Numerous sustainability rating systems have been developed in the building sector. In this paper we distinguish between those whose aim is to allow companies striving for improved performance to gain an objective basis for communicating their efforts, such as LEED, and those that aim to communicate the life cycle environmental impact of goods, such as ATHENA Impact Estimator. We name the former effort-driven assessment and the latter data-driven assessment. This work undertakes a state-of-the-art review of all these assessment systems and assesses their effectiveness comparing the indicators used for assessment against the established standards by the Technical Committee (TC) 350 of the European Committee for standardization (CEN/TC 350). About 62% of the social and economic indicators remain unconsidered by the existing data-driven assessment tools, whereas effort-driven assessment tools have a higher consideration of social and economic aspects, with about half of the indicators unconsidered.
En el sector de la construcción se han desarrollado numerosos sistemas de calificación de sostenibilidad. En este documento distinguimos entre aquellos que pretenden que las empresas que luchan por mejorar su sostenibilidad obtengan una base objetiva para comunicar sus esfuerzos, como LEED, y aquellos que evalúan el impacto medioambiental de los productos durante el ciclo de vida, como ATHENA Impact Estimador. Denominamos a los primeros, sistemas de evaluación basada en el esfuerzo y a los segundos, sistemas de evaluación basada en datos. Este trabajo revisa el estado del arte de estos sistemas y evalúa su efectividad comparando los indicadores utilizados con los estándares establecidos por el the Technical Committee (TC) 350 of the European Committee for standardization (CEN). Observamos que un 62% de los indicadores sociales y económicos propuestos por el CEN/TC 350 no son considerados por los sistemas de evaluación basados en datos mientras que los sistemas de evaluación basados en el esfuerzo tienen en cuenta aproximadamente la mitad de estos indicadores.
Buildings in their construction, occupancy, renovation, repurposing and demolition phases strongly impact the environment. Increasing awareness of the influence that the building sector has on the environment and its implications for humans has fostered the desire to measure the performance of buildings to help sustainable decision making. Sustainability rating systems are a means to deliver objective measures of a building’s impact on ecosystems and human health and to assess progress towards sustainable development. Discussion on sustainability in the building sector has gained international recognition. Green Building Council (GBC), for example, has organised several major international conferences that have greatly contributed to develop sustainable building
In 1992, the first certification system for building sustainability evaluation was created in the United Kingdom, by the official research institute BRE (Building Research Establishment). Since then, numerous systems have been developed that address the product (material) and/or building level. At the building level, there are numerous formal sustainability rating systems with a comprehensive perspective
For constructions products there are declaration systems that aim to communicate the life cycle environmental impact of goods, the Environmental Product Declarations (EPD) of construction products (ISO 21930: 2017, ISO 14025:2006), and voluntary programmes that promote environmentally sound products by awarding them a distinctive symbol of environmental quality, namely Environmental Labels - Type I (ISO 14024:2018).
The primary role of CBEA and Environmental Labels is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the environmental characteristics of buildings or products that allows developers or manufacturing companies striving for improved performance to gain an objective basis for calculating their efforts. The main objective of the EPD of construction products, the BSIS and the LCIA methods is to measure energy and mass flows to assess progress towards sustainability. Assessments are effort-driven in the first group of tools, and the distinctive symbol is obtained provided that the product or building fulfils certain criteria. In the second group of tools assessments are data-driven and based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) methodology (
Whole building | Construction products | |
---|---|---|
Effort-driven assessment | CBEA (LEED, BREEAM, etc.) | Environmental labels – type 1 |
Data-driven assessment | BSIS (ATHENA Impact Estimator for Buildings, etc.) | EPD of construction products |
Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA) |
Kajikawa et al.
The distinction between effort-driven and data-driven assessment approaches reveals that whereas in the former the importance is given to place a building’s or product’s performance on a relative scale (the best assessed should be those making greater efforts), in the latter the importance is given to obtain an absolute value and the methodology to do so is often under consideration. Whereas effort-driven assessment has largely spread throughout the professional world due to its higher ease of use, data-driven assessment is a matter of continuous discussion in the scientific world. One of the challenges nowadays is how to integrate these two models.
More recently in order to find a common European approach, the European Committee for Standardization (CEN/TC 350) has developed two types of standards for the sustainability assessment of buildings (EN 15643-2:2011 and EN 15978:2011) and for the sustainability assessment of construction products (CEN/TR 15941:2010, EN 15942:2011, EN 15804:2012+A1:2013).
