n50 in comparison to

standard values; o presence of thermal bridges;

Draughts: presence or not; Radiation: presence or not; Relative humidity:

o monitoring of humidity; o humidity control; o condensation;

Ventilation: o limits for air speed in the space occupancy area for a set point

temperature of 26 °C; o air-conditioning: presence or not; o window openings for natural ventilation.

Acoustic comfort Most tools consider this issue, although the way of evaluation differs between the different tools. Both qualitative and quantitative assessment criteria are used, of which the most applied are the following: Acoustic performance:

o ambient or background noise level, measured or calculated and expressed in dB and compared to regulation or standards;

o acoustic pressure level; o reverberation intervals;

Identification of different sources of noise, both indoors and outdoors; Conduction of an acoustic study; Measures to limit noise nuisance from indoors and outdoors through:

o floor planning; o acoustic insulation levels of openings, floors, walls, ...; o presence of sound-absorbing materials; o noise control; o use of silent equipment, measured and expressed in dB.

Indoor air quality This issue is considered in more or less the same way within all of the evaluated building evaluation tools. The most used assessment criteria for the two main sub-issues, as well as for a series of other issues, are the following: Ventilation:


p. 85/97

o ventilation rate, expressed as the number of air changes or volumes of air (m³/h or m³/h/person);

o natural ventilation, expressed as % of windows opening; o mechanical ventilation, evaluated by type and quality of the system; o control by users; o pollution prevention (e.g. CO2 concentrations); o purity of incoming air; o measures to optimise ventilation and air quality; o prevent air leaks;

Emissions from materials: o indoor emissions of VOC, formaldehyde, fibres, carcinogens, chemicals,

bacteria, wood treatment products, waterborne and airborne legionella contamination, ..... Evaluation is based on laboratory analyses (µg/kg), certificates, labels or % of wall, floor and ceiling surface in contact with the indoor air, ...

Other sub-issues: o moist control / humidity; o microbial contamination; o odours / olfactory comfort: identify sources of odours, provide a pleasant

olfactory environment; o smoking prohibition; o outdoor emissions of radon, based on in situ measurements.

Water quality Different indicators, relating to three sub-issues, are considered for this issue, i.e.: Availability of drinking water for users:

o presence of drinking water facilities for the users of the building (e.g. schools);

Quality of the indoor network: the evaluation is based on a checklist of measures concerning:

o materials used; o protection of the network; o maintaining the water temperature; o avoiding legionellosis; o treatment of (reused) (non-)drinking water;

Quality of the drinking water: the evaluation is based on o laboratory analyses of the drinking water; o best-practice design of hot-water system.

Building safety assessment This issue refers to different sub-issues with their corresponding evaluation criteria, such as the following: Conduction of a safety assessment of the building during the planning and

designing phase; Reliability of the building and the equipment in case of incidents or accidents,

such as the following: o earthquake:

number of efforts taken in order to assure reliability of the building and the equipment in case of an earthquake;

o fire: fire resistance of materials used; release of hazardous substances from materials used; presence, type and quality of fire detection system;


p. 86/97

presence, type and quality of fire extinguishing equipment; design of the building (e.g. roof);

o lightning: presence and quality of the protection system;

Measures in order to prevent incidents and accidents, such as: o (electro)magnetic fields:

identification of sources of (electro)magnetic fields; measures to limit the impact of sources of (electro)magnetic fields; distance to sources of (electro)magnetic fields;

o domestic accidents: quality of entry areas to the building.

Building security This issue refers to the personal security of the users and neighbours of the building in the sense of crime prevention and considers both passive and active qualitative measures against crime and intrusion, such as the following: Passive measures against crime and intrusion:

o take into account recommendations from police or crime prevention advisors into the building design;

o subjective perception of safety and assault prevention through clearly laid out paths, illumination level, technical safety devices and safety outside the regular hours of work;

o resistance to intrusion of windows and doors; o visibility of façades with entrance possibilities; o entrance barriers;

Active measures against crime and intrusion: o presence of guards; o presence of alarm system; o badge systems.