The standard for buildings provides specific principles and requirements to assess the environmental performance of buildings by taking into account the technical characteristics and functionality of a building. The calculation method is based on the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
With construction products, environmental product declarations (EPD) are, according to Standard ISO 14020, Type III Environmental Labels, which are voluntary in nature, and present information about the environmental behaviour of products based on LCAs, which fulfil both ISO 14040 and 14044, they must be verified independently and be in accordance with agreed guidelines.
This work undertakes a state-of-the-art review of all the building assessment systems and assesses their effectiveness comparing the indicators used for assessment against the recently established standards by the CEN for sustainability assessment indicators in the building sector, what is of interest in order to achieve harmonisation in sustainability building assessments and in environmental declarations of construction products.
Unlike other studies that have already been conducted and have compared different assessment systems, this article centres on the effectiveness of those systems considered according to the recommendations made by the CEN in terms of indicators.
This article has followed the steps shown in
In the first place, the standards published by the CEN were analysed.
Secondly, the data-driven assessments more widely used in different countries were selected, classified and cross-sectional studied. Then a comparative study of the indicators considered by these methods with the indicators recommended by the CEN was conducted.
Thirdly, internationally recognised effort-driven assessments were selected, classified and cross-sectional studied. Finally, a comparison was made of the indicators considered by these assessment systems with the indicators recommended by the CEN.
The International Standards Organization (ISO) defines a standard as: ‘a document, established by consensus, approved by a recognized body that provides for common and repeated use as rules, guidelines, or characteristics for activities or their results.’ The Technical Committee (TC) 350 of the CEN, named ‘Sustainability of Construction Works’, has developed voluntary horizontal standardised methods to assess the sustainability aspects of new and existing construction works, and for standards for the environmental declaration of construction products (
Scope | Published standards |
---|---|
Sustainability assessment of buildings | EN 15643-1:2010 |
Environmental product declarations | CEN/TR 15941:2010 |
EN 15978 is going to be revised.
EN 15804 is under revision.
It is worth mentioning the existence of another standard published by the International Organisation for Standardisation, named ISO/TS 21929-1.2009 –Sustainability in the construction of buildings - Sustainability Indicators. Part 1: Framework
It is worth mentioning the existence of another standard published by the International Organisation for Standardisation, named ISO/TS 21929-1.2009 –Sustainability in the construction of buildings - Sustainability Indicators. Part 1: Framework to develop indicators for buildings.
All these standards identify the environmental indicators in
Units | Scope | ||
---|---|---|---|
Building | Product | ||
|
|||
Global warming potential, GWP | kg Eq CO2, 100 years | ✓ | ✓ |
Stratospheric ozone layer depletion potential, ODP | kg Eq CFC-11 | ✓ | ✓ |
Acidification potential of soil and water, AP | kg Eq SO2 | ✓ | ✓ |
Eutrophication potential, EP | kg Eq (PO4)3 | ✓ | ✓ |
Formation potential of tropospheric ozone, POCP | kg Eq C2H4 | ✓ | ✓ |
Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources, ADP-elements | kg Eq Sb | ✓ | ✓ |
Abiotic depletion potential for fossil fuels | MJ, net calorie value | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|||
Use of renewable primary energyexcluding renovable primary energy resources used as raw materials, PERE | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials, PERM | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Total use of renewable primary energy resources, PERT | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding no-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials, PENRE | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials, PENRM | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources, PENRT | MJ, net calorific value | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of secondary materials | kg | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of renewable secondary fuels, RSF | MJ, net calorificvalue | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of non-renewable secondary fuels, NRSF | MJ, net calorie value | ✓ | ✓ |
Use of fresh water, FW | m3 | ✓ | ✓ |
|
|||
Hazardous waste, HWD | kg | ✓ | ✓ |
Non-hazardous waste, NHWD | kg | ✓ | ✓ |
Radioactive waste disposed (total low, intermediate and high level waste), RWD | kg | ✓ | ✓ |
Radioactive waste (level waste), RWD | kg | ✓ | ✓ |
The World Commission on Environment and Development`s definition of sustainability
Within the social frame, Standard EN 15643-3:2012 establishes some generic categories of indicators completed with calculation methods. The intention of this Standard is for the assessment results to be compared between different countries by focusing on the social behaviour of both new buildings in their entire life cycle and existing buildings for their remaining useful life.