Consideration of user’s needs The main evaluation criterion consists of the presence or not of a pre-occupancy consultation of future users and neighbours in the planning and design phase of the building or at least a pre-occupancy evaluation of potential needs of future users. Quality of the building as a place to live and work This issue is mainly based on a qualitative assessment, although quantitative criteria also occur. It considers a wide variety of sub-issues and often overlaps with other indicators, such as comfort and health, access to open and green spaces, ... The most used sub-issues and their corresponding evaluation criteria, yet not applied by all methods, are the following: Efficient use of space:

o provision of space and storage for users, expressed in m² working space/person or m² room space/bed;

o size and layout of rooms; o efficient use of space during renovation, expressed as the ratio of usable

floor space to gross external floor area (in m²/m²) before and after renovation. The level of improvement, where feasible, is assessed;

o perceived spaciousness; Control by users of ventilation, sun protection devices, anti-glare devices,

temperature, daylight and artificial light and user-friendliness of these control systems;


p. 87/97

General conditions within the building (overlaps with comfort and health indicators): ambient noise level, indoor air quality, soil conditions, health conditions, decor planning, ...;

Nuisances: limit nuisances by ideally locating services (e.g. kitchen, copy room, waste storage, …) inside the building and by taking adequate measures to limit nuisances to building users;

Provision of facilities: o availability of communication and IT media; o use of advanced information systems; o availability of infrastructure (e.g. bathrooms, kitchen, ...); o different measures in order to limit or decrease radiation from

infrastructure (e.g. distance to wireless network, adequate earthing,...); Actual level of occupant satisfaction through post-completion monitoring.

Accessibility for users with physical impairments Most tools cover this issue, although the target groups, the sub-indicators and the evaluation criteria differ between the different evaluation tools: Target groups considered: everybody, elderly persons and/or disabled persons

(wheelchair, visual, ...); Qualitative or quantitative criteria or measures to be taken:

o measures considered within national standards or regulation; o presence of a signage system appropriate to the functionality of the site; o parking for disabled people and access way from that parking to the

building, taking into account signalisation, quota of parking spaces for disabled people, lighting, dimensions of parking spaces, type and slope of surface, distance from parking to main entrance, ...;

o accessible main entrance, fire exit and other entrance doors for disabled people, taking into account indications, location and type of interphone, absence of obstacles, free surface for manoeuvring, characteristics of doors, …;

o accessible ground floor for disabled people, taking into account type of floor surface, waiting space, detection of obstacles, characteristics of counter, internal circulation (characteristics of internal halls and doors), characteristics of sanitary facilities, ...;

o accessible upper floors for disabled people, taking into account vertical circulation between floors, fire exit, sanitary facilities and horizontal circulation;

o percentage of floor area that is wheelchair accessible in line with current standards.

Access to green and open spaces and to public services and amenities Most tools consider similar criteria in order to assess the accessibility to green and open spaces and/or public services and amenities. In most cases, the evaluation is both quantitative and qualitative and based on the following criteria: Access to green and open spaces or to outdoor space for free time:

o number of public / private facilities within or around the building; Access to public services and amenities:

o distance in m between the building and accessible local services and amenities (e.g. local supply, such as shops, bars, restaurants, ..., social infrastructure, such as hospitals, doctors, schools, medicine infrastructure, ..., and recreation infrastructure, such as public parks and sports infrastructure);


p. 88/97

o number and type of services, amenities or facilities within a certain distance around the building (e.g. 500 m or ½ mile).

Access to transport Within the issue concerning access to transport, different sub-issues are considered, of which two are assessed in more or less the same way by almost all tools. Furthermore, depending on the tool, also other sub-issues may be treated. The first two, most covered sub-issues are the following: Access to public transport:

o mode(s) of transport available (e.g. bus, train, tram, underground, ...); o distance, expressed in m, to public transport nodes; o number of accesses within a certain distance from the building (e.g. 500

m or ½ mile); o frequency of the public transport at each node (e.g. number of stops per

hour); o quality of the public transport; o presence of information on public transport facilities within the

neighbourhood of the building; Provision of safe and adequate bicycle lanes and facilities:

o availability of bicycle tracks in a 1 km radius around the building site (number of bicycle lanes);

o availability of bicycle tracks on the building site; o characteristics of the bike tracks on the building site; o number, type and quality of parking places for bikes; o size of parking places for bikes (expressed in m²); o distance from the bike parking to the building entrance (expressed in m); o safety of the facilities for bikes and bikers (e.g. parking place, bicycle

lanes, ...); o presence, type and capacity of facilities for bikes and bikers (e.g. dressing

room, showers, sanitary facilities, ...); The remaining, less covered sub-issues are the following: Accessible pedestrian network:

o presence of pedestrian walkways; o quality of pedestrian walkways;

Facilitate car pooling: o presence and number of parking spaces for carpooling;

Others: o promotion of the use of clean vehicles; o incentives to encourage alternative transport modes; o travel plan; o presence of home office; o measures for traffic reduction; o limitation of parking space; o truck parking lot.