The social categories included to describe a building’s social behaviour are provided in
Social Indicators | Suggested impact categories |
---|---|
|
Access for people with specific needs, access to certain building services |
|
Capacity to be adapted to a given user’s requirements |
|
Sound characteristics |
|
Noise |
|
Maintenance operations (including health and confort issuesfor users and neighbours) |
|
Resistance to climate change (rain, wind, snow, floods, solar radiation, temperature) |
|
Responsible and traceable origin of assets and services |
|
Opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes |
Assessing social behaviour differs from economic or environmental assessments in that it requires an approach that is both quantitative and qualitative. When it is not possible to obtain quantitative results, checklists are typically used.
Within the economic frame, Standard EN 15643-4 : uses economic indicators to measure economic flows, such as investment, design, construction, making products, use, energy use, water use, waste, maintenance, deconstruction, developing the project’s economic value, the income made by the project and its services, etc. The economic indicators included to describe a building’s economic flows are shown in
Economic Indicators | Impact Categories |
---|---|
Cost | Investment cost |
Financial value | Investment financial cost |
Ratio between market value and capital cost | Ratio between market value and capital cost at the building work completion |
Verification of value versus future stability of economic value | Value versus future stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios and/or Monte-Carlo simulation, or alternatively techniques of clasiffication of ownership |
Economic risk | Stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios and/or Monte-Carlo simulation, or alternatively techniques of clasiffication of ownership |
External costs | External costs |
Results economic aspects | Economic aspects relating to energy efficiency level (relative to a high energy cost) |
Next, the internationally recognised sustainability evaluation systems were selected, classified and cross-sectional studied by considering both effort-driven and data-driven assessments, and then checking if these indicators are included by data-driven and effort-driven methods, or not.
Data-driven assessment tools are based on LCA, a methodology to assess the environmental impact of a given product or building throughout its lifespan. The term ‘life cycle’ refers to the notion that it must be holistic for a fair assessment; i.e. all phases need to be assessed, including raw material production, manufacture, distribution, use and disposal, as well as all the intervening transportation steps.
LCA procedures are described in ISO 14040:2006 and 14044:2006 as part of the ISO 14000 environmental management standards. According to ISO 14044, the main phases of a LCA are: Goal & Scope; Inventory Analysis; Impact Assessment; and Interpretation.
The first impact assessment step consists of drawing up an inventory list of all the input and output environmental flows of a product system. However, as a long list of substances is difficult to interpret, a further step is needed in impact assessments, known as a life cycle impact assessment (LCIA). An LCIA consists of 4 steps:
Classification: all the substances are sorted into classes according to the effect that they have on the environment.
Characterisation: all the substances are multiplied by a factor that reflects their relative contribution to an environmental impact.
Normalisation (optional step): the quantified impact is compared to a certain reference value; e.g., the average environmental impact of a European citizen in 1 year.
Weighting (optional step): different value choices are given to the impact categories to generate a single score.
According to this information, the impact categories can be used as indicators.
For each substance, a schematic cause-effect chain needs to be developed that describes the environmental mechanism of the emitted substance. During this environmental mechanism, an impact category indicator result can be chosen at either the midpoint or the endpoint level.
Midpoints are considered to be links in the cause-effect chain of an impact category, prior to endpoints. Midpoint methods (CML 92, CML2001 version Baseline, EDIP 2003, EPD 2007, TRACI 2) are problem-oriented and translate impacts into environmental themes, such as ozone depletion, global warming and smog creation. Some methodologies (EPS 2000, Eco-indicador 95, Eco-indicador 99, IMPACT 2002+, IPCC 2001 GWP) have adopted characterisation factors at an endpoint level in the cause-effect chain. This is a damage-oriented approach that translates environmental impacts into issues of concern, such as human health in terms of disability adjusted life years for carcinogenicity or impacts in terms of changes in biodiversity
Environmental indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | ENDPOINT-TYPE effects Damage category | IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
CML 92 | CML 2011 | EDIP 2003 | EPD 2007 | TRACI 2 | EPS 2000 | INDICATOR 95 | INDICATOR 99 | IMPACT 2002 | IPCC 2001 | |||
Indicators describing environmental impacts | Global Warming Potential (GWP), kg.Eq.CO2 | Climate change | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||
Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP) | Damage to ecosystem | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
Acidification potential, kg SO2 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Eutrophication potential, kg PO4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Photochemical smog potential, kg C2H4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources, ADP-elements | ||||||||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources, ADP-fossil fuels | ||||||||||||
Indicators describing resources use | Use of renewable primary energy excluding renovable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERE. MJ, net calorific value | Damage to using resources | ||||||||||
Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERM. MJ, net calorific value | ||||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | ||||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | ||||||||||||
Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding no-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials , PENRT. MJ, net calorific value | ||||||||||||
Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources ,PENRT. M.J, net calorific value | ||||||||||||
Use of secondary materials kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Use of non- renewable secondary fuels, RSFS, MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Use of renewable secondary fuels, RSF MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Use of fresh water, m3 | 1 | |||||||||||
Indicators describing complementary environmental information | Hazardous waste, kg | |||||||||||
Non-hazardous waste, kg | ||||||||||||
Radioactive waste, kg | 1 | |||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 8 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | ||
40% | 40% | 30% | 30% | 35% | 0% | 5% | 25% | 25% | 5% | |||
|
|
|||||||||||
Accessibility | For people with specific needs | |||||||||||
Adaptability | To a change in users’ requirements | |||||||||||
To technical changes | ||||||||||||
To use changes | ||||||||||||
Health and comfort | Sound characteristics | |||||||||||
Quality of indoor air | ||||||||||||
Visual comfort | ||||||||||||
Thermal comfort | ||||||||||||
Water quality | ||||||||||||
Electromagnetic characteristics | ||||||||||||
Spatial characteristics | ||||||||||||
Damage to health |
1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | |||
Burdens on neighbours | Noise | |||||||||||
Emissions to the atmosphere, land, water | Damage to using resources | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Glare and overshading | ||||||||||||
Impacts and vibrations | ||||||||||||
Effects of wind | ||||||||||||
Maintenance | Maintenance operations (including health and confort issues for users and neighbours) | |||||||||||
Security | Resistance to climate change (rain, wind, snow, floods, solar radiation, temperature) | |||||||||||
Resistence to accidental situations (Earthquakes, explosions, fire, traffic impacts) | ||||||||||||
Security against vandalism and intruders | ||||||||||||
Security against interruptions in supplies | ||||||||||||
Security against interruptions in supplies | ||||||||||||
Origin of materials and services | Responsible and traceable origin of assets and services | |||||||||||
Implication of stakeholders | Opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes | |||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | ||
8% | 8% | 8% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 0% | 8% | 0% | |||
Cost | Investment cost | |||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance cost | ||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | ||||||||||||
Financial value | Investment fiancial cost | |||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance l cost | ||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | ||||||||||||
Ratio between market value and capital cost | Ratio between market value and capital cost at the building work completion | |||||||||||
Verification of value versus future stability of economic value | Value versus future stability of economic value or alternatively techniques of clasification of ownership | |||||||||||
Economic risk | Stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios clasification of ownership | |||||||||||
External costs | External costs | |||||||||||
Results economic aspects | Energy efficiency level (relative to a high energy cost) | |||||||||||
Adaptability to use or users’ requirements | ||||||||||||
Intrinsic risks in localisation | ||||||||||||
Accessibility | ||||||||||||
Spatial efficiency | ||||||||||||
Total number of coincidences | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Damage to health indicators assess mainly the effects related to the human toxicity resulting from direct exposure to chemicals. Health effects caused by other mechanisms of action (e.g. impacts from fine particles, from noise, etc.) are not included.
As can be seen, tools with a higher proportion of CEN indicators implemented as Endpoint impacts are CML92 and CML2011, with the 40% of the environmental indicators (climate change, damage to ecosystem and damage to using resources) and the 8% of the social indicators (damage to health and emissions to the atmosphere, land and water). TRACI2 include the same but without the emissions to the atmosphere, land and water and use of secondary fuels. The other tools include even less than these do. None of them includes economic indicators.
Environmental indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | MIDPOINT-TYPE EFFECTS | IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODS | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Damage category | Damage subcategory | CML 92 | CML 2011 | EDIP 2003 | EPD 2007 | TRACI 2 | EPS 2000 | INDICATOR 95 | INDICATOR 99 | IMPACT 2002 | IPCC 2001 | ||
Indicators describing environmental impacts | Global Warming Potential (GWP), kg.Eq.CO2 | Global Warming Potential (GWP), kg.Eq.CO2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP) | Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Acidification potential, kg SO2 eq. | Acidification potential, kg SO2 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Eutrophication potential, kg PO4 eq. | Eutrophication potential, kg PO4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Photochemical smog potential, kg C2H4 eq. | Photochemical smog potential, kg C2H4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources, ADP-elements | Abiotic depletion potential for resources | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources, ADP-fossil fuels | |||||||||||||
Indicators describing resources use | Use of renewable primary energy excluding renovable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERE. MJ, net calorific value | Use of abiotic resources, kg eq. | Use of renewable primary energy, MJ | ||||||||||
Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERM. MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||
Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding no-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials , PENRT. MJ, net calorific value | Use of non-renewable primary energy, MJ | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources ,PENRT. M.J, net calorific value | |||||||||||||
Use of secondary materials kg | Use of metals and minerals,kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Use of non- renewable secondary fuels, RSFS, MJ, net calorific value | Use of non renewable fuels, MJ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Use of renewable secondary fuels, RSF MJ, net calorific value | Use of renewable fuels, MJ | ||||||||||||
Use of fresh water, m3 | Use of fresh water | ||||||||||||
Indicators describing complementary environmental information | Hazardous waste, kg | Waste kg | Hazardous waste, kg | 1 | |||||||||
Non-hazardous waste, kg | Non-hazardous waste, kg | 1 | |||||||||||
Radioactive waste, kg | Radioactive waste, kg | 1 | |||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 9 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 7 | 0 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 1 | |||
45% | 40% | 45% | 35% | 35% | 0% | 10% | 40% | 40% | 5% | ||||
|
|
|
|||||||||||
Accessibility | For people with specific needs | ||||||||||||
Adaptability | To a change in users’ requirements | ||||||||||||
To technical changes | |||||||||||||
To use changes | |||||||||||||
Health and comfort | Sound characteristics | ||||||||||||
Quality of indoor air | |||||||||||||
Visual comfort | |||||||||||||
Thermal comfort | |||||||||||||
Water quality | |||||||||||||
Electromagnetic characteristics | |||||||||||||
Spatial characteristics | |||||||||||||
Burdens on neighbours | Noise | ||||||||||||
Emissions to the atmosphere, land, water | Toxicity | Emissions to the atmosphere, land, water | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Glare and overshading | |||||||||||||
Impacts and vibrations | |||||||||||||
Effects of wind | |||||||||||||
Maintenance | Maintenance operations (including health and confort issues for users and neighbours) | ||||||||||||
Security | Resistance to climate change (rain, wind, snow, floods, solar radiation, temperature) | ||||||||||||
Resistence to accidental situations (Earthquakes, explosions, fire, traffic impacts) | |||||||||||||
Security against vandalism and intruders | |||||||||||||
Security against interruptions in supplies | |||||||||||||
Security against interruptions in supplies | |||||||||||||
Origin of materials and services | Responsible and traceable origin of assets and services | ||||||||||||
Implication of stakeholders | Opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes | ||||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
4% | 4% | 4% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 4% | 0% | ||||
|
|
||||||||||||
Cost | Investment cost | ||||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance cost | |||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | |||||||||||||
Financial value | Investment fiancial cost | ||||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance l cost | |||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | |||||||||||||
Ratio between market value and capital cost | Ratio between market value and capital cost at the building work completion | ||||||||||||
Verification of value versus future stability of economic value | Value versus future stability of economic value or alternatively techniques of clasification of ownership | ||||||||||||
Economic risk | Stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios clasification of ownership | ||||||||||||
External costs | External costs | ||||||||||||
Results economic aspects | Energy efficiency level (relative to a high energy cost) | ||||||||||||
Adaptability to use or users’ requirements | |||||||||||||
Intrinsic risks in localisation | |||||||||||||
Accessibility | |||||||||||||
Spatial efficiency | |||||||||||||
Total number of coincidences | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Regarding the Midpoint level impacts, in general, LCIA tools applied a higher number of the CEN indicators. CML2 and EDIP 2003 are the most complete ones with the 45% of the environmental indicators and the 4% of the social ones. Only use of primary energy, use of materials, use of fuels and use of fresh water are not considered in EDIP2003. As can be seen in
Formulating indicators becomes a key element to assess sustainability. To this end, it is necessary to associate one impact or more with the indicator, which supplies a numerical value and its measurement unit (kWh/m2 year, kg CO2 eq./m2 year, l/person day). Indicators can derive from qualitative and quantitative measures, but they only become standardised and comparable when transformed numerically