Nuisance caused by the building on the neighbourhood and the local environment The presence and operation of a building may cause some effects on the neighbourhood and the local environment. These effects, as well as measures to mitigate them, are taken into account within this issue. The evaluation is mainly based on presence or not of the nuisance, on compliance with national or international regulations or standards and/or on countermeasures taken.


p. 89/97

The different effects and their evaluation criteria considered here are the following: General impact of the building on the local micro-climate: the assessment is

based on roof and facade characteristics, presence of planted areas and information on the surroundings of the building and is proved by photographs;

Light pollution: measures to reduce night time light pollution and compliance with national regulation or standards, limited lighting power density for interior and exterior lighting, shielding of openings in the envelope, light areas for exterior lighting only as required for safety and comfort;

Shading: measured by hours of shading on the neighbouring buildings, compliance with national regulation or standards;

Glare: measures to reduce glare from the building (e.g. sun screens) and compliance with national regulation or standards;

Wind: guidance of wind into the site, presence of preliminary study, measures to reduce or avoid wind hazard, calculation or measurement of wind strength grade (expressed in m/s), rank assessment;

Noise: identification of sources of noise and reduction of the related noise by e.g. minimising outdoor noisy equipment, compliance with national regulation or standards;

Views: regulatory compliance, improve status, quo whenever the background allows;

Dust pollution: compliance with national regulation or standards; Heat island: consider positioning of heat outlet, investigation of heat environment,

countermeasures, confirmation of effects, provision of shade for site hardscape (expressed in %) and/or solar reflectance index (SRI) of materials used;

Emissions of hazardous substances: The evaluation is based on a checklist of substances (e.g. halogens, heavy metals, biocides, organic solvents and substances, covered by the REACH directive, ...);

Privacy: compliance with national regulation or standards; Odours: consider positioning of air outlet, compliance with national regulation or

standards; Vibrations: compliance with national regulation or standards.

Sensitivity to the local community This issue is not well covered by the evaluated tools, since only three of them consider it and since the assessment criteria differ widely. The issues considered here are the following: Consultation of future neighbours of the building and of official bodies and

stakeholders: presence of such a consultation and taking into account the outcome of this consultation within the design of the building;

Consistency with community’s policy: consistency between function of the building and local needs, similarity or complementarity of the building compared to its surroundings, consistency with local land use policy and the area's sustainable development policy, optimisation of urban renewal, upgrading to the block plan;

Townscape and landscape: infringing scenic benefits and formation of favourable scenery;

Sharing building facilities or internal and external spaces with the local community (e.g. restaurant, sports infrastructure, external spaces, ...).

Building aesthetics and context Only a few of the evaluated tools consider this issue as relevant. The evaluation criteria vary widely and are the following:


p. 90/97

Presence and type of architectural competition and whether or not the winning entry has been implemented;

Implementation of the programme ‘art in architecture’, level of investment in this programme, implementation of the guidelines of this programme and level of communication to the public;

Presence of an art coordinator and an art strategy and policy in hospitals. 4.2.3.3. Core social indicators The social issues and indicators that are identified by the partners as core indicators are the following (see also Table 8): Comfort and health (mentioned in all questionnaires); Accessibility of the building and access to transport (mentioned in three of the

questionnaires); Safety and security (mentioned in two of the questionnaires).

Table 8: Comparison between core social issues and most covered issues within the building evaluation tools.

Core social issues Mentioned within the questionnaires


Comfort and health - visual comfort - thermal comfort - acoustic comfort - indoor air quality

7/7

10/11 10/11 9/11 11/11

Accessibility and access to transport

- access for users with physical impairments

- access to public services and amenities

- access to public transport - safe and adequate

bicycle lanes and facilities

3/7

9/11

10/11

8/11 11/11

Safety and security 2/7 When comparing both lists (see Table 8), it can be concluded that there is a large agreement between them, which indicates that the indicators that are considered as core indicators by the partners are also most covered by the evaluation tools. 4.2.4. Issues and indicators that occur in a few tools but that

do not really fit into the framework for classification During classification of the available indicators within the different building evaluation tools and the indicators that are mentioned within the responses on the questionnaires, some issues were recognised that do not really fit into the classification scheme, but that remain interesting for further consideration. These indicators refer to the following issues: Deconstruction: design for deconstruction, deconstruction measures,

preconditions for sustainable demolition, ease of deconstruction, recycling and dismantling;


p. 91/97

Technical quality of the building and the equipment: technical quality, designing for robustness;

Urban development: possibilities for redensification; Innovation.