As previously mentioned, all the tools shown in
Environmental indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | Athena Impact Estimator | Beat 2002 | Be Cost | BEES | Eco Bat | Eco Calculator | Eco Effect | Eco Quantum | Eco Soft | Ener BuiLCA | ENVEST | EQUER | LCAid | LEGEP | LISA | TCQ 2000 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicators describing environmental impacts | Global Warming Potential (GWP), kg.Eq.CO2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Acidification potential, kg SO2 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Eutrophication potential, kg PO4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Formation potential of tropospheric ozone,POCP kg Eq C2H4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources, ADP-elements | |||||||||||||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources, ADP-fossil fuels | |||||||||||||||||
Indicators describing resources use | Use of renewable primary energyexcluding renovable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERE. MJ, net calorific value | ||||||||||||||||
Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERM. MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||||||
Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding no-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PENRE | |||||||||||||||||
Use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PENRM | |||||||||||||||||
Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources ,PENRT. M.J, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Use of secondary materials kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Use of renewable secondary fuels, RSFS, MJ, net calorific value | |||||||||||||||||
Use of non renewable secondary fuels, RSF MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Use of fresh water, m3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Indicators describing complementary environmental information | Hazardous waste, kg | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Non-hazardous waste, kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
Radioactive waste disposed (total low, intermediate and high level waste), RWD, kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 6 | 8 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 4 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 7 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 7 |
Economic Indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | Athena Impact Estimator | Beat 2002 | BeCost | BEES | Eco-Bat | Eco Calculator | Eco Effect | Eco Quantum | EcoSoft | Ener BuiLca | ENVEST 2 | EQUER | LCAid | LEGEP | LISA | TCQ 2000 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | Investment cost | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||
Financial value | Investment fiancial cost | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance 1 cost | 1 | ||||||||||||||||
Demolition and waste management cost | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||||||
Ratio between market value and capital cost | Ratio between market value and capital cost at the building work completion | ||||||||||||||||
Verification of value versus future stability | Value versus future stability of economic value of clasification of ownership | ||||||||||||||||
Economic risk | Stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios | ||||||||||||||||
External costs | External costs | ||||||||||||||||
Results economic aspects | Energy efficiency level (relative to a high energy cost) | ||||||||||||||||
Adaptability to users’ requirements | |||||||||||||||||
Intrinsic risks in localisation | |||||||||||||||||
Accessibility | |||||||||||||||||
Spatial efficiency | |||||||||||||||||
Total number of coincidences | 0 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
As can be seen, BSIS are fundamentally based on LCA impact assessments. Among them, the global warming, stratospheric ozone depletion, acidification, eutrophication, and photochemical smog potentials, as well as energy use, are the impacts mainly considered by effort-driven assessments.
The tools that best adapt to environmental indicators set by the CEN are Beat 2002, BEES, Eco-Bat, Envest2, LCAid and TCQ2000, with 7 or 8 coincidences with the indicators set by the CEN.
EQUER is the one with more social indicators, considering 4 from the 25 set by the CEN. Generally speaking, these tools barely consider social indicators, and only BEES, Eco-effect and Envest consider air quality matters, assessed from the social perspective. BeCost, BEES, Eco-Bat, Envest2 and LISA are the only methods, along with Eco-quantum, that include CEN economic indicators.
An existing study
Many methodologies have been developed to establish the degree of accomplishment of environmental goals by guiding the planning and design processes. In these earlier construction process stages, planners can make decisions to improve building performance at very little or no cost following the recommendations of the decision-making tool
The first outlines to voluntarily adopt sustainability criteria in the design, construction and/or operation of buildings appeared in the UK, where the official Building Research Establishment has worked since 1992 to develop them. The first commercially available method was BREEAM (the BRE Environmental Assessment Method), which continues to be a national reference with more than 250,000 certificates. BREEAM has been adapted in Commonwealth countries (Green Leaf in Canada and Ireland, HK BEAM in Hong Kong, GreenStar in Australia and New Zealand, etc.), among others (BREEAM ES in Spain, BREEAM Gulf in the Persian Golf, etc.)
In 1998, and based on BRE originally, the USGBC (United States Green Building Council)
The 11 most representative sustainable assessment systems have been selected to now be applied to define their basic characteristics and to establish a comparative frame with them all. These systems can be grouped into three types according to the assessment method they employ
Those based on assessing actions (Checklists), established with credits associated with points according to the relevance of the impacts related with the credit. This group comprises the systems LEED, BREEAM and DGNB.
Those based on impact assessments by analysing impacts by a cost-benefit analysis (CBA), such as CASBEE.
Those based on the assessment of the reduction of impacts by applying sustainability measures in the complete life cycle, such as: HQE (France), ITACA (Italy) and VERDE (Spain). LEED and HQE certifications recognise the life-cycle analysis, while other such as BREEAM opts for an overall cost approach
As can be seen in
Such a lack of systems that adapt to building types is a generalised matter in most methods which, despite being able to certify many kinds of uses, do not present assessment schemes that provide details of specific matters in each one, but do so with a common scheme. The most outstanding example of this is the MINERGIE system or the Canadian one, GREENGLOBES, where seven of the eight types that it certifies share the same scheme. HQE™ addresses to non-residential and residential buildings, and detached houses. Furthermore, a specific scheme for the management system of urban planning and development projects is also available.
In order to apply these systems to existing buildings, the 11 analysed systems assess new buildings and 10 of them analyse renovations. VERDE only offers a renovation assessment scheme for homes. HQE applies to residential, commercial, administrative and service buildings, whether in construction, refurbishment or in operation.
Regarding the possibility of obtaining results in the initial design phase, generally all the systems cover the first assessment in the design phase and in a later phase once the building has been constructed. Other building phases, like the operations and maintenance that buildings require throughout their life cycle or at the end of their lifespan, including demolition, are not included in 50% of the systems.
BREEAM and GREENSTAR distribute the indicators into 10 and 9 categories, respectively, LEED and GREENGLOBES divide them into 7. In HQE, the environmental performance requirements are organised into four topics that together include 14 categories. Moreover, the HQE certification is different due to the introduction of requirements concerning comfort and health. LEVEL guides users from an initial focus on individual aspects of building performance towards a more holistic perspective. It consists of eight core indicators, complemented by six life cycle tools which include the option to make a full Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
Environmental indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | LEED | BREEAM | VERDE | CASBEE | GBTool | GREEN STAR | GREEN GLOBES | MINERGIE | HQE | DGNB | ITACA | LEVEL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indicators describing environmental impacts | Global Warming Potential (GWP), kg.Eq.CO2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Stratospheric ozone depletion potential (ODP) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Acidification potential, kg SO2 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Eutrophication potential, kg PO4 eq. | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Formation potential of tropospheric ozone,POCP kg Eq C2H4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for non-fossil resources, ADP-elements | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Abiotic depletion potential for fossil resources, ADP-fossil fuels | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Indicators describing resources use | Use of renewable primary energy excluding renovable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERE. MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Use of renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PERM. MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Total use of renewable primary energy resources ,PERT. MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Use of non-renewable primary energy excluding no-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PENRE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Use of non-renewable primary energy resources used as raw materials ,PENRM | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Total use of non-renewable primary energy resources ,PENRT. M.J, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Use of secondary materials kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Use of renewable secondary fuels, RSFS, MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Use of non renewable secondary fuels, RSF MJ, net calorific value | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Use of fresh water, m3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||
Indicators describing complementary environmental information | Hazardous waste, kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||
Non-hazardous waste, kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Radioactive waste, kg | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 20 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 5 | 20 | 4 | 3 | 20 | |
100% | 65% | 25% | 20% | 30% | 15% | 25% | 25% | 100% | 20% | 15% | 100% |
Social Indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | LEED | BREEAM | VERDE | CASBEE | GBTool | GREEN STAR | GREEN GLOBES | MINERGIE | HQE | DGNB | ITACA | LEVEL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Accessibility | Accessibility | ||||||||||||
Adaptability | For people with specific needs | ||||||||||||
To technical changes | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
To use changes | 1 | ||||||||||||
Health and comfort | To use changes | 1 | |||||||||||
Sound characteristics | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Quality of indoor air | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
Visual comfort | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Thermal comfort | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Water quality | 1 | ||||||||||||
Electromagnetic characteristics | |||||||||||||
Burdens on neighbours | Spatial characteristics | ||||||||||||
Noise | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Emissions to the atmosphere, land, water | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||
Glare and overshading | |||||||||||||
Impacts and vibrations | |||||||||||||
Effects of wind | |||||||||||||
Maintenance | Maintenance operations (health and confor) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||