4.3. Conclusions Within Task 2.1 of Work Package WP2, eleven national building evaluation tools are analysed in order to get insight into the availability of sustainability indicators, as well as the degree of common understanding about these indicators and their assessment methodologies. The analysis of the different evaluation tools is based on the information, provided by the partners of the project by responding on a questionnaire and filling in an Excel file concerning their national building evaluation tool. Based on this information, conclusions are drawn on the availability of sustainability indicators and issues within the tools. At first, the sustainability issues and indicators that are not (commonly) covered by the different tools or that are considered by the partners as missing or to be (further) developed are identified (see Table 9). Table 9: Overview of not (commonly) covered issues and indicators within the building evaluation tools (underlined) and indicators that are considered by the partners as missing or to be (further) developed (italic). Environmental indicators Economic indicators Social indicators LCI data:

- water consumption - land use - waste - depletion of

resources LCA indicators:

- photochemical ozone creation potential

- abiotic depletion - biotic depletion - human toxicity - eco-toxicity - materials - use of wood

Ecological value of the site: - landscape

degradation - evaluation of site

ecology - ecological footprint

Waste and radioactive waste

Needs for irrigation

Changes in economic system: - optimise diverse and

long-term local employment

- use and purchase of locally produced materials

- increase asset value of the site

Improve building user productivity

Housing affordability and commercial viability

Service life Lifecycle costs Flexibility/adaptability

Vibrations Social and ethical

responsibility User related indicators:

- consideration of user’s needs

- individual lifestyles and preferences

- usability Protection from domestic

accidents Space efficiency Building aesthetics and

context


p. 92/97

Secondly, sustainability issues and indicators that are most occurring within the tools are selected (see Table 10). For the latter indicators, as well as for all indicators and issues that are covered by more than one tool, the assessment methodologies used within the different tools are analysed and the variation in approach is identified. This analysis indicates that all these sustainability issues may need some further harmonisation. Table 10: Overview of most covered issues and indicators within the building evaluation tools. Environmental indicators Economic indicators Social indicators Primary energy

consumption Minimise water

consumption Materials Waste production during

the use phase Global warming potential Ecological value of the

site

Building adaptability Ease of maintenance

Indoor air quality Provision of safe and

adequate bicycle lanes and facilities

Visual comfort Thermal comfort Acoustic comfort Access to public services

and amenities Access for users with

physical impairments Access to public

transport Finally, the issues and indicators that are considered by the partners as core indicators are identified (see Table 11). The latter often show large agreement with the issues that are most commonly occurring within the evaluation tools (see Table 10). However, their assessment methods still may need some further harmonisation. Table 11: Overview of core issues and indicators, according to the responses from the partners on the questionnaires.

Environmental issues Economic issues Social issues Energy Materials Climate change Land use and ecology Water management Waste

Management and maintenance

Lifecycle costs Building adaptability Process quality Innovation

Comfort and health Accessibility of the

building and access to transport

Safety and security


p. 93/97

List of references [1] prEN 15643-1, “Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of buildings

— Part 1: General framework”, prepared by CEN/TC 350/TG [2] prEN 15643-2, “Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of buildings

performance — Part 2: Framework for the assessment of environmental performance”,

[3] prEN 15643-3, “Sustainability of construction works — Sustainability assessment of buildings — Part 3: Framework for the assessment of social performance”,

[4] prEN 15643-4, “Sustainability of construction works — Sustainability assessment of buildings — Part 4: Framework for the assessment of economic performance”,

[5] prEN 15978, “Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of environmental performance of buildings—Calculation methods”

[6] prEN 15804, “Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations — Core rules for the product category of construction products”

[7] CEN/TR 15941, “Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations — Methodology for selection and use of generic data”

[8] prEN 15942, “Sustainability of construction works — Environmental product declarations — Communication formats – Business to Business”, prepared by CEN/TC 350/WG3

[9] WI 00350003, “Sustainability of construction works — Use of environmental product declarations”, prepared by CEN/TC 350/WG1

[10] WI 00350015, “Sustainability of construction works — Assessment of social performance of buildings—Methods”, (preliminary work item in development)

[11] ISO 15392:2008, Sustainability in building construction — General principles. [12] ISO 21929, Building construction – Sustainability in Building Construction –

Sustainability indicators, Part I Framework for the development of indicators for buildings and core indicators.

[13] ISO 21930, Sustainability in building construction — Environmental declaration of building products

[14] ISO 21931-1, Sustainability in building construction — Framework for methods of assessment of environmental performance of construction works — Part 1: Buildings.

[15] ISO 14025, Environmental labels and declarations — Type III environmental declarations — Principles and procedures.

[16] EN ISO 14044, Environmental management — Life cycle assessment — Requirements and guidelines

[17] ISO 6707-1:2004, Building and civil engineering — Vocabulary — Part 1: General terms.

[18] ISO 6707-2:1993, Building and civil engineering — Vocabulary — Part 2: Contract terms.

[19] EN ISO 13790, Thermal performance of buildings — Calculation of energy use for space heating and cooling.

[20] EN ISO 13792, Thermal performance of buildings — Calculation of internal temperatures of a room in summer without mechanical cooling — Simplified methods (ISO 13792:2005).

[21] EN 12464-1, Light and lighting — Lighting of work places — Part 1: Indoor work places.

[22] EN 13032 (all parts), Light and lighting — Measurement and presentation of photometric data of lamps and luminaries.

[23] EN 13465, Ventilation for buildings — Calculation methods for the determination of air flow rates in dwellings.

[24] EN 15193, Energy performance of buildings — Energy requirements for lighting.


p. 94/97

[25] EN 15217, Energy performance of buildings — Methods for expressing energy performance and for energy certification of buildings.

[26] ISO 15686-1, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — General principles.

[27] ISO 15686-2, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Service life prediction procedures.

[28] ISO 15686-5:2008, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Life cycle costing.

[29] ISO 15686-7, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Performance evaluation for feedback of service life data from practice.

[30] ISO 15686-8, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Reference service life and service life estimation.

[31] ISO/TS 15686-9, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Guidance on the provision of reference service life data.

[32] ISO/DIS 15686-10:2008, Buildings and constructed assets — Service life planning — Functional performance.

[33] ISO 16813, Building environment design — Indoor environment — General principles.

[34] ISO 16814, Building environment design — Indoor environment — Methods of expressing the quality of indoor air for human occupancy.

[35] LEnSE Partners, 2006, Stepping Stone 1, Sustainability assessment of buildings, Issues, scope and structure, November 2006, 27 p.

[36] LEnSE Partners, 2007, Stepping Stone 2, Development of a sustainability assessment methodology, Framework and content, March 2007, 32 p.


p. 95/97

Appendices Appendix 1: Questionnaire for WP2 – Establishment of the common starting point for the project.


p. 96/97

Appendix 1 – Questionnaire for WP2 – Establishment of the common starting point for the project

Objective of WP2 WP 2 summarises the existing results on sustainable building indicators and assessment and rating systems. The topics to be viewed are the following:

a) The availability of indicators and the degree of common understanding about these indicators.

b) The availability of methods which properly measure performance levels for each indicator and the degree of common acceptance of these methods,

c) The degree of variations in indicators and performance levels for benchmarking that is needed for different kinds of buildings and in different areas of Europe,

d) Availability of aggregation and weighting methods with help of which the results can be expressed with help of key figures or labels

Questions for the evaluation of existing building rating systems 1. Identification of the system

a) Name of the rating system b) Country of origin c) Date of entry into operation

2. Is the evaluation method publically available?

a) If yes, where (website)? b) If not, please provide documentation on the evaluation method (or

contact/reference that can provide it)

3. Are there different versions for different building types /regions, for new buildings or refurbishment? If yes, please list all versions.

4. Give an overview of the general structure of the assessment tool: major themes + underlying indicators

5. Give more detailed information for each indicator by completing the excel sheet

or by supplying equivalent documentation (in English, French or Flemish language). In case you choose not to complete the sheet, please make sure that you provide all the listed information (you can eventually complete only parts of the sheet that are missing in the provided documentation).

6. How are end results expressed (e.g. letter score A-D per major theme, points or

% per theme and/or one global score for the building)?

7. Explain how a) the individual indicator scores are aggregated b) weighting factors were determined c) aggregation method /weighting factors vary amongst different versions of

the tools (e.g. depending on building type). 8. How are performance levels for benchmarking set (general principles)? -e.g. base level D represents the minimum legal requirement or standard practice, maximum level A represents the best achievable performance based on actually


p. 97/97

available technology, and intermediary levels are defined in such a way that the increments between the levels represent an equal amount of additional effort. Questions concerning the identification of needs for further developments From your point of view:

a) which indicators are lacking a. in the assessed methodology? b. and in general (in other methods)?

b) for which existing indicators is there a need to improve /validate the evaluation methodology (please, specify existing problems and which parts of the methodology need further improvement/validation)

c) which principles do you support in an aggregation method? d) Identify a set of core indicators (max. 15) for sustainable building

assessment. Please return to [email protected] by the 5th of April

deliverable 2.1 conclusions about the needs for...

Documents