Security | Resistance to climate change | ||||||||||||
Resistence to accidental situations | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Security against vandalism and intruders | |||||||||||||
Security against interruptions in supplies | |||||||||||||
Origin of materials and services | Security against interruptions in supplies | ||||||||||||
Implication of stakeholders | Responsible and traceable origin of assets and services | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Opportunities for the stakeholders to participate in decision-making processes | 1 | ||||||||||||
Total no. of coincidences | 7 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 4 | 7 | |
28% | 32% | 28% | 24% | 4% | 4% | 12% | 8% | 32% | 32% | 16% | 28% |
Economic Indicators suggested by CEN/TC 350 | LEED | BREEAM | VERDE | CASBEE | GBTool | GREEN STAR | GREEN GLOBES | MINERGIE | 1% | DGNB | ITACA | LEVEL | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cost | Investment cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Explotation and maintenance cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||
Financial value | Demolition and waste management cost | 1 | |||||||||||
Investment fiancial cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Explotation and maintenance cost | 1 | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Ratio between market value and capital cost | Demolition and waste management cost | 1 | 1 | ||||||||||
Verification of value versus future stability | Ratio between market value and capital cost at the building work completion | 1 | |||||||||||
Economic risk | Value versus future stability of economic value of clasification of ownership | 1 | |||||||||||
External costs | Stability of economic value by undertaking analysis of financial scenarios | ||||||||||||
Results economic aspects | External costs | 1 | |||||||||||
Energy efficiency level (relative to a high energy cost) | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |||||
Adaptability to users’ requirements | 1 | 1 | |||||||||||
Intrinsic risks in localisation | |||||||||||||
Accessibility | 1 | ||||||||||||
Spatial efficiency | |||||||||||||
Total number of coincidences | 3 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 10 | |
20% | 27% | 27% | 13% | 0% | 0% | 0% | 7% | 7% | 40% | 7% | 67% |
According to
Most coincidences come about when using raw materials. This indicator is considered by all the systems according to the categories ‘Indoor air quality’, ‘Energy’, along with the categories ‘Energy use’ and ‘Land ecology’, which are indicators included in 8 9 of the 11systems. Aspects like ‘Waste’ are dealt with by only half the systems.
Themes and categories are not accurate, are heterogeneous, and have fuzzy limits. For example, pollution indicators are mixed in the energy or indoor air quality categories.
BREEAM , HQE and DGNB are those with more social indicators (32%), followed by VERDE, LEVEL and LEED (28%). Security category is not implemented in any of the analysed systems. LEVEL uses the 67% of the economic indicators, followed by DGNB with the 40%. In the opposite, GBTool, GREEN STAR and GREEN GLOBES do not include any economic indicator. However, like other systems, they will have to cover socio-economic aspects more profoundly.
From the conducted study, it can be observed that of the three sustainable development pillars, all the analysed systems focus basically on weighting environmental criteria and consider to a much lesser extent the social and economic aspects.
About 97% of the social and economic indicators remain unconsidered by the studied data-driven LCIA methods, and about 64 % of them are unconsidered by the studied data-driven BSIS. Effort-driven assessment tools have a higher consideration of these social and economic aspects, as this type of assessment has a more comprehensive nature. However, there is still about half of the proposed economic indicators by the CEN unconsidered by the CBEA methods. Only one of the studied assessment tools consider accessibility criteria, which is a relevant social sustainability aspect. Adaptability, security and implication of stakeholders are other social types of indicators with a low level of development in the studied tools. Regarding the economic types of indicators suggested by the CEN/TC 350, it is worth noticing that only LEVEL includes criteria to assess the ratio between market value and capital cost, the value versus future stability, the economic risk, or the external costs.
With regard to the environmental pillar, most data-driven assessment methods consider criteria that describe environmental impacts, such as the global warming potential, the stratospheric ozone layer depletion potential, the acidification potential, the eutrophication potential and ecotoxicity. For emissions, a consensus has been reached by the implied agents, considering the global warming potential as well as emissions of other gases (sulphur oxides, SOx, nitrogen oxides, NOx, methane, CH4, etc.) as the most representative indicator when it comes to assessing the environmental quality of buildings. However, environmental impacts indicators are not so developed in the effort-driven tools, and therefore there is an opportunity of integration of the two types of tools in this regard.
It must be noticed that the less developed type of environmental indicator, in both data-driven and effort-driven sustainability assessment tools, is the one describing complementary environmental information related to waste.
In conclusion, social and economic indicators require further development in the existing sustainability assessment systems of buildings, and environmental indicators require improvement, especially regarding waste criteria, and the integration of indicators describing environmental impacts –well developed in data-driven methods– into effort-driven methods.
This work has been carried out as part of the research project ‘Integrated design protocol for social housing retrofit and urban regeneration’ (BIA2013-44001-R) in the Spanish Research, Development and Innovation Programme ‘Society’s Challenges’, funded by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness.