building environmental assessment method for ireland
TRANSCRIPT
BUILDING ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT METHODfor IRELANDIGBC Exploratory Study
I R I S H G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L
UCD Energy Research Group - University College Dublin
SUMMARY
Context
Aim
Methodology
Key fi ndings
Implementing environmental assessment effectively for Ireland
ABBREVIATIONS
1. EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION
1.1 Increasing environmental awareness
1.2 Building environmental assessment
1.3 Commonly used building environmental assessment methods
1.4 International growth in building environmental assessment
1.5 Current scope and value of building environmental assessment
1.6 Development of a common building environmental assessment methodology
1.7 Building environmental assessment and Green Public Procurement (GPP)
1.8 Building environmental assessment future development and growth
2. INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS
2.1 Evaluation of signifi cant environmental assessment methods
2.2 Evaluation of BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and Living Building Challenge (LBC) systems
2.3 Building Environmental Assessment Method for Ireland (IBEAM) Framework
2.4 Localisation of environmental assessment methods
2.5 Green Building Councils and environmental assessment
3. IRELAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
3.1 Environmental policy, legislation and standards
3.2 Public sector and building environmental assessment
3.3 Private sector and building environmental assessment
3.4 User experience of environmental assessment in Ireland
3.5 Implementing environmental assessment effectively for Ireland
APPENDICES
REFERENCES
01
07
08
19
46
58
70
CO
NTE
NTS
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
SUM
MA
RY
1
Introduction
The Irish Green Building Council
(IGBC) aims to provide a framework
and leadership to accelerate the
transformation of the built environment,
and the associated industries, to sustainable
models based on accepted scientifi c principles
of sustainability. IGBC members have highlighted
building environmental assessment as one of the
most pertinent issues to be addressed in the
achievement of that objective, and consequently
an IGBC Members Task Group was formed to
advance the topic. This Task Group proposed
that an exploratory study be undertaken to
provide independent analysis and information to
support future decision-making.
Aim
The aim of the study is to provide the
IGBC Interim Board and Members
with current international context,
application and appraisal of building
environmental assessment systems in order
to inform discussions on the implementation
of environmental assessment in Ireland, and
as a fi rst step in a process that will provide
a recommendation on the utilisation of
environmental assessment methods in Ireland.
Methodology
The study was undertaken by Vivienne
Brophy, UCD Energy Research Group,
University College Dublin. Members
of the IGBC Task Group 2, and in
particular, Pat Barry, provided information and
support. Sarah Brophy and Ciara Grace assisted
with data collection.
The study comprises:
review of international literature ❚
consultation with international experts and ❚
Green Building Councils
presentations from and interaction with ❚
international assessment system providers
national surveys of sustainable building ❚
stakeholders and environmental
assessment users
interaction with national building design and ❚
construction teams, building owners,
providers and managers, and building policy
makers and regulators.
Key fi ndings, issues pertaining to these fi ndings,
and further tasks to be undertaken in relation
to the implementation of building environmental
assessment in Ireland, are presented below.
Key Findings
Historic and current context of
environmental assessment
Building environmental assessment methods ❚
(BEAMs) were initially conceived (and still
largely function) as voluntary, market-place
mechanisms to communicate improved
environmental performance.
More recently, BEAMs have been adopted by ❚
public agencies and other bodies to specify
performance requirements.
Increasingly, the fi nancial and real estate ❚
sectors recognise BEAMs as indicators of
desirable performance, and risk mitigators.
They are used as design, assessment and ❚
certifi cation tools, although the number of
assessments far outweigh the number of
buildings certifi ed.
More recently developed methods address ❚
social and economic concerns alongside
2IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILSU
MM
ARY
environmental issues.
The growing proliferation of methods ❚
has prompted a comparison of metrics
and has caused the European Committee
for Standardisation (CEN) Technical
Committee CEN/TC 350 to develop
harmonised standards for the assessment
of environmental aspects of buildings, and
currently to examine the integrating of social
and economic aspects.
The development of a core set of ❚
standardised indicators forms the basis of
‘core’ and ‘comprehensive’ criteria for EU
Green Public Procurement (GPP).
The most commonly used systems ❚
are Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method
(BREEAM) and Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) worldwide,
BREEAM and Deutchse Gesellschaft fur
Nachhaltiges Bauen (DGNB) in Europe, and
BREEAM in Ireland.
In the recent past many European countries ❚
have adopted and adapted BREEAM and
DGNB, or adopted LEED without adaptation
(with the exception of Italy). Spain and
Portugal have developed new national
tools based on the Sustainable Building Tool
(SBTool) framework. Many countries have
multiple systems in operation, generally
defi ned for international and national use.
Most countries which adopt a system, adapt ❚
the suite of occupancy profi le methodologies
made available by the system provider.
Green Building Councils are actively involved ❚
in the development, adaptation and operation
of systems.
BREEAM and LEED are the longest ❚
established systems and DGNB and SBTool
(based on the earlier Green Building Tool
(GBTool)) are more recent systems in use in
Europe. Living Building Challenge (LBC) has
more recently launched in Europe.
There are currently 17 BREEAM certifi ed ❚
buildings and 44 BREEAM registered projects
and two LEED certifi ed buildings and 10
LEED registered projects in Ireland.
The certifi ed buildings and registered projects ❚
in Ireland comprise a mix of private and
public sector; the Industrial Development
Authority (IDA) uses LEED, Offi ce of Public
Works (OPW) and Health Services Executive
(HSE) use BREEAM, and the private sector
uses both.
Evaluation of BREEAM, DGNB, LEED
and LBC
BREEAM and LEED are considered to be ❚
fi rst generation designer-focussed methods,
DGNB a second generation broader building
life cycle based method, and LBC the most
holistic and ambitious method available today.
BREEAM, DGNB and LEED are based on ❚
categorisation of qualitative and quantitative
criteria for credit or point scoring assessment
at design and post-construction stages to
achieve certifi cation to a range of levels.
LBC is based on achieving operational
performance standards for certifi cation.
BREEAM is based on European/UK standards, ❚
DGNB on the recently developed CEN/
TC350 standards, LEED and LBC on the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating
and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
standards (although LBC is currently
developing equivalent standards for Irish-
based projects).
Several methodologies (within the ❚
same system) can be used for similar building
profi les, eg. BREEAM Offi ces, BREEAM Europe
Commercial and BREEAM International.
The main emphasis in all four methods ❚
reviewed here in detail: (BREEAM 2009
Europe Commercial; DGNB 2009 New
Construction for Offi ces and Administrative
Buildings; LEED 2009 New Construction and
3
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
SUM
MA
RY
Major Renovations and LBC 2011 Building),
is on the evaluation of environmental aspects,
although all address societal aspects to some
extent, and DGNB also addresses
economical value.
The performance certifi cation ratings of the ❚
four methods are not comparable, because of
the high level of variation that occurs among
the assessment methods.
Energy is an important aspect of all four ❚
methods; however, the importance given
to energy differs (10% in DGNB, 14% in
LBC, 19% in BREEAM and 32% in LEED),
and there is little relationship between the
fi gures and the energy effi ciency of a building.
Energy is considered in differing ways (DGNB
aggregates life cycle energy over fi fty years
and includes embodied environmental
impacts) and baseline standards differ ; indeed,
the standard in LEED is lower than in the
other three methods.
The complexity of comparing methods, the ❚
knowledge needed of the development
context, varying baseline assumptions,
assessment criteria, credits and weightings
combine to result in many research-based
and commercial studies being of limited value
when considering the adoption or adaptation
of a method, and in particular, if it is to be
used for international comparisons.
BREEAM requires that a certifi ed BREEAM ❚
Assessor undertake the assessment for
certifi cation, although members of the design
team can become BREEAM Accredited
Professionals (AP). Training to become a
BREEAM Assessor costs approx €1,885, and
€850 to become a BREEAM AP. Training
can be provided by a National Scheme
Operator who pays 5% of the income to
BRE. DGNB also requires DGNB trained
Assessors to undertake the assessment for
certifi cation and the training cost is approx
€3,000, but training can be provided by a
national provider with the cost being at
their discretion. It is not necessary to be a
trained LEED or LBC assessor to undertake
assessments for certifi cation, but members
of the design team can become LEED
Accredited Professionals (AP) by undertaking
training, provided by the Green Building
Certifi cation Institute (GBCI), at a cost of
approx. €450.
User support is available for all systems; ❚
however, LBC offers interactive support and
guidance throughout the project stages from
design to operation.
System adoption and adaptation, or
new system development
BRE Global allows its international methods ❚
to be adapted to suit country-specifi c issues
while operated by BRE Global, and also new
methods to be developed and operated
by a National Scheme Operator. DGNB
allows its methods to be adapted and new
methods to be developed while operated
by DGNB. USGBC does not currently allow
the adaptation of LEED methods to suit
European or country-specifi c issues and
LEED is operated only by USGBC. A pilot
adaptation, LEED Italia 2009, was developed
with Green Building Council Italia but USGBC
indicate that they have moved away from the
development of country adapted systems. This
does have the advantage that LEED certifi ed
buildings can be compared internationally. The
LBC method is currently being adapted for
use in Ireland by the Living Building Institute
Ireland and is operated by the International
Living Future Institute.
BREEAM and DGNB both encourage input ❚
by national stakeholders into the adaptation
process, and future development.
Adoption and adaptation costs vary ❚
4IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILSU
MM
ARY
considerably and could be a deciding factor,
as could time factors, in the selection of a
system. BREEAM charges a National Scheme
Operator an annual licence fee of a minimum
of €38,000 and an audit fee of €18,800, but
charges no fee for adapted schemes operated
by BRE Global, only international registration
and certifi cation fees. LBC may collaborate
with a national body to co-host and endorse
the system, subject to an annual licence fee
of €500, or €100 project referral fee. There
are no annual fees associated with adoption
of systems operated by the system provider.
Adaptation costs are dependent on the level
of input by national stakeholders and the
provision of expertise by the system provider.
Project registration and certifi cation fees ❚
vary across system providers and must be
viewed together with system adoption fees.
BREEAM charge a signifi cant annual licence
and audit fee but a lower project certifi cation
fee. DGNB do not charge an annual fee but
have higher certifi cation fees. Fees also vary
in the percentage which is retained by system
operators and national operators.
The development of a new national system ❚
requires high levels of commitment by
industry stakeholders and has a longer
development timescale. However, once
properly developed it is an autonomous
system that can be more quickly adapted for
other occupancy profi les and can provide a
robust basis for the development of green
public procurement.
Building Environmental Assessment Method ❚
for Ireland (IBEAM) provided a framework for
the development of an assessment method
particular to Ireland and helped identify the
various bodies that may be involved in the
design, implementation and management of
an Irish system.
70% of the Better Building International ❚
Conference survey participants indicated that
they saw no value in developing a national
system solely for use in Ireland; however, 85%
indicated that an adopted system should be
adapted to suit Irish climate, construction and
policy issues.
88% of the Certifi ed and Assessed Irish ❚
Buildings Survey participants reported the
process of applying a building environmental
assessment method a worthwhile one, while
those who indicated a negative response
questioned the value of environmental
assessment as a tool for achieving better
performing buildings.
78% of the completed projects achieved ❚
the building environmental rating sought,
while 22% achieved a lower rating, mainly
due to issues outside the control of design
team. 88% of the project teams indicated
that the requirements of the environmental
assessment led to increased design and
assessment time. 37% indicated an increase
in build cost over that expected, while 78%
indicted positive feedback from building
occupants and a positive impact on the
building operating costs.
5
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
SUM
MA
RY
Implementing
environmental
assessment
effectively for
Ireland
The fi ndings of the study identify issues
that require engagement in order
to determine how the IGBC Interim
Board can move forward on this issue.
In order to facilitate discussion, issues pertaining
to the fi ndings are outlined below. A distinction is
made between the issues related to the product
(assessment method) and the process (system
required to support the methods’ use).
Issues in relation to the development of
an environmental assessment method
for Ireland
While there are many research papers and
industry reports that highlight the perceived
benefi ts of environmental certifi cation of buildings,
there is little understanding of its contribution to
the achievement of broader sustainability targets.
The IGBC is well placed to apply a ‘back-casting’
approach to a review of the national end goal for
sustainability in Ireland; provide a framework for
the co-ordination of research, policy, education
and best practice for its achievement; and defi ne
a role for building environmental certifi cation.
It is essential that the IGBC defi ne the specifi c
users and benefi ciaries of an environmental
assessment method, or methods, to evaluate the
relevance of a method’s international, European or
national focus; alignment with EU policy and CEN
standards or ASHRAE standards; and baseline
attributes. It may be necessary for the IGBC to
consider a number of methods to address varying
national usage.
Market context and industry acceptance
are critical to successful uptake of building
environmental certifi cation, which may be
enhanced by the adoption of a familiar method.
Alignment with baseline attributes of national
GPP and future Building Regulations may facilitate
industry application; the IGBC should pursue
collaboration with the Offi ce of Public Works
(OPW) and the Department of the Environment,
Community and Local Government (DECLG).
The choice among the options of adopting, or
adopting and adapting an international method,
or the development of a national method will
be impacted by the availability of an appropriate
suite of occupancy profi les; the openness of the
system providers to new scheme development;
and the level of adaptation allowed to defi ne
Irish conditions. The IGBC should consider
pilot applications of a number of methods to
representative Irish building types to assist in this
process of selection.
Issues such as transparency and usability are
embedded in the method, and so are important
factors to be considered, as are the provision of
user training, and technical support. The IGBC
should engage with building environmental
assessment method stakeholders to determine
a equate support mechanisms and with system
providers to assess training provision options.
6IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILSU
MM
ARY
Issues in relation to the implementation
of an effective system for Ireland
The adoption of a method should not
only consider the appropriateness
of the method but also the support
system for delivery. The provision of a
robust and verifi able system for implementation,
operation and management is essential
for success.
While there are many advantages to adopting
a well established and proven system, national
autonomy will be diminished to an extent which
varies between providers. The development of a
national system will require industry stakeholder
commitment, expertise and fi nancial support to
deliver an appropriate suite of evaluation methods
and an accountable certifi cation system. The
option to become a National Scheme Operator
is a compromise. The role of the IGBC should
be considered and, in particular, the costs and
benefi ts of each option should be analysed.
Each of the options will require key
stakeholders investment, which should be
assessed realistically to defi ne a programme
of key actions and players for the delivery of
the system.
Further work to be
undertaken
In the author’s opinion, the process requires
the IGBC to undertake the following:
Provision of a framework for the achievement ❚
of sustainable buildings in Ireland, identifying
the role of environmental assessment in
its achievement;
Engagement with industry stakeholders ❚
and policy makers to explore the alignment
of a national assessment approach with
future international and national policy, GPP
guidelines and Building Regulations;
Selection and application of a limited number ❚
of assessment methods to be applied to
representative Irish buildings to provide a full
comparative technical analysis, to highlight the
issues to be addressed in method adoption
and the specifi c evaluation criteria that
require adaptation for Irish conditions;
Further consultation with existing system ❚
designers and providers to assess the impact
of application on all stakeholders (including
clients, designers, contractors, manufacturers
and suppliers), the resources required for
achievement of certifi cation, and the process
of adopting, adapting and implementing a
suite of schemes and certifi cation system
in Ireland;
Further engagement with system stakeholders ❚
to determine, and provide where possible,
training and user support;
Development of strategies suitable for ❚
a successful implementation and market
adoption of the selected system, identifying
those members of industry who may be
directly involved or responsible for delivery of
the system, and those whose participation or
support may be necessary for its success;
Publication of a programme of key actions ❚
and players to further the delivery of an
appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,
transparent and verifi able building
environmental assessment system for Ireland.
ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-conditioning Engineers ❚
BRE - Building Research Establishment ❚
BREEAM - Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method ❚
BMVBS - Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (Germany) ❚
Building Environmental Assessment Method (BEAM) ❚
CASBEE - Comprehensive Assessment Scheme for Building Environmental Effi ciency ❚
CEN - European Committee for Standardisation ❚
CEPAS - Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme ❚
CSTB - Centre Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment ❚
DECLG - Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government ❚
DEFRA - Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Britain) ❚
DCENR - Department of Communications, Energy and Natural Resources (formerly ❚
DCMNR - Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources) ❚
DGNB - Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen ❚
DES - Department of Education and Skills ❚
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency ❚
EU EPBD - EU Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings ❚
EU ESD - EU Directive on Energy End-use Effi ciency Energy Services ❚
GBTool - Green Building Tool ❚
GBC - Green Building Council ❚
GBCI - Green Building Certifi cation Institute ❚
GPP - Green Public Procurement ❚
HK-BEAM – Hong Kong Building Environmental Assessment Method ❚
HSE - Health Services Executive ❚
HQE - Haute Qualité Environmentale ❚
IBEAM - Building Environmental Assessment for Ireland ❚
IDA - Industrial Development Authority ❚
IGBC - Irish Green Building Council ❚
iiSBE - International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment ❚
ILFI - International Living Future Institute (formerly the ILBI - International Living Building Institute) ❚
IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ❚
ISO - International Organisation for Standardisation ❚
JRC-IPTS - Joint Research Centre’s Institute for Prospective Technological Studies ❚
LEED - Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design ❚
LBC - Living Building Challenge ❚
LBII - Living Building Institute Ireland ❚
NABERS - National Australian Built Environment Rating System ❚
NEEAP - National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan ❚
OPW - Offi ce of Public Work ❚
OECD - Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ❚
PLEA - Passive and Low Energy Architecture ❚
RICS - Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors ❚
SBA - Sustainable Building Alliance ❚
SBAT - South African Sustainability Assessment Tool ❚
SBTool - Sustainable Building Tool ❚
SCSI - Society of Chartered Surveyors Ireland ❚
SDI - Sustainable Development Indicators ❚
USGBC - United States Green Building Council ❚
ABBREVIATIONS
8IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
1.1 Increasing environmental awareness
Scientifi c understanding of the potentially
catastrophic consequences of climate
change has proved insuffi cient to motivate
stakeholders in the construction industry to
respond to the need to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. Ethical dimensions of
environmental responsibility associated with
building design has demonstrebly so far been
inadequate in bringing about change, while
the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPPC) has indicated that
through improved effi ciencies approx 30%
of the projected green house gas emissions
in the building sector can be avoided with
a net economic gain (Cole, 2011). Currently,
there are two main drivers for sustainable
construction: policy and regulatory
instruments, and environmental assessment
systems (du Plessis and Cole, 2011).
In the recent past, focus in EU Member
States has been on the transposition into
national legislation of EU Directives that
have been primarily concerned with building
energy performance issues, and references
to environmental issues are treated as
a consequence of energy consumption
(Franzitta et al, 2011). Research and practice
have developed environmental concerns
from the global impact of greenhouse gas
emissions to those which impact on the local
environment and the building occupant.
The links between occupant health and
well-being, and with building heating and
cooling systems operation and maintenance
and ventilation provision and material
selection, have highlighted the importance
of implementing passive design strategies
and assessing the impact of materials not
only on the environment but on indoor air
quality. Water scarcity and the delivery of
potable water, treatment of waste water and
handling of storm water are all issues that
have become increasingly prominent.
While traditionally, legislation was
viewed as the most appropriate means
of dealing with environmental concerns,
more innovative solutions, cooperative
measures and voluntary agreements
between industry and regulation bodies are
increasingly employed to address emerging,
and broader, environmental issues (Aggeri,
1999). The development of the integrated
design process, bringing together client,
design and technical services professionals,
building team and occupants, has assisted
in the delivery of high performance, quality
architecture; and has increased pressure on
building developers and designers to deliver
buildings that achieve measurable high levels
of performance over their lifecycle in a
cost effective and environmentally friendly
manner (Larsson and Poel, 2002).
Buildings achieving high environmental
performance provide several benefi ts to
owners and occupants – improved indoor
environmental quality, increased employee
productivity, reduced absenteeism and
reduced operational costs (Lewis, 2002).
There are market benefi ts that accrue also
to fi nancial and real estate sectors, which can
only be realised if the buildings are assessed
and quantitatively validated, using a certifi ed
rating system and this information passed on
to the demand side of the market (Flora and
Moser, 2000).
Prior to the introduction of the Building
Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Method (BREEAM) in 1990,
there was little, if any, attempt to develop a
comprehensive means of assessing a broad
range of environmental considerations
against explicitly declared criteria or for
9
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
1. E
VALU
ATI
NG
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
DES
IGN
AN
D P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
providing a measure of overall performance
(Yates et al, 1998). Following on its introduction
the fi eld of building environmental assessment
developed quickly with a number of analagous
environmental assessment methods in other
countries, such as the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) method in 2000
(USGBC, 2012).
1.2 Building environmental assessment
Building environmental assessment is used to
specify, predict and measure environmental
performance in buildings, which can highlight long
term operational benefi ts, provide a valuable
marketing tool for the construction industry
to increase demand for quality and promote
corporate and public sector sustainability
(Hendrick, 2012). There are numerous mainly
voluntary environmental assessment methods
currently in use around the world and while
methods of assessment vary in accordance with
local circumstances and stakeholders’ concerns,
they do share characteristics and goals that are
signifi cant in their similarity (Hourigan, 2009).
Methods have a wide range of application from
residential to commercial building types, and
from small scale retrofi tting of existing buildings
to multi-million euro new developments, and
can impact the processes of building design,
construction and operation. Assessment methods
were originally developed to purportedly
help protect the environment and ensure that
natural resources were used more effi ciently;
however some second generation methods have
developed broader parameters to include social
and economic concerns alongside environmental
considerations (Todd et al, 2001).
The process of evaluating buildings has three
distinct stages:
Categorisation - inputs and outputs are ❚
assigned to categories based on their
perceived impact on the environment;
Characterisation - impacts of the inputs and ❚
outputs are assessed within their categories;
Valuation - the importance of each category ❚
is assigned a value or weight in relation to the
other categories (based on Fenner and
Ryce, 2008).
Categorisation - Criteria that are identifi able as
purely environmental form the larger part of
most assessment methods and refer to design
and construction aspects that have direct impact
on the environment and resource use. Generally,
the building project is divided into six or seven
categories, within which are sub-headings that
specify criteria for evaluation, which in turn may
be further sub-divided into individual items. The
majority of assessment methods include the
following key criteria: energy and CO2 emissions,
ecology, land use, transport, pollution, materials,
management, health and indoor environment,
renewable energy, water and waste. Prescriptive
credits require certain materials or details to be
used to earn the credit, whereas performance
based credits require that the element meets
a certain performance level without specifying
the method.
Characterisation - A level of performance is
identifi ed, with credits allocated for achievement,
within a scale of compliance in relation to typical
or best practice in the market place. As there
are no specifi c targets for sustainable buildings
as a whole and no universal defi nition of green
building, environmental assessment methods
measure designed buildings against environmental
criteria rather than some sustainable strategy for
a project (Ding 2008). This can lead to designers
designing to achieve credits rather than holistically
towards a sustainable ideal. Cole (2003) reports
that there is concern that achieving a high score in
the assessment may prove to be more important
than achieving a good sustainable building. The
10IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
most signifi cant group of credits is the category
which evaluates energy consumption. Prescriptive
credits are gained for using certain materials or
details and performance credits for reaching a
specifi ed level in a prescribed element. An initial
early design assessment is useful in exposing any
weaknesses that can be addressed effi ciently
through project development, and result in a
better performing building and enhanced credits
(Ding, 2008). According to Crookes and deWit
(2002) environmental assessment is of most
benefi t, and most cost-effective, during the
inception and conceptual design stage.
Valuation - The number of criteria or individual
items under consideration for credits is not always
indicative of importance, as categories may be
generally weighted during or after the calculation
to collate the classifi cation or rating (Hourigan,
2009). Weighting has a considerable impact on
the fi nal classifi cation or rating of the building,
and commands much discussion. Some favour a
consensus-derived standardised approach, based
on an agreed theoretical and non-subjective
basis, while others suggest that weighting should
be derived on a national or project by project
basis to refl ect national, regional and/or project
objectives (Lee et al, 2002), (Todd at al, 2002).
LEED is an exception, as all credits are equally
weighted and the number of criteria related to
each issue is, in fact, the weighting. Once the
weighting process is completed and a building
has accumulated a certain number of credits or
points it is then awarded a classifi cation or rating.
These differ from methodology to methodology
- for example BREEAM’s classifi cations run from
Pass to Outstanding, LEED’s from Certifi ed to
Platinum and DGNB’s from Bronze to Gold.
Classifi cations are not comparable between
systems as most are developed, and adapted
to, national building codes and standards which
vary country by country, and therefore, the
baseline for assessment is not consistent (Reed et
al, 2009).
Building environmental assessment systems
may be operated by commercial or non
commercial bodies, and can be operated by one
entity and certifi ed by another. BRE, a private
commercial company, both manages and certifi es
the UK BREEAM system while interested parties
like the United States Green Building Council
(USGBC), a non-profi t organisation, manages the
USA LEED system but certifi cation is provided
by the Green Building Certifi cation Institute.
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
Sys
tem
Co
un
trie
s w
ith
bu
ild
ings
ce
rtifi
ed
or
regi
ste
red
fo
r ce
rtifi
cat
ion
2011
No
. of
bu
ild
ings
re
gist
ere
d
No
. of
bu
ild
-in
gs c
ert
ifi e
dD
eve
lop
er
Co
un
trie
s w
he
re a
d-
op
ted
o
r li
cen
ce t
o a
do
pt
Occ
up
ancy
pro
fi le
s d
eve
lop
ed
or
in d
eve
lop
me
nt
Eva
luat
ion
cat
ego
rie
sP
erf
orm
ance
ce
rtifi
cat
ion
ra
tin
g
Str
en
gth
sW
eak
ne
sse
s
BREE
AM
UK
1990
UK
, Ire
land
, Por
tuga
l, Sp
ain,
Fra
nce,
Lu
xem
bour
g, Be
lgiu
m, N
ethe
rlan
ds,
Ger
man
y, A
ustr
ia, I
taly,
Cze
ch
Rep
ublic
, Hun
gary
, Pol
and,
Sw
eden
, Fi
nlan
d, R
ussi
a, Tu
rkey
23,0
095,
111
Briti
sh R
esea
rch
Esta
blis
h-m
ent
UK
, Net
herl
ands
, Nor
way
, Sp
ain,
Sw
eden
, Uni
ted
Ara
b
Emir
ates
Res
iden
tial,
Mul
ti-R
esid
entia
l, O
ffi ce
s, R
etai
l, In
dust
rial
, Edu
catio
n, H
ealth
-ca
re, P
riso
ns a
nd C
ourt
s, Be
spok
e
Man
agem
ent,
Hea
lth a
nd W
ell b
eing
, Ene
rgy,
Wat
er, M
ater
ials
, Lan
d U
se, E
colo
gy a
nd P
ol-
lutio
n
Unc
lass
ifi ed
, Pa
ss, G
ood,
Ver
y G
ood,
Exc
elle
nt,
Out
stan
ding
Mat
ure
syst
emfa
mili
ar t
oin
dust
ry
Lim
ited
open
ness
and
tran
spar
ency
CA
SBEE
Japa
n20
04
Japa
n, P
lann
ed C
ertifi
cat
ion
for
build
ing
in C
hina
201
266
5421
2Ja
pan
Sust
aina
ble
Build
ing
Con
sort
ium
Japa
nEx
istin
g, N
ew D
esig
n,R
enov
atio
n, H
eat
Isla
nd, U
rban
De-
velo
pmen
t, U
rban
Are
a an
d Bu
ildin
gs,
Citi
es, H
omes
, Pro
pert
y A
ppra
isal
, M
arke
t pr
omot
ion
is in
dev
elop
men
t.
Build
ing
Envi
ronm
enta
l Qua
lity
and
Perf
or-
man
ce a
nd B
uild
ing
Load
ings
C,B
-,B+
, A,S
LCA
app
rove
dD
evel
oped
spec
ifi ca
lly fo
r Ja
pan,
bas
ed
on n
atio
nal
stan
dard
s
DG
NB
Ger
man
y20
08
Ger
man
y, Lu
xem
bour
g, C
zech
R
epub
lic, A
ustr
ia30
140
4G
erm
anSu
stai
nabl
eBu
ildin
g C
ounc
il
Braz
il, C
hina
, Tha
iland
, Spa
in,
Switz
erla
nd, D
enm
ark,
Ital
y, Sl
oven
ia, C
zech
Rep
ublic
, Aus
-tr
ia, H
unga
ry, G
reec
e, B
ulga
ria,
Turk
ey, R
ussi
a
New
, Mod
erni
satio
n an
d Ex
istin
g O
ffi ce
and
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Build
ings
, M
oder
nisa
tion
and
New
Ret
ail,
New
Ed
ucat
ion,
Indu
stri
al, R
esid
entia
l Bui
ld-
ings
, Hot
els
and
Mix
ed C
ity D
istr
icts
Envi
ronm
enta
l Qua
lity,
Econ
omic
Qua
lity,
Soci
ocul
tura
l and
Fun
ctio
nal Q
ualit
y, Te
chni
cal
Qua
lity,
Proc
ess
Qua
lity,
Site
Bron
ze, S
ilver
, an
d G
old
Inno
vativ
e ba
sed
on E
U
CEN
sta
ndar
ds;
incl
udes
LC
A
and
econ
omic
co
nsid
erat
ions
Imm
atur
e st
ill in
de
velo
pmen
t
Gre
en
Glo
bes
Can
ada
2000
Can
ada,
US,
JLL
Glo
bal u
se G
reen
G
lobe
s in
Eur
ope,
Aus
tral
ia, L
atin
A
mer
ica
and
a la
rge
pilo
t in
Chi
na
SPA
Lon
don,
UK
and
Irel
and
3,39
9BO
MA
BESt
(Exi
stin
g,C
anad
a)
2,69
8 BO
MA
BESt
(Ex
-is
ting,
Can
ada)
70 (
New
, C
anad
a) 4
00
(New
, US)
ECD
Ene
rgy
and
Envi
ronm
ent
Can
ada
Ltd.
In U
S, G
reen
Bu
ildin
g in
itiat
ive
Can
ada,
US
Des
ign
of N
ew C
onst
ruct
ion,
Man
age-
men
t an
d O
pera
tion
of E
xist
ing
Build
-in
gs, B
uild
ing
Emer
genc
y M
anag
emen
t, Bu
ildin
g En
viro
nmen
t, Fi
t-ou
t
Proj
ect
Man
agem
ent,
Site
, Ene
rgy,
Wat
er,
Res
ourc
es, E
mis
sion
s, Im
pact
s an
d In
door
En
viro
nmen
t
One
, tw
o, t
hree
, fo
ur g
lobe
sBa
sed
onBR
EEA
M, h
igh
invo
lvem
ent
and
D+
C
proc
ess
Dev
elop
ed fo
r us
e in
Can
ada
and
US
to n
a-tio
nal s
tand
ards
Gre
en S
tar
Aus
tral
ia20
03
Aus
tral
ia, N
ew Z
eala
nd, S
outh
A
fric
a52
444
2G
reen
Bui
ldin
g C
ounc
il A
ustr
alia
, New
Zea
land
G
reen
Bui
ldin
g C
ounc
il, G
reen
Bui
ldin
g C
ounc
il SA
Aus
tral
ia, N
ew Z
eala
nd, S
outh
A
fric
aEd
ucat
ion,
Hea
lthca
re, I
ndus
tria
l, M
ulti-
Uni
t R
esid
entia
l, O
ffi ce
, Offi
ce
Inte
rior
s, R
etai
l Cen
tre.
Com
mun
ities
an
d Pe
rfor
man
ce a
re in
dev
elop
men
t
Man
agem
ent,
Indo
or E
nvir
onm
enta
l Qua
lity,
Ener
gy, T
rans
port
, Wat
er, M
ater
ials
, Lan
d U
se
and
Ecol
ogy,
Emis
sion
s, In
nova
tion
One
, tw
o, t
hree
, fo
ur, fi
ve,
and
six
st
ars
Base
d on
BREE
AM
and
LEED
Mor
e su
itabl
e fo
r ho
t cl
imat
e co
nditi
ons
with
co
olin
g lo
ads
HK
-BEA
MH
ong
Kon
g19
90
Hon
g K
ong,
Chi
naN
otav
aila
ble
200+
~ 9
mill
ion
m2
Cen
tre
of E
nvir
onm
enta
lTe
chno
logy
(C
ET)
with
HK
-BEA
M S
teer
ing
Com
-m
ittee
Hon
g K
ong
New
Bui
ldin
g, Ex
istin
g Bu
ildin
g, A
ll bu
ildin
g ty
pes
incl
udin
g M
ixed
use
co
mpl
exes
and
hig
h ri
se r
esid
entia
l. Pe
rfor
man
ce a
nd m
anag
emen
t
Site
, Ene
rgy
Effi c
ienc
y an
d W
ater
Con
serv
a-tio
n, M
ater
ial U
se a
nd S
pecifi c
atio
n, In
door
En
viro
nmen
tal Q
ualit
y, In
nova
tion
Bron
ze,
Silv
er,
Gol
d,Pl
atin
um
Base
d on
BREE
AM
Dev
elop
ed t
oH
ong
Kon
gst
anda
rds
HQ
EFr
ance
2005
Fran
ce, L
uxem
bour
g,Be
lgiu
m, I
taly,
Alg
eria
754
(com
mer
-ci
al)
597
(com
mer
cial
)A
ssoc
iatio
n po
ur la
Hau
te
Qua
lite
Envi
ronn
emen
tale
Fran
ce, B
razi
lN
ew B
uild
ing
and
Exis
ting
build
ing,
in
the
Res
iden
tial, T
ertia
ry a
nd In
dust
rial
se
ctor
s. R
oads
and
Hig
hway
s. In
dev
el-
opm
ent,
Nei
ghbo
urho
ods
ECO
-CO
NST
RUC
TIO
N: S
iting
, Mat
eria
ls, L
ow
site
nui
sanc
eEC
O-M
AN
AG
EMEN
T: E
nerg
y, W
ater
, Was
te,
Serv
icin
g an
d m
aint
enan
ceC
OM
FORT
: Hyg
rom
etri
c, A
cous
tic, V
isua
l, N
o un
plea
sant
sm
ells
HEA
LTH
: San
itary
qua
lity
of a
reas
, Air
qua
lity
Build
ing
rece
ives
a H
QE
or
does
n’t,
No
ratin
g sc
ale.
New
Eng
lish
inte
rnat
iona
lve
rsio
n ju
stla
unch
ed.
No
sign
ifi ca
ntad
optio
n ou
t-si
de F
ranc
e
LEED
US
1998
UK
, Ire
land
, Lux
embo
urg,
Port
ugal
, Sp
ain,
Fra
nce,
Bel
gium
, Net
herl
ands
, G
erm
any,
Aus
tria
, Ita
ly, C
zech
R
epub
lic, H
unga
ry, P
olan
d, S
wed
en,
Finl
and,
Rus
sia,
Turk
ey
47,5
6713
,193
US
Gre
en B
uild
ing
Cou
ncil
Can
ada,
Braz
il, C
osta
Ric
a, M
exic
o, In
dia
New
Con
stru
ctio
n, E
xist
ing
Build
ing
Ope
ratio
n an
d M
aint
enan
ce, C
om-
mer
cial
Inte
rior
s,C
ore
and
Shel
l, Sc
hool
s, R
etai
l, H
ealth
care
, Hom
es, N
eigh
bour
hood
de
velo
pmen
t
Sust
aina
ble
site
s, W
ater
Effi
cien
cy, E
nerg
y an
d A
tmos
pher
e, M
ater
ials
and
Res
ourc
es, I
ndoo
r En
viro
nmen
tal Q
ualit
y,In
nova
tion
in D
esig
n an
d R
egio
nal P
rior
ity.
LEED
Hom
es: L
ocat
ions
and
Lin
kage
s an
d A
war
enes
s an
d Ed
ucat
ion
Cer
tifi e
d,Si
lver
,G
old,
Plat
inum
Wel
l tes
ted,
mat
ure,
ope
nsy
stem
Not
alig
ned
to
Euro
pean
sta
n-da
rds
base
d on
IS
O s
tand
ards
.N
atio
nal a
dop-
tion
not
cur-
rent
ly a
llow
ed
LBC
US
2006
USA
Can
ada
110
6Li
ving
Fut
ure
Inst
itute
USA
, Can
ada,
Irel
and
Ren
ovat
ion,
Lan
dsca
pe a
nd In
fras
truc
-tu
re, B
uild
ing,
Nei
ghbo
urho
odSi
te, W
ater
, Ene
rgy,
Hea
lth, M
ater
ials
, Equ
ity,
Beau
tyC
ertifi
ed,
Pet
al
Rec
ogni
tion,
N
et Z
ero
Ener
gy
Mos
t fa
r re
ach-
ing
stan
dard
av
aila
be t
oday
Too
stri
ngen
t fo
r br
oad
natio
nal a
pplic
a-tio
n
SB T
ool
(form
erly
GB
Tool
)In
tern
a-tio
nal
1998
Not
ava
ilabl
eN
ot a
vail-
able
Not
ava
ilabl
eiiS
BEC
zech
Rep
ublic
, Ita
ly, P
ortu
gal
and
Spai
n.(S
B To
ol C
Z, P
ro-
toco
lloIT
AC
A, S
B-To
olPT
, and
SB
Tool
Ver
de r
espe
ctiv
ely)
Offi
ce, S
choo
l, M
ult-
Uni
t R
esid
entia
l, C
omm
erci
al (
Ital
y O
nly)
C1:
Clim
ate
chan
ge a
nd o
utdo
or a
ir q
ualit
yC
2: L
and
use
and
biod
iver
sity
C3:
Ene
rgy
Effi c
ienc
yC
4: M
ater
ials
and
was
te m
anag
emen
tC
5: W
ater
effi
cien
cyC
6: O
ccup
ant’s
hea
lth a
nd c
omfo
rtC
7: A
cces
sibi
litie
sC
8: E
duca
tion
and
awar
enes
s of
sus
tain
abili
ty.
C9:
Life
-cyc
le c
osts
. (SB
-Too
lPT,
Por
tuga
l)
Each
eva
luat
ion
cate
gory
C1-
C9,
ar
e ra
nked
A+
(ex
celle
nt)
- E
(poo
r).
(SB-
Tool
PT,
Port
ugal
)
Gen
eric
fram
e-w
ork
asba
sis
for
na-
tiona
l met
hod
Dev
elop
men
tco
stly
but
cos
t ef
fect
ive
in t
he
long
ter
m
1.3 Commonly used building environmental assessment methods
12IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
1.4 International growth in building environmental assessment
Building environmental assessment
methods were initially conceived (and
still largely function) as voluntary, market
place mechanisms by which owners
seeking better environmental performance of
their buildings would have an objective method
for communicating the achievement. Assessment
methods provide quantitative performance
indicators for design alternatives and a rating
for the whole building performance. They
offered a structure for environmental issues;
a straightforward declaration of performance
measures; a means to demonstrate commitment
to environmental policy and an opportunity to
brand innovative materials and products (Cole,
2005). They have assisted in shifting industry
emphasis from conventional practice towards
high performance, environmentally focussed
building; and the introduction of BREEAM, LEED
and other tools resulted in noticeable change.
Furthering sustainable building practice requires
the development of information exchange and
increased cooperation between stakeholders,
and building environmental assessment methods
have been proven to be very valuable in this
regard (Cole, 2011). While primarily assessment
tools, they can act as a road map for the
integration of environmental issues in the design
and construction process (Brophy, 2005). They
are often referred to as building design tools and
building rating tools.
The initial success (as measured by the
increasing new construction fl oor area being
assessed and of practitioner acceptance) can
be seen to be either be seen as indicative of
a proactive building industry, or response
of systems to market demand. Either way,
it is recognised that building environmental
assessment has achieved the following:
Provided guidance to design teams in a ❚
structured and organised manner which
gives focus to improved environmental
building practice
Encouraged the formulation of performance ❚
based indicators
Redefi ned the design process to assist in the ❚
delivery of high performing buildings on time
and cost effectively
Contributed to promotion of higher ❚
environmental expectations and both directly,
and indirectly, infl uenced the performance of
buildings (Cole, 2003, 2004).
Because of the early success of fi rst generation
assessment methods they have been seen as
being a most powerful mechanism for affecting
change and moving the focus of debate, and have
led to the evolution of families and generations
of systems as a result of growing experience,
new conceptual awareness, and theoretical
propositions (IEA, 2010).
Research activity and demonstration practice
directed at the assessment of environmental
performance of buildings, has represented a key
part of international conferences, such as the
Passive and Low Energy Architecture (PLEA)
and Sustainable Building Conferences, with many
sessions devoted to the topic. It is seen as a
distinct and important area of research that seeks
to refi ne and provide rigour in the development
of performance indicators, weighting protocols,
and integrating new assessment criteria, such as
life cycle analysis, into the evaluation of measures.
Generally, the comparison is made between
the methods rather than their organisational
or management structures. Research has also
provided comparisons of various assessment
methods, to illustrate similarities and differences,
typically to assess their application in other
countries or as a basis for the development of
new national assessment methods (Cole, 2005).
13
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
1. E
VALU
ATI
NG
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
DES
IGN
AN
D P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
Their early success has led to the development
of a broad range of systems for differing countries,
community infrastructure, differing building
scales and functions, structures, restoration and
interiors. More recently developed systems, or
‘second generation’ systems, while still employing
the scoring systems of earlier methods,
collectively suggest a transition towards methods
that may enable assessment of economic and
social aspects of building and the extent to which
they can contribute to supporting sustainable
patterns of living. For example the Japanese
Comprehensive Assessment Scheme for Building
Environmental Effi ciency (CASBEE) and the
Hong Kong Comprehensive Environmental
Performance Assessment Scheme (CEPAS)
include performance issues and structural
features that differentiate them from earlier
methods, while others such as the South African
Sustainable Assessment Tool (SBAT) and Ove
Arup’s Sustainable Project Appraisal Routine
(SpeaR) introduced performance criteria that
assess not only environmental, but also social
and economic sustainability (Cole, 2005).
Newer developed systems, while based on fi rst
generation systems, have focussed on national
issues; for example the Australian Green Star
(based on BREEAM) sets higher standards for
water conservation. The independently developed
system German Sustainable Building Certifi cate
(DGNB) emphasises the importance of life
cycle analysis and the impact of building material
selection on indoor air quality and health – an
important issue in colder climatic zones where
very low energy, airtight buildings are essential for
energy conservation.
At the same time, more ambitious frameworks
have been developed with broader principles
for societal sustainability. The Natural Step
Framework assists in the integration of sustainable
development into an organisation’s strategic
planning, based on four principles - reducing
the extraction of natural resources, eliminating
harmful substances and degradation of nature
and natural resources (Natural Step, 2012). It
bases its planning approach on a concept called
back-casting from principles (a vision of the future
determining the actions of today) and is the basis
of The Living Building Challenge – “visionary path
to a restorative future” developed in 2006. This
latter challenges us not to quantify the level of
damage a building has on the environment, but
to evaluate the positive contribution that can be
made based on twenty ‘profound imperatives’.
The International Living Building Institute has
developed a suite of assessment methods for
renovation, landscape or infrastructure, building
and neighbourhoods that evaluate actual, rather
than modelled or anticipated performance
(International Living Building Institute, 2010).
1.5 Current scope and value of building
environmental assessment
Globalisation offers great choice to those selecting
an environmental assessment method. Where
legislation or market forces do not restrict the
choice of system, both international and local
systems can be applied. The more developed
systems, LEED and BREEAM, are increasingly
applied outside of the country of their origin.
LEED has certifi ed projects in 41 countries and
BREEAM International has been used as a base
standard for the development of region-specifi c
systems across Europe and the Gulf region (Jones
Lang LaSalle, 2008).
In more recent years, the growing general
acceptance of building environmental assessment
methods has moved them beyond voluntary
market place mechanisms to adoption by public
agencies and other bodies as performance
specifi cation requirements. Increasingly, the
fi nancial sector (banks and insurance companies)
and the real estate sector (institutional investors,
14IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
fund managers and project developers) are
recognising them as indicators of desirable
performance and risk mitigation (RICS, 2011). An
RICS Research Report of March 2012 documents
a study undertaken at Maastricht University
which indicates that in the developing market
of BREEAM certifi ed commercial buildings in
London there are currently substantial premiums
to be commanded for certifi ed buildings over
non-certifi ed properties with similar basic building
characteristics. Rental rates attract at best a
28% and transactions a 26% premium; however,
building clustering, location, size, storey height,
can all reduce these premia. Signifi cant decrease
is possible as the market for certifi ed buildings
and national standards increases (Chegut et al,
2012). The Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) study results are supported by a recent
examination of the impact of LEED and Energy
Star certifi cation in the US commercial markets
(Eichholtz et al, 2010). While the premiums
documented were lower, 6% and 16% respectively,
this was investigated and accounted for by the
inclusion of Building Owner and Managers
Association (BOMA) building quality control class
defi nitions. The RICS study tested the Eichholtz
analyses with the removal of the building quality
controls and compared the results with those of
New York, Chicago and Washington DC using
the Eichholtz data. The results for these three
cities indicate that when control for building
quality is removed the results are comparable
with the London specifi cations, suggesting that
standardization of building quality measures is
required to provide more comparable data,
which may in the future fi nd substantially lower
premiums for ‘green’ buildings in London. While
real estate agents continue to debate about the
level of premiums, if any, it is fair to say that some
level of premium is currently evident in the rental
and sale of BREEAM and LEED certifi ed buildings.
However, it is the high performance and low
risk aspect of certifi ed buildings that is driving
assessment today, as property investors seek to
reduce risk by lending to those that are perceived
to be socially responsible.
Building environmental assessment methods
have been embraced by building design
professionals, in particular by architects, and
there is increasing interest by other stakeholders
across many developed countries. The inclusion
of life cycle analysis of materials and components
will increase the interest from manufacturers
and suppliers, but the method of compliance
within environmental assessment methods may
be contentious.
However, as yet, there is little understanding
about the equivalence of the methods being used
internationally and with increasingly global fi nancial
and property markets, assessment methods need
to be benchmarked in a clear and transparent
manner (Reed et al, 2009). There is a growing
practice of environmental assessment methods
aligning themselves with particular corporate
targets, addressing regional commitments, using
locally defi ned benchmarks and assessment
criteria, applying differing weightings, providing
little transparency and with all of these systems
vying for market share, so that it is not surprising
that the European Commission is giving attention
to the harmonisation of assessment methodologies
(RICS, 2011), (Reed et al, 2011).
1.6 Development of a common building
environmental assessment methodology
The International Organisation for Standardisation
(ISO) has investigated the need for standardised
tools within the fi eld of sustainable design,
and the formation of the technical committee
ISO/TC59 has led to the publication in 2011
of ISO 21929-1:2011 Sustainability in building
construction – Sustainability indicators – Part 1:
Framework for the development of indicators
15
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
1. E
VALU
ATI
NG
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
DES
IGN
AN
D P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
and a core set of indicators for buildings. It adapts
general sustainability principles for buildings;
includes a framework for developing sustainability
indicators for use in the assessment of economic,
environmental and social impacts of buildings;
determines aspects for consideration when
defi ning a core set of sustainability indicators
for buildings; establishes a core set of indicators;
describes how to use sustainability indicators;
and provides rules for establishing a system
of indicators. ISO 21929-1:2011 does not
give guidelines for the weighting of indicators
or aggregation of assessment results (ISO, 2011).
In Europe, concern that the proliferation
of national building environmental assessment
methods for buildings and construction products
could lead to technical barriers to trade in
Europe led to the European Committee
for Standardisation (CEN) being requested
to develop a harmonised approach to the
measurement of environmental impacts of
construction products and whole buildings across
the entire lifecycle. This was further extended
to include economic and social performance of
buildings. Technical Committee CEN/TC350 has
developed harmonised standards for sustainable
assessment in buildings EN15643-3:2012 and
EN15643-3:2010 and is currently in the approval
process of prEN16309 (CPA, 2012). However,
the fi rst set of published standards will not cover
aspects of social and economic performance –
some of which are considered essential for the
assessment of a building – and these will not be
available until 2013 and beyond (UKGBC, 2011).
The European Commission’s Directorate
General for the Environment funded research
‘Ecolabel and Green Public Procurement
Criteria for Offi ce Buildings’ is a development
of the voluntary Ecolabel ‘fl ower’, established to
encourage manufacturers to introduce individual
products and services that are environmentally
friendly. Under EU procurement law (EC,
2004, a, b) eco-labels for products have been
used in public procurement - both as a source
of environmental criteria for specifi cations or
to illustrate compliance or to award points for
meeting the ecological criteria of the European
Ecolabel (ICLEI, 2008) - and the focus has now
turned to buildings. The study is being carried
out by the EC Joint Research Centre’s Institute
for Prospective Technological Studies (JRC-
IPTS). The proposed criteria for Green Building
Procurement for Offi ce Buildings were developed
through economic and market analysis, technical
study of key environmental impacts, cost, and
public procurement process considerations for
purchasing of new and major renovated offi ce
buildings. A set of ‘core’ criteria were developed
suitable for use by contracting bodies with
minimal additional verifi cation effort or cost
increases, and a set of ‘comprehensive’ criteria
were developed for those who wish to purchase
the best products on the market, which may
require additional verifi cation or a slight increase
in cost (JRC IPTS, 2011). The criteria are based on
scientifi c assessment of the environmental impacts
of the building for each part of the life-cycle and
consider environmental aspects consistent with
commercial environmental assessment methods,
incorporating the emerging CEN standards and
encompassing existing legislation, including the EU
Directive on the Energy Performance of Buildings
(EPBD) (2002/91/EC) (EU, 2002) and its recast in
2010 (2010/31/EU) (EU, 2010).
16IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
The Commission Decision on establishing
the ecological criteria for the EU Ecolabel for
New Buildings underwent public consultation
period to mid- January with public consultation
for GPP criteria until mid-February 2012. The
EU Ecolabel can be awarded to buildings under
Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European
Parliament and of the Council. The World
Green Building Council has responded, as
have individual GBCs. It was expected that the
Ecolabel for Offi ce buildings would be fi nalised
in late 2012; however, the lack of CEN standards
for social and economical aspects may delay its
implementation. The standards developed by
CEN/TC350 should provide the framework for a
harmonized approach throughout Europe in the
environmental assessment of buildings. If there is
a desire to move the EU Ecolabel for buildings
forward quickly, it may well be that existing
building environmental assessment methods could
provide a practical interim route to achievement,
linking proposed Ecolabel performance criteria
with those measured in existing methods.
The EC is also funding a number of European-
wide projects that support the harmonization of
building environmental assessment methods. The
EU FP7 Open House project has as its objective the
development and implementation of a common
European transparent building assessment
methodology, complementing existing ones,
while seeking to address perceived weaknesses
in other methods. The baseline comprises
existing standards, CEN/TC350 and ISO/TC59,
the EPBD and its national transpositions and
methodologies for assessment at international,
European and national level (Open House,
2012). The methodology has been developed
as a two-step assessment method, the ‘simpler’
assessment for application at early design stages
and the ‘complete’ assessment for the fi nished
building. Currently, a method for the assessment
of offi ce buildings is being tested on buildings in
Europe, the outcomes of which will further feed
back into the fi nalised methodology. Cooperation
with another EU FP7 project Sustainability and
Performance assessment and Benchmarking of
Buildings (SuPerBuildings), which is developing
sustainability indicators and benchmarks for
buildings, will advance the proposal for the
development of one building environmental
assessment methodology for Europe. The Open
House project will also provide guidance on the
incorporation of the developed methodology
into green public procurement procedures. The
Longlife project, part funded by the EU Baltic Sea
Region programme 2007-2013, has undertaken a
comparison of worldwide certifi cation systems
for primarily residential buildings and is focussed
on harmonization of building procedures between
EU Member States (Longlife, 2009).
Private initiatives, such as the Sustainable
Building Alliance (SBA), are also seeking
harmonization. SBA is an international non-profi t
organization, established in 2009 by the British
Research Establishment (BRE) and the Centre
Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment (CSTB)
and Certivéa. SBA is seeking the establishment
of a system for assessing the environmental
performance of buildings that is both nationally
effective and recognized on the global scale;
and that is increasingly adopted in Europe and
worldwide. Bringing together developers of
building assessment and certifi cation, standard
setting organizations, national building research
centres and key property industry stakeholders,
they sought to enable the assessment of the main
environmental impacts and to develop a common
international vocabulary for building environmental
assessment, facilitate communication between
stakeholders, support the development of future
assessment schemes and facilitate inter-building
and inter-countries comparisons (SBA, 2012).
Assisted by the International Initiative for a
Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE), they have
17
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
1. E
VALU
ATI
NG
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
DES
IGN
AN
D P
ERFO
RM
AN
CE
developed a core set of assessment criteria that
include primary energy, carbon emissions, indoor
air quality, thermal comfort, water and waste. The
membership has now expanded to 13 countries
(Larsson and Macias, 2012).
It is reported that three of the most common
environmental assessment methods, BREEAM,
Green Star and LEED are developing common
metrics that could assist international stakeholders
to compare certifi cates or ratings in a common
language (Kenneth, 2009). Documentation
generated to demonstrate compliance with
energy credits in BREEAM could be allowed as
an alternative compliance path in LEED (USGBC,
2012a).
A survey undertaken by the International
Real Estate Business School, University of
Regensburg, of thirty national Green Building
Councils worldwide found that 66% of GBCs
saw the potential of creating a global assessment
system and 75% of those saw the framework
of that system coming from a system already in
the market within fi ve years (IREBS, 2011). An
important advantage of an agreed system would
be the comparability of assessment results due
to the standardised assessment procedures
and world wide availability, and the benefi ts of
objective assessment for property and fi nancial
markets. However, providing a very complex
assessment system dealing with numerous
differing national requirements would be diffi cult
to apply (Schultmann et al, 2009). Perhaps the
focus should be on incorporating the standards
that are currently under development into existing
methodologies, making the performance baseline
for evaluation more consistent and providing
greater transparency to facilitate comparability.
1.7 Building environmental assessment
and Green Public Procurement (GPP)
Each year in Europe public authorities spend
the equivalent of 16% of the EU gross domestic
product on the purchase of goods, building and
transport components and services. For most
public authorities, construction and renovation
works, and operating costs of buildings represent
a major share of annual expenditure, in some
cases over 50%. This is highlighted in the
Communication from the Commission in 2008
on Public Procurement for a Better Environment
(COM, 2008a). This Communication is part of
the Action Plan on Sustainable Consumption
and Production and Sustainable Industrial Policy
(SCP/SIP) (COM, 2008b), which establishes a
framework for the integrated implementation
of a mix of instruments aimed at improving the
energy and environmental performances of
products. In 2003 the EC encouraged Member
States to develop National Action Plans (NAP)
for greening their public procurement, which
was closely followed in 2004 by two EU
Directives (Directive 2004/17/EC and Directive
2004/18/EC) that contain specifi c reference
to the possibility of including environmental
considerations in the contract award process.
A review of the situation regarding NAPs
(undertaken within the Open House project)
found that NAPs have been published in many
Member States and measures are being taken to
enhance green public procurement (Eider, 2010).
The EC GPP Training Toolkit is intended to be
a support tool for European public bodies that
want to implement environmental criteria in their
tendering process (EC, 2008). Guidance outlines
that green criteria - Core and Comprehensive -
can be included in the subject matter, technical
specifi cation, selection criteria for tenders, award
criteria and contract performance clauses of
the building tender process, while considering
the overall environmental profi le of the entire
18IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL1.
EVA
LUA
TIN
G E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L D
ESIG
N A
ND
PER
FOR
MA
NC
E
building – including environmental issues
that are embedded in existing environmental
assessment methodologies.
1.8 Building environmental assessment – future development and growth
A need has been identifi ed to standardize methods
internationally and to include social and economic
criteria alongside existing environmental criteria.
However, in harmonising the approach, if not
internationally at least Europe-wide, variation and
fl exibility is required to allow for regional and local
differences that refl ect stakeholder values (Posten
et al, 2010). UK GBC Members recommended
to BRE Global, as part of a consultation process
on the proposed update of BREEAM for 2011,
that BREEAM should be aligned with European
and International standards, but that care should
be taken to ensure fl exibility of approach and
reference to local context (UKGBC, 2009).
Engagement with industry stakeholders was seen
as integral to the process.
Stakeholders with an interest in sustainable
development principles, both on the supply
and demand sides, whose decisions and actions
determine the quality of built environment
and infl uence its contribution to sustainable
development, are growing in number and
becoming more diverse (Lutzkendorf et al,
2011). Sustainable development achievement
depends on the interaction of public policy in the
form of regulation; incentives and disincentives;
involvement of the real estate, fi nance and
insurance industries; the infl uence of education
and training institutions, professional institutes
and construction industry bodies and including
the wide range of stakeholders in this complex
sector of the built environment (Kibert, 2007).
Stakeholder infl uence on the evolution of
building assessment may see the development
of integrated building performance assessment
methodologies that are transparent and accessible,
include stakeholders’ values and knowledge,
consider not only environmental issues but also
social and economic matters in the complete life
cycle of buildings, and a move from predictive
and analytical data to actual building performance
(Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2007), (Kaatz et
al, 2006). The communication of economic
advantages and reduced risks of high performance
buildings into mainstream investment analysis will
effect transformation and growth in the usage
of environmental assessment. Whatever the
future requirements are for building assessment
methods – simple or complex, standardised or
non comparable, voluntary or mandatory - it
seems certain that the focus will shift from ‘what
is possible’ to ‘what is required’ (Lutzkendorf and
Lorenz, 2007).
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
INTERNATIONALENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT METHODS2
20IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S 2.1 Evaluation of signifi cant
environmental assessment methods
Cole has written extensively about the
role of building environmental assessment
methods (Cole, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006,
2011). He has compared and contrasted
the initial intention and current focus with
the increasing emphasis on the wider
‘sustainability’, and in particular social and
economic sustainability. He questions the
extent to which methods can address
complex issues while remaining simple and
practical, and their capacity to enhance
dialogue among stakeholders and frame
sustainability within the political and social
debate. He draws distinctions between
the ‘product’ (the recognizable technical
assessment framework within the method)
and the ‘process’ (issues related to the use of
assessment methods) to emphasize that an
assessment framework is ‘only a means to an
end and not an end in itself ’. The discussion of
systems must go further than their technical
attributes, because in practice many other
factors, including organisational and market
context, fi nancial, and political support and
stakeholder interests are all ‘complicit in
their market acceptance’ (Cole 2006).
Technical criteria within frameworks can
be adapted to suit varying climatic zones,
to mirror national policy and integrate
national building regulations. In assessing
a method, it is the fundamental approach
that is signifi cant which is not singular but
part of a suite such as inclusion of life cycle
issues, the stage of the building life cycle
that they are applied and whether they are
applied when the building is in use (NZGBC,
2006). Other issues to be addressed, apart
from the adaptability of the method and its
alignment to EC policy, Directives and CEN
standards, are the willingness and ability
of an appropriate system to adapt existing
methodologies to refl ect national priorities
and circumstances (for example fuel mix)
or develop new categories if necessary, and
to license or manage the system in a cost
and time effective manner while providing
an appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,
transparent and verifi able system for all
stakeholders. It is in this context that the
evaluation of environmental assessment
methods is undertaken in this study.
The systems chosen here for
further evaluation represent differing
approaches – BREEAM and LEED are
well established designer-focussed
assessment methods, DGNB as
a more recent, broader building value
based method, and the Living Building
Challenge (LBC) as the most stringent and
far-reaching standard.
BREEAM and LEED, considered as
examples of mature fi rst generation systems,
are currently in use in Ireland, albeit in a small
way. DGNB, a more recently developed
German methodology, considered a second
generation system with greater fl exibility, has
been recently adopted by a number of EU
Member States. The Living Building Challenge
is currently being adapted for use in Ireland.
The Building Environmental Assessment
Method for Ireland (IBEAM), a framework
for a building environmental assessment
method developed within the context of an
MArchSc thesis in UCD Architecture, is also
evaluated as it may have a role in informing
the development of a national methodology
for Ireland or may aid in the adaptation of
evaluation criteria for Irish conditions of
existing methods.
Other well known methodologies,
including Green Star, HQE and SBTool,
following review were not considered
appropriate for further evaluation.
21
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
Green Star, the Australian voluntary
environmental assessment method, was
developed in a partnership of Sinclair Knight and
BRE in 2003, but has since been developed and
managed by Green Building Council Australia
(GBCA). While the calculation method is based
on BREEAM, the GBCA adapted it to make its
delivery more akin to LEED (Saunders, 2008).
It has been adapted to suit climatic conditions,
the local environment and construction industry
standard practice and has evolved signifi cantly.
The building certifi cation is expressed in stars: 4
stars Best Practice; 5 stars Australian Excellence;
and 6 stars World Leadership. It has been
used extensively in Australia, New Zealand
and South Africa to evaluate a wide range of
building occupancy profi les, including education,
healthcare, industrial, retail, offi ces, residential
and communities. Four million square metres of
building space have been certifi ed in Australia.
It exists alongside the National Australian Built
Environment Rating System (NABERS), managed
by the New South Wales Government, which
was developed on a national basis in 2000 to
enable building owners and managers to assess
operational impact in order to achieve energy
effi ciencies and cost savings; 60% of offi ce space
has been assessed with NABERS. Green Star
does not have a method for assessing operational
performance, but GBCA is in the development
stages of Green Star Performance, which will
assess the operational performance of existing
buildings. GBCA is working closely with the new
South Wales Government in the development
of the method, recognizing that it is benefi cial to
include the existing NABERS reporting standards
(ASBEC, 2011).
Green Star was developed to accommodate
buildings in hot climates where cooling systems
and solar shading are of major importance. A
comparative study of the energy component of
Green Star, BREEAM and LEED methodologies
highlighted the differing calculation methodologies
employed, and most noticeably the difference
between Energy Star and the BREEAM and
LEED methodologies, which were more similar
in both assessment criteria and results (Roderick
et al, 2009). Reed in his comparison of Energy
Star, BREEAM, LEED and CASBEE states that the
Green Star methodology leads to lower levels of
sustainability compared with BREEAM (Reed et
al, 2011).
Haute Qualité Environmentale (HQE) is the
certifi cation system of Certivéa, a subsidiary of
the Centre Scientifi que et Technique du Bâtiment
(CSTB) which was developed in 2006. It was
used to certify new non-residential buildings
and renovation projects mainly in France. Until
June 2012 the HQE methodology was not
available in either an English or international
version, which made it diffi cult to evaluate.
Denmark’s Green Building Council (GBCD),
within the process of adapting an environmental
assessment method, carried out a pilot study by
undertaking a comparative assessment of two
large offi ce buildings using BREEAM, DGNB,
HQE and LEED. The most important issues
considered were adaptability, alignment with
EU Directives and CEN Standards, costs for
implementation, and international visibility of
the method. Both BREEAM and DGNB were
considered most suitable, HQE was not seen to
be easily comparable and took the design team
considerably more time to implement, and LEED
was rejected because of its non-alignment with EU
policy and standards (Benchmark Centre, 2010).
However to extend its expertise and expand into
new markets, Certivéa have just launched a new
methodology ‘HQE international certifi cation
for non-residential buildings’. It has been tested
on pilot projects in the UK, Morocco, Germany,
Luxembourg, Belgium and Italy. It is based on
assessing performance through a new method
compatible with indicators including those of
22IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
Sustainable Building Alliance and CEN TC/350. It
will be some time before the methodology can
be comparatively evaluated.
The SBTool is the fi rst collaborative
international assessment tool developed by iiSBE,
a worldwide network of professionals in the
sustainable built environment. It was originally
developed as the GBTool by the Green Building
Challenge (GBC) to address the shortcomings of
other assessment tools and to develop a system
that incorporates regional variations (Ding, 2008).
The SB method is a generic framework and can
be used by authorized third parties to prepare
adapted SBTool versions as rating systems to
suit local regions and building types. Italy, Spain,
Portugal and the Czech Republic have utilized
the framework in the development of national
assessment methods. The system is not based
on credits, but on scores that are derived from
the comparison of the building with a national
reference building. It allows national issues to
be prioritized while being harmonized with EU
standards. It is normal for the national chapter
of iiSBE to develop a SBTool in conjunction with
a GBC or academic group, a process seen to
require greater technical expertise in comparison
with adapting an existing method (Fowler
and Rauch, 2006). While Ireland could adapt
the SBTool Verde for Ireland, the value of the
SBTool is that the original framework could be
developed as a national method specifi cally for
Ireland. GBTool was evaluated with BREEAM and
LEED within the IBEAM study and found to have
the widest criteria for evaluation at that time and
this infl uenced the development of the IBEAM
methodology, which is evaluated further in
this section.
2.2 Evaluation of BREEAM, LEED,
DGNB and Living Buildings Challenge
(LBC) systems
While there have been many research-based
and commercial studies undertaken to compare
selected groups of assessment methods, many
of these are out of date. Newer versions of the
methodologies, eg. LEED NC, v2.0, v2.1 and
v2.2, have become available, and also several
methodologies can be used for similar building
profi les; eg. BREEAM Offi ces, BREEAM Europe
Commercial, and BREEAM International all can
be used to assess offi ce buildings depending on
location. Too often, the specifi c building profi le
or assessment method version is not referenced,
making it diffi cult to draw robust conclusions.
In seeking to provide consistant indicative
information on internationally applied systems
in this study, the versions selected for review
represent current systems for a similar occupancy
profi le: BREEAM 2009 Europe Commercial;
DGNB 2009 New Construction for Offi ces and
Administrative Buildings and LEED 2009 New
Construction and Major Renovations (which
is used for many occupancy profi les including
offi ce buildings) and the Living Building Challenge
2011 Building. While BREEAM does have an
international bespoke system which can be
nationally adapted LEED does not have a specifi c
international system and DGNB is currently
developing such a system. The LBC does not
differentiate between occupancy profi les, or new
and existing, so the Building typology is used for
this evaluation. The study did not evaluate other
occupancy or retrofi t profi les available within the
systems; however, it would be advisable to do so
at a later stage.
23
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
The evaluation criteria are listed below:
1. System Application and Maturity
Type of project / buildings ❚
Number of buildings certifi ed/registered ❚
System age ❚
Stability of system ❚
Proven track record ❚
Applicability/internationalization ❚
2. Technical Content
Relevance to sustainability – environmental/ ❚
social/economic
Thoroughness ❚
Standardisation ❚
Quantifi cation- categories, criteria, weightings, ❚
classifi cations tables
Certifi cation and verifi cation ❚
3. Potential for Development and
Adaptation
System management ❚
Development approach ❚
Openness of operations ❚
Ease of adaptation ❚
Cost adaptation and use ❚
Product support and training ❚
4. Comparability and
Communicability
Comparability ❚
Transparency ❚
Results usability ❚
Source: based on Review Criteria for Rating Systems,
Fowler and Rauch, 2006.
BREEAM
BREEAM was developed by the Building Research
Establishment (BRE) in the UK in 1990 and is seen
by many as the world’s foremost environmental
assessment method and rating system for
buildings. Being the fi rst environmental building
method developed, it leads with 200,000 certifi ed
BREEAM assessment ratings, and over a million
buildings registered for assessment since it was fi rst
launched. BREEAM has a range of versions that
cover many occupancy profi les: residential, multi-
residential, offi ces, retail, industrial, education,
healthcare, prisons, courts, data centres. It has an
international bespoke version that can be adapted
for any building type in other countries. It also has
versions for refurbishment, for in-use buildings,
and for communities. It has been adapted for use
in the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and Sweden.
It is also the basis for many of the other building
environmental assessment methods that have
been developed internationally, including those
of Canada, Australia and Hong Kong (BRE,
2011). BREEAM has been adopted in the UK as
a standard for both public and private sector
buildings. The Department of the Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) requires a
minimum of BREEAM ‘Excellent’ for new build
construction and the Scottish Funding Council and
the Northern Ireland Dept of Education require
the same standard for educational buildings.
DEFRA requires ‘Very Good’ for refurbishment
of buildings. Private sector companies such as
Marks and Spencer and John Lewis also build to
the ‘Excellent’ standard. The Code for Sustainable
Homes was published in 2006 and adopted for
building regulation compliance in England and
Wales, with specifi c Code levels to be achieved for
social housing. Code Level 3 has been adopted by
the Housing Communities Agencies, the Welsh
Association and the Northern Ireland Executive
as a minimum standard for new-build housing.
There are 44 buildings registered for assessment
24IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S and 17 certifi ed buildings in Ireland (BRE, 2012).
DGNB
DGNB was developed by the German Sustainable
Building Council and the Federal Ministry of
Transport, Building and Urban Affairs (BMVBS)
in 2007. It has an increasing range of occupancy
profi les such as new, modernisation and existing
offi ce and administration buildings, modernisation
and new retail, and new educational, industrial
and residential buildings, hotels and mixed
city districts. Systems being developed include
airports and sports and parking facilities. It has
been adapted for use in Denmark, Brazil and
China and has approx. 225 buildings certifi ed to
date. There are no certifi ed buildings in Ireland
(DGNB, 2012).
LEED
LEED was developed by the United States Green
Building Council (USGBC) in 1998. It was the
only environmental assessment system in North
America until the Green Building Initiative in
Canada introduced Green Globes in 2000, which
is now used for smaller projects while LEED is
used for larger projects in Canada. It is the system
most widely used by Federal and state agencies in
the US.
LEED has a range of occupancy profi les for
new construction, existing buildings operation and
maintenance, core and shell, commercial interiors,
new and existing schools, retail, healthcare,
homes and neighbourhood development. It also
has application guides that increase its fl exibility in
terms of the types of project that can be certifi ed
(USGBC, 2011). There are LEED projects in over
114 countries around the world. There are 10
registered LEED projects and two certifi ed LEED
Gold projects in Ireland (USGBC, 2012b).
LBC
LBC is a programme developed by the
International Living Future Institute (ILFI, formerly
the International Living Building Institute), which
joins the Cascadia Green Building Council with
the Natural Step Network USA and Ecotone
Publishing. Since its launch in 2006 the Challenge
is now established in USA and Canada and being
introduced in Ireland. It provides a framework
for design, construction and a symbiotic
relationship between people and all aspects of
the built environment and is the most ambitious
measure of sustainability in the built environment
today. It sets goals for projects that aim to be
restorative, regenerative or net zero impact. It is
a philosophy, an advocacy tool, and certifi cation
programme that addresses development at
all scales. The framework can be applied to
landscape and infrastructure projects; partial
renovations and complete building renewals; new
building construction; and neighborhood, campus
and community design (ILBI, 2010). There are six
certifi ed projects and 110 registered projects to
date, mainly in the USA. Living Building Institute
Ireland (LBII) has been formed but there are no
projects registered in Ireland (O’Brien, 2012).
25
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
Number of Buildings Certifi ed
Many buildings claim to be designed and built to
a particular standard, but without verifi cation.
Many others have been registered for assessment
but not certifi ed. There are many confl icting
statistics regarding the ever-changing number
of buildings certifi ed, or within the assessment
process but not intending to, within the differing
systems; and complicated by differing types of
measurement (building number or area), building
profi les, versions and world locations. Also, many
certifi ed buildings do not provide information to
the public. RICS Sustainable Building Certifi cation
Statistics Europe provides the most up-to-date
published fi gures of commercial buildings in
Europe and indicates over 2,000 buildings in the
pipeline for assessment in 2009/2010 within the
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and HQE commercial
building systems (RICS, 2011). There are no
commercial buildings in Europe certifi ed to the
LBC system (O’Brien, 2012).
26IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
79IRL
111L
289B
41P
954E
549F
38A
414CZ
621PL
326S
520FL
1111RUS
614HU
256I
824TR
4CH
284NL 8
149165D
1500approx
38GB
Commercial Buildings Registered for Certifi cation in EuropeMay 2011
Totals: BREEAM
DGNB
LEED
LBC
Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC).
1,699 Approx
149
488
0
27
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
IRL
15L
91B
1P
312E
151F
16A
2CZ
34PL
34S
9FL
11
RUS
32HU
55I
35TR
1CH
82NL 6
1719D
4000approx
8GB
Certifi ed Commercial Buildings in EuropeMay 2011
Totals: BREEAM
DGNB
LEED
LBC
Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC).
4,061 Approx
183
66
0
28IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S 2.2.2 Technical Content,
Measurability and Verifi cation
BREEAM: Europe Commercial 2009
Categories and Weighting: Management ❚
(12%), Health and Wellbeing (15%),
Energy (19%), Transport (8%), Water (6%),
Materials (12.5%), Waste (7.5%), Land Use
and Ecology (10%), Pollution (10%), (and a
further possible Innovation (10)).
Credit Score: Credits awarded for each of ❚
the nine weighted categories, 59 criteria
with a possible 112 points, to achieve
Unclassifi ed, Pass, Good, Very Good,
Excellent or Outstanding certifi cation.
Performance Certifi cation Rating: ❚
Unclassifi ed <30%, Pass ≥30% points
required, Good ≥45% points, Very Good
≥55% points, Excellent ≥70% points,
Outstanding ≥85% points required.
Certifi cation phases: Design Stage (leading ❚
to Interim Certifi cate), Post-Construction
Stage review and assessment (leading to
Final Certifi cate).
Certifi cation process: Only a BRE ❚
licensed assessor can register a building
for assessment or certifi cation at design
interim and post-construction ‘as built’
stages. The assessor’s fee will depend
on the service that the client requires
(eg. design guidance input) and the
type of assessment procedure. Interim
design stage certifi cation would typically
take place between the end of the
detailed design stage and the beginning
of operations on site. Final certifi cation,
which relies on ‘as built’ evidence of
compliance with BREEAM, will occur
toward the end of operations on site
and handover of the building. There
is no annual fee charged to assessors,
although a lodgement fee per assessment
is charged. The registration fee for
international commercial projects varies
from approx. €835 for buildings less
than 5,000m2 to €1,615 if greater than
50,000m2 fl oor area. Buildings can be
assessed at design and post-construction
stages of the process. There are different
fees for design interim, post construction
review (PCR) and post-construction
assessment (PCA) fi nal certifi cation.
They vary from €1,795 to €2,755 for
design interim and €2,635 to €4,370 for
PCA certifi cation ranging from less than
5,000m2 to greater than 50,000m2. There
are also additional fees varying from €180
for a re-submission to €1200 for applying
the ‘innovation’ credit, and €1,795
for translation.
DGNB: Offi ce and Administrative
Buildings 2009
Categories and Weighting: Environmental ❚
Quality (22.5%), Economical Quality
(22.5%), Socio-cultural and Functional
Quality (22.5%), Technical Quality
(22.5%), Process Quality (10%) and Site
Quality (rated independently). The fi rst
four evaluation areas have equal weight,
giving substantial weighting to economic
sustainability in comparison with the other
methods.
Credit Score: Credits are awarded for ❚
each of fi ve weighted categories, and 42
criteria, which can receive 10 points each
(but can also be weighted as much as
three-fold or disregarded entirely, based
on national relevance and its perceived
importance for the building profi le) to
achieve Bronze, Silver and Gold.
Performance Certifi cation Rating: Bronze ❚
50%, Silver 65%, Gold 80%.
Certifi cation phases: Project Development, ❚
Planning and Construction,
In-use, Modernisation.
Certifi cation Process: The accredited ❚
29
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
assessor registers the project for pre-
certifi cation or certifi cation. Detailed
information about the project, the building
owner, and the auditor is needed for
registration. Furthermore, the assessor
indicates the date by which all documentation
is to be submitted to DGNB for review. If
the real building type differs considerably
from the occupancy profi le selected for
certifi cation (for example due to mixed
use), the DGNB reserves the right to refuse
the review. Registration therefore does not
guarantee that a conformity inspection will be
conducted or that the certifi cation process
will be carried out. Upon registration, the
building owner receives a project-specifi c
contract required for the certifi cation process.
Once the contract has been signed and
returned to the DGNB, the building owner
receives a fee invoice. The fee depends
on building fl oor area. The fee for Pre-
certifi cation varies from €4,000 for buildings
of less than 4,000m2 to €13,000 for those
greater than 80,000m2 fl oor area. The fee for
Certifi cation varies from €6,000 for buildings
of less that 4,000m2 to €28,000 for buildings
of more than 80,000m2. The auditor compiles
all of the relevant project documentation
and presents it to the DGNB for the review.
The documentation must be compiled in
accordance with DGNB guidelines and
criteria to simplify the review process;
otherwise, the review cannot be carried
out. As part of the conformity inspection,
each project is thoroughly studied in two
consecutive reviews. If the assessor or building
owner insists on additional reviews (of no
more than 10 criteria), the DGNB will charge
an extra € 2,000. The conformity inspection
can only be carried out after all certifi cation
fees have been paid. The building owner and
auditor are generally informed of the fi nal
result of the inspection within 6 to 8 weeks. If
the documentation submitted complies with
the requirements for the DGNB certifi cate,
the building owner will receive the Certifi cate
or Pre-certifi cate for the construction project.
LEED: New Construction 2009
Categories and Weighting: Sustainable Sites ❚
(26%), Water Effi ciency (10%), Energy and
Atmosphere (35%), Materials and Resources
(14%), Indoor Environmental Quality (15%),
(and a further possible Innovation and Design
Process (6) and Regional Priority (4)). The
number of criteria and possible points within
the categories determine the weighting.
Credit Score: Credits awarded for each of ❚
the seven categories, for 58 criteria with a
possible 110 points.
Performance Certifi cation Rating: Certifi ed ❚
40-49 points, Silver 50-59 points, Gold 60-69
points, Platinum 80 points or over.
Certifi cation Phases: Design and Construction ❚
– can be split or combined.
Certifi cation Process: Registration serves as ❚
a declaration of intent to certify a building
or neighbourhood development under
the LEED Green Building Rating Systems.
Registration is completed online on payment
of registration fee of approx. €915 which
provides access to a variety of tools and
resources. At this stage the project team is
assembled and the documentation process
begins. Only the LEED Project Administrator
is eligible to submit a completed application
for Review. The review can combine design
and construction, or can be split into two.
Requirements for a complete application
vary according to the review path, but will
always include payment of the appropriate
Certifi cation Review Fee, which varies
depending on building fl oor area from €2,100
for projects of less than 4,645m2 to €21,000
30IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
for projects with more than 46,450m2. Prior
to certifi cation, all project teams are required
to submit completed documentation for
all prerequisites and at least the minimum
number of credits required to achieve
certifi cation, as well as completed general
project information forms. Upon receipt of
a completed application for Certifi cation, a
formal application review will be initiated.
Appeals can be submitted, and fees are
calculated based on the number of credits
appealed (€500 per credit), regardless of how
many points are appealed within
those credits.
LBC: Building 2011
Categories and weightings: Site, Water, Energy, ❚
Health, Materials, Equity and Beauty.
Credit score: Credits awarded for seven ❚
Categories (Petals) with a total of twenty
criteria (Imperatives).
Performance Certifi cation Rating: Living ❚
Building Challenge, Petal Recognition
(minimum three categories) and Net Zero
Energy Building Certifi cation. There are no
levels of certifi cation, certifi cation is achieved
or not.
Certifi cation phases: Post-occupancy ❚
Certifi cation (following 12 month operation).
Certifi cation Process: Because the ❚
programme is an innovative performance-
based standard, support and guidance is
provided throughout the project design and
specifi cation. The registration fee is €400 for
a new build commercial project. Following
online registration of the project, technical
assistance, design charette and dialogue
activity commences with the ILFI to support
the design and construction team through the
process and to achieve certifi cation. Within
the fi rst twelve months of operation, actual
performance data is collected to provide ILFI
auditors with suffi cient information to review,
visit the project and provide certifi cation.
Certifi cation fees vary according to fl oor area
and certifi cation type. Fees for commercial
new build projects less than 500m2 are
€1,200 for Petal Recognition and €2,000
for Certifi cation, and these increase to a
maximum for projects over 50,000m2 of
€12,000 for Petal Recognition up to €20,000
for Certifi cation.
Source of fee data: fee data provided is indicative
for commercial projects, collated from the website
of each provider between March and May 2012,
and has been converted to metric units and €
currency. Fees indicated are exclusive of taxes
and are those available to non-members where
differences apply. Because the fees are determined
by project area in sliding bands it is not possible to
provide a direct comparison between schemes,
and perhaps not appropriate either to do so. In
comparing the costs associated with each system
it is necessary to review all costs concurrently and
these include system adoption and adaptation
fees, annual licensing fees, assessor training fees
and project registration and certifi cation fees.
For example, BREEAM charges a substantial
annual licence and audit fee but a lower project
certifi cation fee. DGNB does not charge an
annual fee but has larger certifi cation fees. Fees
also vary in the proportion which is retained by
system owners and national operators.
31
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DSComparison of certifi cation ratings,
categories, criteria and weighting
The four assessment methods determine
performance certifi cation ratings that are
not comparable, because of the high level of
variation that occurs between the assessment
methods. While all four methods are based
on categorisation of criteria for credit or point
assessment or achievement, they are arranged
and allocated in different ways. In BREEAM
there are 59 criteria arranged in nine categories,
in DGNB 49 criteria are allocated to six
performance or quality categories, in LEED 58
criteria are presented in seven categories and
in the LBC there are 20 criteria or imperatives
in seven categories or petals.
En
erg
y
He
alt
h &
We
llb
ein
g
La
nd
use
&
Eco
no
my
Wa
ter
Ma
teri
als
Po
llu
tio
n
Wa
ste
Tra
nsp
ort
Ma
na
ge
me
nt
0
5
10
15
20
%
En
vir
on
me
nta
l Q
uali
ty
Eco
no
mic
al
Qu
ali
ty
So
cio
-Cu
ltu
ral
an
d
Fu
nct
ion
al
Qu
ali
ty
Te
chn
ical
Qu
ali
ty
Pro
cess
Q
uali
ty
% 0
5
10
15
20
25
% 0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
En
erg
y a
nd
Atm
osp
he
re
Ind
oo
r a
ir
qu
ali
ty
Su
sta
ina
ble
Str
ess
Wa
ter
Eff
icie
ncy
Ma
teri
als
an
d
Re
sou
rce
s
En
erg
y
He
alt
h
Sit
e
Wa
ter
Ma
teri
als
Eq
uit
y
Be
au
ty
% 0
5
10
15
BREEAM
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC - Categories and
weightings of each system
DGNB
LEED
LBC
32IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S In terms of the weighting applied to the issues,
the main differences are evident as energy,
management and economic issues. Energy
is an important aspect of all four methods;
however, the importance given to energy,
which has considerable impact on the overall
rating, differs (10% in DGNB, 14% in LBC, 19%
in BREEAM and 32% in LEED) but there is little
relationship between the fi gures and the energy
effi ciency of a building. Energy is considered
in differing ways (DGNB aggregates life cycle
energy over fi fty years and includes embodied
environmental impacts), and baseline standards
differ. The high reward of 32% in LEED does
not translate to high energy savings, as one can
achieve a LEED Silver certifi cate without any
energy saving measures over and above the
pre-requisite, and only when striving for Gold
or Platinum certifi cate does improving energy
saving become a necessity.
The main emphasis of all four assessment
methods is on environmental aspects, although
all address societal aspects to some extent;
however, only DGNB addresses economic
quality and this aspect has equal weighting
with the other two recognised strands of
sustainability. LBC does not evaluate the cost of
strategies but does encompass life cycle issues.
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC - environmental, so-cial and economic aspects. Source: based on Alinghiza-deh Kherzi, 2011 (amended to include LBC).
ENVIRONMENT
ECONOMYSOCIETY
SUSTAINABILITY
BREEAM:Pollution,Land use & Ecology,
Energy, Waste,MaterialsWater
LBC:Site,
Water, Energy,
Materials.
BREEAM:Transport.
BREEAM:Health and wellbeing
DGNB:Sociocultural and functional quality.
LCB:Health, Equity, Beauty,
Education
DGNB:Economical
Quality.
DGNB:Ecological Quality
LEED:Material &resourcesEnergy andatmosphere,
Water effi ciency, sustainable sites
33
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
The graphics illustrate the issues and the
requirements in each scheme (divided into
environmental, social and economical strands) as
evaluated to indicate the depth of consideration
from fully considered as an issue or indicator
to partially considered or not considered at all.
In particular, certain issues, such as economic
considerations (life cycle cost) and socio-cultural
and functional aspects, were only addressed in
DGNB. For example, building life cycle cost is fully
considered as an issue in DGNB, is considered as
an indicator moderately in BREEAM and partly in
LEED and LBC (Munch, 2009).
BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC – topic assessed based on assessment criteria and weightings. Source: based on
Alinghizadeh Kherzi, 2011, (amended to include LBC).
Land use and Ecology
Sustainable Sites
Energy and Atmosphere
Water Effi ciency
Materials and Resources
Renewable Energy
Pollution and Emissions
Waste Recycling
Transport / Location & Linkages
Maintenance and Operation
Economic Quality
Indoor Environment Quality
Health and Wellbeing
Socio-Cultural Aspects
Function
Management
Innovation / design process
Sys
tem
Livi
ng B
uild
ing
Cha
lleng
e
LEED
DG
NB
BREE
AM
Fully considered as a topic
fully considered as an indicator
partly considered
not considered
34IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
These variations highlight the complexity of
comparing environmental assessment methods
and the necessity for in-depth knowledge of
the assessment criteria, credits and weightings,
and also of their development context and
baseline assumptions, when considering the
adoption and adaptation of an assessment
method – and in particular, if it is to be used for
international building performance comparisons.
At a national level, undertaking assessments of
representative occupancy profi le buildings using
each assessment method should achieve a more
precise comparative analysis, highlight the issues
to be addressed in adoption and modifi cations
for adaptation.
2.2.3. Potential for Development and Adaptation
In order to assess the development potential
of the four systems, the IGBC requested an
Expression of Interest from the system providers
to set out how the system providers might
work with the IGBC if they were to be the
organisation to deliver certifi cation in Ireland.
The request letter included a number of issues
to be discussed within the Expression of Interest,
and all four system providers responded to the
request. These included:
possibility for adaptation of the system ❚
specifi cally to take account of EU legislation,
Irish Building Regulations, and regional
variations such as climate, construction
techniques etc., stating how the process
had been managed in other countries, the
timescale for development of an Irish ‘version’
and for full implementation of a
certifi cation system;
level of input the IGBC or other Irish ❚
stakeholders could or would have into the
adaptation of the certifi cation system;
possibility of creating a specifi c new profi le ❚
within the certifi cation system (e.g. retrofi t,
single housing etc); and the time scale
required for development;
cost for the adaptation process for each ❚
profi le of building;
fees for building registration and certifi cation; ❚
annual fee or fee for national operator or ❚
licensing arrangements with the IGBC;
costs for any training that would be provided; ❚
where the national adaptation or the national ❚
licensing of a system was not permitted the
system provider was requested to suggest
other means by which the provider could
cooperate with the IGBC in assisting greater
uptake of environmental assessment
of buildings.
Refer to Appendix A for full Expression of
Interest request.
The following text includes edited information
taken directly from the responses from each
system provider and should be viewed in
that context.
BREEAM
BRE Global manages the BREEAM application in all
countries except those where BREEAM has been
adapted specifi cally for that country and where a
National Scheme Operator has been appointed.
Such is the case for BREEAM NL, BREEAM NOR
and BREEAM SE which are all operated under
licence by the national Green Building Council,
while BREEAM ES is operated by the Fundacion
Instituto Technológico de Galicia.
BREEAM, when used in all other countries is
operated by BRE Global, and the most often used
methods are BREEAM International Bespoke,
Europe Commercial, Communities and In-use.
BREEAM International Bespoke can be used to
35
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
assess single developments anywhere in the world
when the building function falls outside the scope
of the BREEAM Europe Commercial scheme
and the country-specifi c schemes operated
by National Scheme Operators. BREEAM
International Bespoke is an assessment method
that can be used at the design, construction,
initial occupation and refurbishment stages of
a building’s lifecycle. It can be tailored to suit
national circumstances, and the assessor can
work with BRE to develop assessment criteria
specially tailored to a building where it doesn’t fi t
neatly into one of the existing schemes (Parker,
2009). In examining the national adoption or
adaptation of existing methodologies the full suite
of BRE methodologies should be considered,
including the Code for Sustainable Homes which
is perceived to be a valuable framework in the
future achievement of zero carbon or carbon
neutral residential buildings (UKGBC, 2009).
The similarity of Irish building regulation,
procurement and design processes and
construction methods to those of the UK would
suggest that the adoption of a suite of BRE
methods could be achieved without diffi culty.
Training to become a certifi ed BREEAM
Assessor is delivered by BRE. A BREEAM
International assessor can carry out assessments
outside the UK using standard or Bespoke
International schemes. Training comprises three
day training, written examination and home-based
case study. The training costs approx. €1,885.
There is no annual licence fee for International
assessors. A professional member of the design
team can become a BREEAM Accredited
Professional (AP); if an AP is part of the design
team up to three credits are awarded. Training
comprises mainly on-line training, workshop and
written examination, and costs approx. €850.
There are a number of ways to work with
BRE to adapt BREEAM to Irish conditions which
include two options:
National Scheme Operator (NSO): The
development of a new scheme adapted to local
conditions, subject to approval by BRE Global, to
be affi liated to BRE but operated by the National
Scheme Operator under licence by BRE Global.
The scheme operator could be the IGBC. The
organisation must sign a licence agreement
with BRE Global that sets out the contractual
responsibilities for themselves and BRE Global, the
terms and conditions and fees. The organisation
must contribute to the ongoing development of
BREEAM by actively participating in the NSO
activities. The length of the process depends on
the level of adaptation and the availability of local
experts to form representative working groups
to advance the adaptation of the scheme. The
timescale of the full process for an organisation to
become a NSO and approve an affi liated scheme
is typically over 18 months. The annual licence
fee associated with an NSO is approx. €38,000
for all approved schemes in the fi rst Life Cycle
Stage (there are fi ve Life Cycle Stages: Planning,
New Construction, In Use, Refurbishment and
Deconstruction) and €6,250 for all Approved
Schemes under each subsequent Life Cycle Stage.
An annual audit fee of €18,800 covers all audits
by BRE Global for the NSO at any stage during
the year. The NSO defi nes the Certifi cation and
Training fees but provides 5% of the income to
BRE Global. The development of new schemes,
not already within the BRE suite, can only be
undertaken within this framework; however, BRE
Global has expressed a willingness to negotiate
with the IGBC.
Technical Development: BRE Global operates
a procedure that allows country-specifi c codes or
standards to be added to the International New
Construction 2012 scheme which is operated
by BRE Global following the development of
the country specifi c issues with, and approved
by, BRE Global. The IGBC, or another industry
body, could be the organisation to develop the
appropriate technical changes with BRE Global.
36IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
The changes are generally limited to Checklist
A10. The timescale of the technical work will
depend on the content delivered by the national
organisation, which will collect the information
and develop an appropriate Checklist A10. The
production of a country-specifi c checklist, rather
than a scheme, would mean that the BREEAM
International scheme would have a quicker
uptake and would be less costly to adapt. BRE
Global act as the Certifi cation body and operate
the scheme. Standard International fees apply for
registration and certifi cation.
BRE also subcontract training to both NSOs
or other bodies such as the IGBC even where the
national organisation is only involved in technical
development. Training costs vary dependent
on the scheme, but for example the fee for the
BREEAM International Course is €1,850 (BRE,
2012).
DGNB
DGNB is a non-profi t and non-governmental
organization that operates and certifi es the DGNB
Certifi cation System. An international DGNB
Partner network has been established with a
view to drawing up cooperation agreements
or memoranda of understanding to provide
a DGNB system tailored to local needs.
Where partners are not yet established or
adaptations not yet completed, DGNB offers
certifi cation based on EU legislation, standards
and technical guidelines.
The DGNB Academy was founded to
provide expertise on sustainable building to all
stakeholders and provides training to specifi c
needs. DGNB provides training for international
assessors. The DGNB Navigator is an on-line
platform for sustainable construction products.
The DGNB is based on a modular structure
and on the defi nition of performance targets,
not individual measures. The basic intention
underlying the creation of the DGNB system was
to allow an easy and fast adaptation to different
types of climates, building types, standards,
building techniques, etc. The systematic
approach underlying DGNB is not changed in an
adaptation process. What does change, however,
is the interface between the basic structure and
local specifi cs. The DGNB system is based on
European standards (CEN/TC 350); national
adaptation within Europe is thus particularly easy.
As long as there are no major climatic differences,
no major adjustments are needed. Through
the defi nition of targets (rather than specifi c
measures), adaptation to different construction
techniques and different building products is
not diffi cult.
The DGNB system has already been adapted
to various countries such as Austria, Bulgaria,
Denmark, and Switzerland. An adaptation of
the system to Brazil, China, and the Ukraine is
under way. The adaptation of the core system
and the training of the fi rst Irish auditors (who
would then work as local experts on the system
adaptation) should take approximately six
months. The certifi cation of pilot projects, the
subsequent evaluation of the adapted system,
and the full implementation of the DGNB
system would take approximately another
12-18 months.
The procedure for the adaptation of the
DGNB system to another country usually is as
follows: training of local experts – creation of local
technical committees – adaptation in cooperation
with DGNB – pilot projects – revision of adapted
system – full implementation – continuous
update and widening of the adapted system in
cooperation with DGNB and the International
DGNB Board respectively.
37
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
The Irish Green Building Council and other
Irish stakeholders, as well as Irish green building
experts, would be crucial for the adaptation
process. DGNB provides basic system input and
supports the adaptation; however, local know-
how as well as national target values can only be
provided and defi ned by the Irish themselves.
For DGNB, adaptation is a process that is part
of an international movement, but that is strongly
driven by local groups.
The creation of specifi c new occupancy
profi les in accordance with DGNB is always
possible as long as the basic systematic approach
is maintained. If applicable, these methods can
also be made available to other members of the
DGNB network. The expected timescale for the
development of a new scheme is approximately
6 months (but again, this depends very much on
the dedication of the local experts working on
the development).
The main task is the adaptation of the core
system – the adaptation of individual schemes
can follow suit relatively quickly. Adaptation is
normally carried out by local experts working
on a voluntary basis. DGNB provides a limited
amount of support without charge (approximately
the equivalent of 300 man hours). Any specifi c
consultancy that may be required in addition to
the general support (e.g. LCA training) is offered
at a daily rate of €1,000 (+ VAT and travel
expenses) per trainer.
The certifi cation fee charge by the IGBC is set
by the IGBC itself (in agreement with DGNB).
DGNB receives 15 per cent of these fees in
exchange for providing the system content, the
brand, support in the adaptation process and
regular updates of the system. DGNB does
not charge any annual fees or additional cost to
IGBC.
The cost for consultant training is roughly
€3,000 for a member of a partner GBC. DGNB
can provide tailor-made arrangements with
reduced rates if partnered with local councils or
group training. Profi ts resulting from such training
in Ireland are split equally between DGNB and
IGBC (DGNB, 2012).
LEED
The USGBC, the developer of the LEED
environmental assessment method, does not
manage its certifi cation process, but provides
training and information to assist in the
achievement of LEED certifi cation. Certifi cation
occurs through the Green Building Certifi cation
Institute (GBCI), an independent non-profi t
organisation that was established in 2008 with
the support of USGBC. GBCI administers LEED
certifi cation for all commercial and institutional
projects registered under any LEED Rating
System, in USA or abroad. USGBC administers
the development and ongoing improvement
of the LEED rating systems. USGBC is also the
primary source for LEED and green building
education and resources for project teams, such
as reference guides, rating system addenda,
workshops, online trainings and other support
tools. GBCI and Green Building Council Italia
have joined forces in support of the pilot LEED
Italia scheme (LEED Italia 2009 por le Nuove
Costruzioni). GBCI maintains control of the
certifi cation process. LEED has been adapted for
Canada, Costa Rica, Mexico, Brazil and India.
Training to become a LEED Accredited
Professional (AP) is provided by USGBC, but
the Green Building Certifi cation Institute (GBCI)
administers the LEED Professional Credentials and
Exams. It is not necessary to be a trained LEED
AP, which costs approx €450, to undertake an
assessment but a point is awarded if so qualifi ed.
38IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
LEED has not been created with the ability
to adapt or to be managed on a national basis,
although the pilot scheme in Italy did suggest a
change. However, it is tied to ASHRAE standards
and is USA-focused in its approach to many issues
(Parker, 2009).
The USGBC has moved away from the
development of country adapted certifi cation
systems in favour of a globally consistent LEED
assessment and certifi cation system that has
built-in fl exibility for dealing with regional
conditions. The certifi cation system, which is
based on ASHRAE standards, cannot currently
be adapted to suit European or national legislation
or standards. Some fl exibility is in-built in the
provision of Alternative Compliance Paths (to
be renamed as Global Options) that can be used
instead of original credit requirements outside of
the US where original aspects might be diffi cult
to achieve. LEED asserts the benefi t of global
consistency, ensuring that LEED projects and
LEED project professionals are recognized for
their leadership no matter where the project or
the person is located.
The USGBC sees the lack of input by national
organizations and GBC as a positive feature that
allows the GBC to free up its resources from
rating system development and maintenance
in favour of other activities such as advocacy,
education, market awareness and focusing on
specials projects. Many GBCs support LEED,
generally alongside other adopted systems. Ways
in which USGBC work with national groups or
GBCs include providing content for education, up-
to-date information about LEED and encouraging
LEED Professionals to participate in GBC events
(USGBC, 2012b).
LBC
The Living Building Institute Ireland (LBII), affi liated
to the International Living Future Institute, is the
independent primary host, management and
certifi cation body of LBC for Ireland. However,
collaboration with the IGBC may be possible
to allow limited rights to co-host/present and
endorse the LBC, subject to an annual licence fee
of €500 or €100 project referral fee (whichever
is greater). Standard registration and certifi cation
fees would be reviewed in light of an endorsement
agreement.
The LBII will shortly complete translation
of the international LBC standard to suit
Irish conditions, culture, and language. When
completed and ratifi ed it will represent an LBC
version considered suitable for Ireland and,
subject to occasional revisions, further adaptation
will not be necessary and is not envisaged. The
LBC for Ireland includes the four standard LBC
project typologies and no other typologies are
envisaged or possible for development.
Training will be provided by the LBII and fees will
be negotiable (O’Brien, 2012).
2.2.4 Comparability and
Communicability
As stated earlier, while there have been
many research-based and commercial studies
undertaken to compare selective groups of
assessment methods, it is diffi cult to reference
up-to-date, impartial information.
BRE compared a number of assessment
methods (including BREEAM and LEED) in 2008
and found that under normalised conditions
across the rating criteria BREEAM sets higher
standards in some categories than LEED (including
energy, management, health and well-being),
39
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
and a LEED Platinum rated building (the highest
LEED rating possible) was comparable with a
BREEAM ‘Very Good’ rated building. Again
according to BRE, building code standards in the
USA are lower than those in the UK Building
Regulations and so baseline standards differ
(Saunders, 2008). A study which compared the
application of BREEAM, DGNB and LEED to two
Danish offi ce buildings came to a similar fi nding
(a LEED Silver being comparable to a BREEAM
Pass); this lower LEED standard was considered a
disadvantage in the selection of an environmental
assessment method for Denmark (Benchmark
Centre, 2010). A comparison of BREEAM
2009 Europe Commercial, DGNB 2009 New
Construction for Offi ces and Administrative
Buildings, and LEED 2009 New Construction
and Major Renovations highlighted differences in
the consideration of issues in the three schemes,
with differing categories, criteria and weightings
employed, particularly in economic, energy and
management aspects (Alinghizadeh Kherzi, 2011).
Also, the balance between prescriptive credits
and required standards for credit achievement
has an infl uence on comparability. LEED has
less prescriptive credits (which are generally
less onerous to achieve) than BREEAM, but
required standards demand more calculations
and more work to prove achievement. This is
particularly so when using LEED for the fi rst time
in Ireland, as becoming familiar with the ASHRAE
standards and providing equivalences is very
time consuming.
In 2009 BREEAM, LEED and Green Star agreed
to jointly develop common metrics to measure
C02 emissions and to seek to align the methods
(Sleeuw, 2011). LEED recently announced that
LEED will recognise BREEAM Energy Credits in
an effort to reduce work needed for projects
choosing to use multiple certifi cation systems
(USGBC, 2011).
Both BREEAM and LEED are recognised as
leaders in the fi eld of environmental assessment,
with long track records of system operation and
certifi cation. The fact that BREEAM is a privately
managed and certifi ed system (and as such could
be more susceptible to pressure from market
forces) while LEED is managed by USGBC, a
network of 10,000 industry practitioners, and
certifi ed by GBCI (and could be perceived to be
more impartial) suggests that LEED may seem to
offer a more open and transparent process, with
published data on credit achievement. However,
this is not necessarily highly valued in the market
place. The value of a brand is related to the
credibility they provide in the market place,
and it may be that a system’s ability to adapt
to differing market places, (which LEED does
not try to achieve), that will be key to growing
market share.
While the absence of comparability between
systems is an important issue in the future
development of environmental assessment, it is
the common frame of reference for environmental
issues that is critical to driving the environmental
agenda. The use of environmental assessment
as an information source for users is crucial to
success in market transformation as the method
is identifi ed with credible environmental design
(Toth and Hizsnyik, 1998). The inclusion or
omission of certain aspects of environmental
design and associated credits can indirectly
prioritise particular approaches to environmental
issues (Udall and Schendler, 2005). Thus, the
importance of clarity on the basis of evaluation
and the transparency of the method are critical to
user understanding and validation of the method.
Furthermore, the transparency of the method is
critical to its acceptability by the building industry
and the public at large (Usher, 2004). It would
be useful for the whole construction sector to
understand what strategies are required to attain
credits. Publication online of simplifi ed data from
40IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
assessments would inform the general public; this
is available with LEED, and to a lesser extent with
BREEAM (Fenner and Ryce, 2008). It is diffi cult to
get data from BRE, (due to client confi dentiality),
on the buildings assessed and the level to which
they are certifi ed. It is too early to judge DGNB
in this regard. However, it is the process of
assessment and certifi cation that really highlights
the differences in management processes. Both
BREEAM and DGNB have similar certifi cation
systems. BREEAM requires assessors (licensed by
BRE) to assess the building, report it to the BRE,
who issues the certifi cate. For LEED certifi cation
design teams collate the information, perhaps
assisted by a LEED-AP, submit to USGBC and
the building is certifi ed by GBCI (Inbuilt, 2010).
LBC has the most transparent process of all
four systems. Once the project is registered,
active engagement commences with the Living
Future Institute and designers of other registered
projects, and members can share and discuss
design strategies, tools and research fi ndings. The
information for certifi cation is collected during
the fi rst year of operation and is supported by
a site visit by the Institute before confi rming
certifi cation.
2.3 Building Environmental Assessment
Method for Ireland (IBEAM) Framework
Categories and Weighting: Energy (25%), ❚
Indoor environmental quality (17.5%),
Environmental Loading (15%), Site and
Transport (17.5%), Water and waste (12.5%)
and Materials (12.5%).
Credit Score: Credits awarded equally for ❚
each of the six categories, for 67 criteria with
possible 240 points plus 10% in each category
for Innovation.
Performance Certifi cation Rating: Not ❚
determined in research
Certifi cation Phases: Not determined in ❚
research
Certifi cation Process: Proposal included in ❚
research
In 2005 the UCD Energy Research Group
was awarded by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) ERTDI Programme a UCD
MArchSc bursary to investigate the development
of an environmental assessment method for
commercial buildings in Ireland. The intention of
the research was to provide a framework for the
creation of an assessment method particular to
the Irish construction context and to develop a
proposal for its introduction. An Industry Focus
Committee (IFC) was formed representative
of construction industry stakeholders, local
authorities and policy makers, (including DECLG,
OPW, SEAI, EPA, CIF) to guide the research
and input to the development of environmental
categories and assessment criteria.
Three of the most widely used tools, BREEAM,
GBTool (now SBTool) and LEED were compared
and found to share certain characteristics and
goals; however, differences and omissions in
categories, assessment criteria scoring and
weighting were evident also. The GBTool had
the widest reaching criteria for assessment,
possibly because it is an environmental
framework rather that a certifi cation system.
The heavy emphasis across all three on energy
performance, ventilation and environmental
loadings facilitated discussion within the
IFC on where this nation might wish to place
its emphasis.
An in-depth comparison was undertaken of
each category, criterion, its intent, implementation
stage and credits awarded for each of BREEAM,
GBTool and LEED. The researcher, Neasa
Hourigan, with guidance from the IFC and
research supervisors, put forward a proposal for
six categories with a total of 67 criteria, outlining
41
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
function, intent and implementation stage, building
up to a recommended framework for assessment
criteria for offi ce buildings in the Irish context. A
structure emerged as indicated below.
A weighting was proposed to the individual
categories that refl ected perceived national policy
of the time. The proposed criteria and credits are
available for further study in the thesis and while
they may require review and updating, they do
form an agreed approach, developed with the
IFC, which could form a basis for determining the
adaptation of existing environmental assessment
methods, or the development of a new assessment
method for Ireland.
Recommended Weighting for Assessment Categories.
Source: Hourigan, 2009.
Many issues emerged as being fundamental in
the development of an appropriate national
assessment method, particularly in the areas
of design sustainability, materials, and system
implementation, as indicated below:
Design Sustainability
Advocate cost benefi t from early passive ❚
design strategies
Implement integrated design process and ❚
management
Reward simplifi cation of design and building ❚
services, robust construction and high
standard specifi cation
Materials
Provision of independent registry of material ❚
and component specifi cations
System Implementation
Method to be simple and accessible ❚
Certifi cation body to be objective and free ❚
from private sector infl uence
Implemented by governmental body or ❚
The structure of the proposed framework.
Source: Hourigan, 2009.
En
erg
y
Ind
oo
r E
nv
iro
nm
en
tal
Qu
ali
ty
Sit
e
Wa
ter
Ma
teri
als
En
vir
on
me
nta
l L
oa
din
g
Inn
ov
ati
on
% 0
5
10
15
20
25
Energy
Site & Transport
EnvironmentalLoadings
Materials
Building Information
Assessment Credits
IEQ
Water and Waste
Category Scores
Environmental Weighting
Single Score Calculation
IBEAM RATING
42IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
authority
Review building operation and certifi cation ❚
regularly.
The research project considered the strategies
suitable to achieve a successful implementation
and market adoption of the system proposed. It
identifi ed those members of industry who may
be directly involved or responsible for delivery
of a system, and those whose participation or
support may be necessary for its success. First
party initiators are those who may implement
the scheme, i.e. ,the client or building owner,
the project design team, the management
and accreditation body for the scheme, and
Government bodies that may support the scheme.
Second party initiators are those whose support
is necessary to launch and operate the scheme
i.e. the construction and supply chain industry.
Third party initiators are those whose support
or demand for such a scheme will increase its
application i.e. the building industry stakeholders,
professional bodies and the consumer.
The IFC saw the clear identifi cation of key users
and benefactors as one of the crucial fi rst steps
towards effective implementation. This facilitates
the targeting of the method towards those
elements of the construction industry that can
achieve meaningful transformation, and provides
a basis upon which consideration can be given to
two paths of implementation – the market-led
voluntary approach that offers increased market
competitiveness and the implementation through
regulatory bodies to gain wider benefi ts of
sustainable buildings. The research considers the
various bodies who might become responsible for
implementation and the roles of governmental,
local authority and private initiatives in the
adoption of an environmental assessment
method. The research makes recommendations
for the adoption of both approaches under the
headings of Communications, Co-operation
and Perceived Value Factors, highlighting the
action leader and target group for each for each
recommendation. It concludes by highlighting
a summary of recommendations and the need
for capital investment and knowledge exchange
(Hourigan, 2009).
2.4 Localisation of environmental assessment methods
The IBEAM research project highlights the
commitment necessary from all stakeholders in
the development of an adapted method, or a new
method for Ireland. Both Spain and Portugal have
recently developed generic national assessment
methods in parallel, SBTool Verde and SBTool
PT, based on the SBTool framework. This has
increased interest in the development of new
methodologies with the purpose of providing
a methodology specifi c to national policy and
benchmarks. Portugal perceived the route as
one which requires discussion at all levels with
all stakeholders and a process that requires great
commitment (Mateus and Braganca, 2011). The
Spanish GBC indicated that the development
of a new method, which took three years,
was considered much more onerous than the
adaptation of an existing method; however, once
developed, they have more quickly developed
three schemes for Housing, Offi ces and Bespoke.
An advantage of the development of a nationally
focussed method is that it could provide a
robust and consistent basis for the development
of guidelines for green public procurement. A
IGBC survey undertaken at the Better Building
International Conference (April 2012) indicated
that participants did not see any good reason to
develop an environmental assessment method
specifi cally for Ireland. In particular, building
designers thought that the adoption of an existing
system, adapted to refl ect Irish climatic and
constructional practices, to be the best option.
43
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
2.5 Green Building Councils and environmental assessment
Green Building Councils in many countries
have a role in the development, adaptation
and management of environmental assessment
methods.
The IGBC interviewed the Danish, Dutch,
Norwegian, Spanish, Swedish and Romanian GBCs
to ascertain the process of national adoption of
an environmental assessment system. Denmark
adopted the DGNB New Modernisation and
Existing Offi ces and Administration Building
methodology; the Netherlands and Norway
adopted BREEAM; while Sweden adopted
BREEAM and LEED, alongside the existing
national method Miljobyggnad (which has been
handed over to the Swedish GBC to manage) and
Spain developed a national methodology, SBTool
VERDE based on the Canadian iiSBE SBTool.
Romania has not yet adopted an assessment
system but is in discussion with both BRE
and USGBC.
Systems adopted, adapted, developed or supported by
the various Green Building Councils.
NOTE: Information opposite, sourced from the web, and
personal communication, is not exhaustive and does not
include every European country.
GBC System RoleAustria Adopted DGNB
Bulgaria Bulgaria is in a joint venture with the German Sustainable Building Council and has adopted DGNB.
Czech Republic Have signed memorandum of un-derstanding to adopt, BREEAM, and DGNB for use in Czech Republic, SB Tool also in use.
Denmark Adopted DGNB
France Developed HQE specifi cally for France, which recently has been adopted for Brazil, under the name Aqua
Germany Developed the DGNB tool with the Department of Transport and Urban Planning
Hellenic (Greece) Have signed memorandum of un-derstanding with DGNB to explore adopting DGNB without precluding the use of other systems.
The Netherlands NSO for BRE, Negotiated contract with BRE Global which allows them autonomy to develop schemes and credits under the BREEAM name.
Italy Adopted LEED. This is the last national council to be allowed to adopt LEED, as the USGBC no longer allows country-specifi c adoptation of LEED. The Italian GBC operates in the Trentino region of Italy with a chapter of Puglia. There is also an Ital-ian national system.
Norway NSO for BRE, Recently completed process of adoptation of BREEAM as the national assessment system. Also participate in the Round Table adop-tion of LEED for international use.
Poland Have signed memorandum of agree-ment for adoption of DGNB and BREEAM, LEED is also used.
Romania Do not offi cially support any system currently.
Russia Do not offi cially support any particu-lar system.
Spain Developed SB Verde from the SB Tool framework developed by iiSBE. Also on the Round Table for the internationalisation of LEED. Instututo Technologo Galicia has adopted BREEAM for Spain
Serbia Are providing education and training in LEED and BREEAM but has not offi cially adopted or supported any particular system
Sweden Licensed scheme operator BREEAM and currently adopting BREEAM. Also support nationally developed system Myljobyggnad which has the wider use. Also supports LEED.
UK Do not offi cially support any par-ticular system, but the Government support BREEAM.
United States Developed LEED
Systems adopted, adapted, developed or supported by
the various Green Building Councils.
NOTE: Information opposite, sourced from the web,
and personal communication, is not exhaustive and
does not include every European country.
44IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL2.
INTE
RN
ATI
ON
AL
ENV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T M
ETH
OD
S
A questionnaire was developed for telephone
interviews which were undertaken with GBCs in
early 2012. Refer to Appendix B. The following is
based on the responses.
In most countries the GBC founding members
selected, by consensus, the system to adopt
based on an investigation into alternative systems
which was undertaken by a GBC Task Group
or a university research body for the GBC.
The investigation was, as a minimum, a desktop
evaluation of systems often followed by a building
application evaluation, which took a maximum
of eighteen months to complete, with an
additional three to six months for methodology
adaptation.
Most identifi ed ‘international recognition’ and
‘ease of adaptability’ as the two most important
issues considered in choosing a system. Individual
systems were also chosen for particular reasons;
e.g., inclusion of life cycle analysis (BREEAM
and DGNB) and alignment to EU CEN350
standards (DGNB). While Sweden adopted
LEED, others dismissed it stating lack of fl exibility
for adaptation and non-alignment with European
policy and standards as the reason for dismissal.
Spain considered the availability of LEED in Spain
to be suitable for large international corporations
but the development of a national method more
appropriate for residential and other occupancy
profi le buildings.
Financial considerations were not taken into
consideration in general. In Denmark, however,
fi nances became a major consideration in system
selection. The BRE National Scheme Operator
annual licence fee was considered too high to
be supported by the level of certifi cation in
a small country and the DGNB fee structure
was considered to be more cost-effective.
While individual countries, the Netherlands
for example, had negotiated a better fi nancial
arrangement with BRE, it was suggested that
GBCs should come together to negotiate with
system providers, particularly in countries
where the volume of construction is low and
annual licensing fees (rather than usage fees) are
inappropriately high and represent too much risk
for the GBC. DGNB charges no annual licence
fee or adaptation fee, and the fee is based on a
percentage of the annual usage of the scheme.
This eliminated the fi nancial risk for the Danish
GBC which manages the system in Denmark.
Those who adapted BREEAM indicate that the
changes required were minimal, mainly to remove
non-applicable issues rather than adaptation
to national criteria. They did not consider that
they achieved national autonomy and felt such
achievement would slow up the process further,
and tended to develop guidance alongside the
methodology rather than integrating e.g. life cycle
analysis of materials. The Dutch GBC utilised
their own database for material analysis. In all
cases those who adopted BREEAM seemed very
happy with that choice, and the level of take up
has been very good.
Denmark considers that they have good
autonomy over the development of DGNB
and found it to be very adaptable to Danish
requirements; but cannot, as yet, assess the level
of take-up as it was only recently adopted. It is
well liked by stakeholders involved, particularly
by architects as they feel it better refl ects the
social and economic aspects of sustainability.
They are working on the development of an area
assessment method, and a healthcare method is
being piloted on a large public hospital.
Spain has achieved national autonomy in the
development of SBTool Verde, but considered
the process of its development to have been very
time-consuming. They consider that the process
was more diffi cult than adapting an existing
45
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
2. IN
TER
NA
TIO
NA
L EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
MET
HO
DS
method. It took three years to develop the
methodology, although this may well have been
because Spain was the fi rst country, in parallel
with Portugal, to develop a national SBTool.
Three occupancy profi les have been developed
for residential, offi ces and bespoke buildings,
however, take up has been slow because they
came to the market in 2008 when new build
construction effectively ceased. The current
development of a retrofi t method is expected to
achieve greater uptake.
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
IRELAND AND ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT3
47
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
3.1 Environmental policy, legislation and standards
In Ireland in the recent past, the focus in the
construction industry at national level has been
on the implementation of EU Directives that
were primarily directed at improving the energy
effi ciency of buildings, which is recognised by the
EU as the easiest, quickest and most effective way
to reduce energy dependence and damage to
the environment (COM, 2006). Ireland has been
recognised as exemplary in the transposition of
the EU Directive on the Energy Performance
of Buildings (EPBD), (EU, 2002) into national
legislation, mainly through the Building Control
Act 2005 and Statutory Instrument SI No. 666
European Communities (Energy Performance of
Buildings) Regulations 2006. The 2005, 2007/8 and
2011 amendments to Building Regulation Part L
Conservation of Fuel and Energy have emphasised
the assessment of building performance and
delivered signifi cant energy saving in new build
construction (IEA, 2010). Elements of the Irish
construction industry have shown interest in the
Passivhaus Standard as the basis of low energy
design, extending the focus to electrical energy
and assisting in the improvement of generally poor
construction practices, with an emphasis on the
reduction of air infi ltration and thermal bridging.
The PPHP software has been adapted for Irish
climatic conditions and monitoring has been
undertaken of recently constructed dwellings
leading to investigative research in Ireland. The
most recently built student housing in UCD has
been certifi ed as Passivhaus Standard and is
currently being monitored by the UCD Energy
Research Group.
The National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan
(NEEAP) required within the EU Energy End-
use Effi ciency Energy Services Directive (ESD)
(EU, 2006) was published as Maximising Ireland’s
Energy Effi ciency – The National Energy Effi ciency
Action Plan 2009-2020 (DCENR, 2009), building
on the Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020
(DCMNR, 2007) outlining a framework to
achieving a sustainable energy future with security
of supply, provision of more affordable energy,
improved national competitiveness and reduced
green house gas emissions in Ireland. A revised
NEEAP will be published shortly.
The commitment to a 20% reduction in
energy demand by 2020 across the whole
economy and a 33% reduction in public sector
energy are set out in key measures that require
public sector, business and residential sectors
to be more energy effi cient in their buildings,
appliances, equipment, processes, transport
means and energy systems. It has been projected
that savings from existing and committed actions
(including regulation and incentive programmes)
could account for 75% of Ireland’s 2020 target.
In order to achieve additional effi ciencies in the
public sector new building standards, stricter than
Building Regulation requirements, are applied to
some building types such as school buildings, and
signifi cant energy saving measures are applied
to existing public buildings eg. installation of
compact fl uorescent lamps. A major retrofi tting
programme has been adopted by Government.
The OECD Environmental Performance
review (OECD, 2009) recognised the signifi cant
progress that had been made since 2000 with
improved environmental policies and the
introduction of national legislation in areas such
as environmental licensing, waste management
and water resource management. Relevant
policy statements include The National Climate
Change Strategy; Smarter Travel – A Sustainable
Transport Future; National Biodiversity Plan;
Government Policy on Architecture; National
Action Plan for Social Inclusion; and the more
recent Draft National Action Plan on Green
Public Procurement; Strategy for Affordable
48IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL3.
IREL
AN
D A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
Energy; and the Strategy on Renewable Energy
2012-2020.
Our Sustainable Future, a Framework for
Sustainable Development for Ireland, in the words
of the Department of Environment, Community
and Local Government is ‘a joined-up approach
to policy making on sustainable development,
it sets out 70 measures that will ensure we
improve our quality of life for current and
future generations and sets out clear measures,
responsibilities and timelines in an implementation
plan. These include areas such as the sustainability
of public fi nances and economic resilience,
natural resources, agriculture, climate change,
transport, public health, education, innovation
and research, education, skills and training, and
global poverty. While considerable progress has
been made in integrating sustainability principles
into public policy making in Ireland since the fi rst
national strategy in this area was published in
1997, signifi cant gaps remain across a range of
economic, social and environmental policy areas’
Launching the Framework on the 6 June 2012,
the Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, T.D., commented; “Our
Sustainable Future is very deliberately ambitious
in both scope and intent. The Green economy is
a central plank to our economic recovery and this
was recognised in the Action Plan for Jobs 2012.
This Framework sets out a medium to long-term
plan to guide the essential work we need to do
to progress the sustainable development agenda
and more fully embrace the green economy in
Ireland”. It highlights the necessity for the further
development of Sustainable Development
Indicators (SDI) and green infrastructure, and
defi nes programmes for resource effi ciency and
GPP as short-term goals (DECLG, 2012).
3.2 Public sector and building environmental assessment
While Ireland has a good reputation in
implementing some EU Directives in national
regulation, the Irish market tends to emphasise
competitiveness and market growth and that
Government supports this perspective by
avoiding compulsory environmental policies as
a whole (Hourigan, 2009). The slow growth of
environmental assessment of buildings has been
led by market forces as a voluntary mechanism
for effecting sustainable development to obtain
market advantage. There is little evidence of how
environmental assessment supports national
policy and what role it could have in effecting
real change.
The Offi ce of Public Works (OPW)
commissioned the drafting of a sustainability
policy, which stated objectives in the reduction
of energy consumption, the reduction and
avoidance of waste, green procurement of
products, reduction of risks to health and
the environments, and staff understanding of
sustainability. With respect to environmental
assessment of buildings it states that by 2010 all
new build and refurbishments should achieve
BREEAM Very Good rating or OPW equivalent,
and by 2008 all new building and refurbishment
over €1 million would achieve BREEAM Very
Good rating or OPW equivalent (OPW, 2007).
OPW trained a number of BREEAM assessors in
the achievement of the objectives.
Environmental issues were embedded in the
design and tender stages for building construction
projects within the Public Service De-centralisation
Programme (announced in 2003 and cancelled in
2011) and the Department of Defence building
programme. A number of buildings in both
programmes were designed in accordance with
BREEAM assessment criteria and assessed at
49
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
post-construction stage. While certifi ed public
buildings could have showcased good practice to
industry, in reality few buildings were certifi ed.
The system was perceived to be too diffi cult to
implement across all buildings and the focus is now
on the development of guidelines for Green Public
Procurement (GPP).
The Draft National Action Plan on Green
Public Procurement (DECLG, 2011), was published
in line with the EC requirement of 2003 and
subsequent Directives in 2004 which focussed
on coordinating procurement procedures and
is a potential driver in developing the green
economy in Ireland. It takes cognisance of the
EU’s Sustainable Consumption and Production
and Sustainable Industrial Policy Action Plan
(COM, 2008b) which brings together other EU
Strategies, Regulations and Directives on waste,
water, natural resources and eco labelling. It
complements and strengthens existing national
legislation and public policy targets in the areas
of procurement, environmental protection, social
policy, and fostering innovation.
The Draft National Action Plan supports
the national drive to achieving greater value for
money in public procurement, which can impact
production and consumption trends and generate
demand for ‘greener’ goods, and increase the
market for environmentally benign products
and services. It promotes life cycle thinking on
the appraisal of capital projects and cost benefi t
analysis, enabling the long term environmental
impacts associated with the purchase, operating
costs and end-of-life costs of goods and services
to be evaluated by public procurers and their
suppliers. It sets out a long term vision for GPP
in the construction sector and outlines six key
aspects, through which it can be embedded in
the construction sector; Design, Ecology and
Site Utilities, Energy, Materials, Refurbishment
and Specifi cation.
The OPW is currently developing guidance,
supported by the EC GPP Training Toolkit,
on how in practice to attain targets for non-
residential procurement which is expected to
be published late 2012. The guidance will take
the form of defi ning ’Core’ and ‘Comprehensive’
criteria, developed by the EU Commission (core
criteria are those that can be used with minimum
additional verifi cation or cost increases, and
comprehensive criteria are those that require
additional verifi cation and some increase in cost).
In defi ning the categories and criteria there are
similarities with the categories and criteria in
environmental assessment methods. However,
the basis for the harmonised standard is building
eco labelling, criteria selection based on economic
feasibility, and evaluation on operational
performance (Burke, 2012). This suggests that
while existing budgets for public buildings may not
increase in the near future the current disconnect
between capital cost and operational costs may
be reviewed. The extent of implementation will
determine its success, but it may well be that in
the near future public buildings will demonstrate
environmental impact in a similar manner to
certifi ed private sector buildings.
Current guidelines within the Department
of the Environment, Communities and Local
Government are seen as the basis for the
development of future guidance and the
amendment of Building Regulations over time
to address GPP requirements for residential
buildings (O’Connor, 2012).
Many Governmental Departments require
specifi c environmental or energy standards greater
than current Building Regulation requirements.
The Department of Education and Skills (DES)
provides Technical Guidance Documents, the
requirements of which must be applied to all
construction projects, both primary and post-
primary schools, funded in part or in total by DES.
The guidelines require passive design principles
50IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL3.
IREL
AN
D A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
to be integrated into school building design to
achieve a comfortable indoor environment with
specifi c requirements for natural ventilation rates
and daylight and acoustic levels. High performance
building envelope construction must take account
of air permeability, material specifi cation and
good construction practices. Other issues such
as water conservation and control of space and
water heating must be included. A building energy
rating of at least A3 must be achieved.
There is no requirement for a specifi c
environmental assessment method to be applied
to school building projects. The DES employed
independent consultants in 2003 to evaluate the
application of BREEAM to new school projects
who concluded that the method did not suit
the DES requirements, and in particular, its
application would not provide value for money,
as many of the strategies evaluated were not
appropriate or cost effective for the occupancy
profi le of schools. It is believed that the inclusion
of specifi c requirements appropriate to schools
can be delivered more cost effectively through
the requirements of the technical guidance
provided (Dolan, 2012).
The Health Services Executive (HSE) does
not have a stated policy on environmental
issues; however, they have embedded individual
appropriate environmental strategies in projects
in the past and they require two current projects,
the National Children’s Hospital and the National
Forensic Mental Health project, to be assessed
and certifi ed with BREEAM for the benefi t of the
projects themselves and to inform future capital
development. Some aspects of the BREEAM
evaluation criteria eg. site evaluation, may hinder
a good rating being targeted, or others may not
be appropriate to certain types of healthcare
facility. If a more appropriate assessment method
became available it would be considered. The
HSE requires a cost benefi t assessment of the
various evaluation criteria set out in the different
environmental certifi cation systems, and of
the costs of implementing these systems to be
undertaken to establish what added value is
achieved with their application. It is proposed
to implement a more rigorous approach and
possibly develop or adopt policy in this area in
the near future (Masterson, 2012).
The Industrial Development Authority (IDA)
developed a strategic roadmap to sustainability
based on the fi ndings of a study, Sustainability
Frameworks for Business Parks and Strategic
Sites, undertaken by international consultants
CH2M HILL in 2008. The study focussed
on developing sustainable strategies in three
areas – the built environment, greenfi eld
development and alternative energy sources.
Within the built environment study area they
undertook a comparison of BREEAM and LEED
environmental assessment methods to assess the
appropriateness of each method to IDA activities.
The IDA’s focus is to attract foreign investment
that is of high value, requiring high skill levels and
a sophisticated business environment, and as
such, it is essential to offer a competitive product
to the market. They recognised that the provision
of a high performance building, with low life cycle
costs, was necessary to attract foreign investors,
and particularly those from the USA, where large
multi nationals were familiar with the concept of
building environmental assessment. The study
concluded that BREEAM and LEED systems
were equally valid from a technical perspective.
However, it was suggested that the LEED system
would be easier to implement because it was
perceived to be more accessible and transparent
to the design industry (BREEAM can only be
acquired through a licensed assessor) and also
because its credit requirements are well defi ned.
It was also more familiar to the IDA’s clients, 80%
of which come from the USA.
51
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
In 2009 the IDA adopted the principles of
LEED as the baseline for its future building designs
for both manufacturing and offi ce buildings. Most
often the standard LEED Core and Shell profi le
is utilised to obtain ‘design’ certifi cation before
construction of the facility and subsequent
leasing or sale to clients. However, environmental
assessment is not imposed by the IDA on the
further development of the building – it is the
client’s choice to continue or not, or to use a
different method of assessment – but the IDA does
encourage sustainable management within leasing
agreements. The IDA completed a construction
cost analysis exercise which highlighted that there
is no added cost in achieving LEED Silver Core and
Shell in manufacturing buildings, while an 8% cost
increase in offi ce buildings was predicted. Many
clients continue the LEED assessment on large
offi ce buildings, or use the LBC Materials Red List
(ILFI, 2012) or the RICS-led Ska environmental
assessment method for smaller and retrofi t
commercial projects (RICS, 2012).
It is understandable that the IDA has adopted
LEED, as it provides the product which the
majority of its clients require. It is also probable
that if the client requirement altered or if
Irish Building Regulation energy requirements
surpassed the fairly low baseline in LEED, that its
use would be reassessed. It has been suggested
that the USGBC, while not in favour of national
adaptations, could develop a generic method
for use in Europe that refl ects EU standards and
requirements (Lohan, 2012).
3.3 Private sector and building environmental assessment
The RICS certifi cation statistics (RICS, 2011)
indicate that no commercial buildings had been
certifi ed with BREEAM, DNGB, HQE or LEED
systems in Ireland by May 2011. It indicates that
seven commercial buildings have been registered
for certifi cation with BREEAM and nine have been
registered for certifi cation with LEED systems.
Haucke and Volkening in their analysis for IVG
(2011) support this view, with no certifi ed buildings
indicated in its survey data for Ireland. Hendrick
(2012) undertook a survey of Irish building industry
use of environmental assessment methods which
indicated that building environmental assessment
was being utilised to a greater extent than the
published statistics would suggest. According to
the survey data BREEAM has market dominance,
having about two thirds of the assessed large
budget, new construction in Ireland, with LEED
having the other one third. The respondents
were primarily architects, who indicated the main
benefi t of the assessment method was improved
design due to the focussed and early design team
decision-making. The most prevalent reason
given by respondents for using the assessment
method was marketing value, followed closely by
improving building performance and specifying
building performance.
At the 2012 Better Building International
Conference ‘Valuing Green Building’ session
chaired by Roland O’Connell of the Society of
Chartered Surveyors Ireland (SCSI), there
appeared to be disagreement as to whether
there was actually a green premium for rent or
investment associated with better environmental
performance. Russell Francis of Colliers indicated,
and Marie Hunt of CBRE Ireland agreed, that
it had not yet been demonstrated in Ireland.
However, Brian Moran of international property
investors and developers Hines, argued that
this was irrelevant as the ‘brown’ discount for
developers and buildings with poor environmental
records was far more signifi cant - reportedly
large investment funds are now only lending to
developers with credible records in corporate
social responsibility and sustainability. He
suggested that this will become evident over the
coming years as investment funds seek to manage
risk (IGBC, 2012).
52IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL3.
IREL
AN
D A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
Data supplied in 2012 for inclusion in this study
by BRE for BREEAM and the USGBC for LEED
indicate that there are a small number of certifi ed
buildings in Ireland. The BRE indicates that there
are 17 certifi ed projects and 44 registered
buildings, and LEED indicates two certifi ed and
10 registered projects.
3.4 User Experience of Building
Environmental Assessment in Ireland
There is little evidence in recent Irish surveys
(Hendrick, 2011 and Whoriskey, 2011) to suggest
that users perceive either BREEAM or LEED as
more suitable for the assessment of Irish buildings.
However, among users it is accepted that while
LEED is valuable for comparative purposes
with international (and in particular American)
buildings, BREEAM is more in line with European
and Irish Building Regulation requirements and
Irish climatic conditions.
3.4.1 Surveys undertaken within this study
Two surveys were undertaken within this study
period, which targeted the diverse sectors of the
building industry in Ireland - the Better Building
International Conference Survey and the Certifi ed
and Assessed Buildings in Ireland Survey.
The fi rst was a broad-based questionnaire
targeting the interdisciplinary audience at the
Better Building International Conference for a
Sustainable Built Environment, a public event
organized by the IGBC, Cultivate Living and
Learning and Sustainable Building Show in April
2012. Participants at the conference included
building designers, contractors, manufacturers,
developers, providers, managers, policy makers,
regulators and educators.
The study was presented at the conference
as the context for a focused session on
Environmental Assessment Tools. Presentations
by the Dutch Green Building Council, which
adopted BREEAM, and Mikael Koch of the
Danish Green Building Council, which choose
DKNB, provided international experience of
adopting and adapting established methods.
The objective of the session was to highlight the
study being undertaken, invite the conference
participants to complete the survey and to
encourage interested stakeholders to become
involved in the broader investigation of an
appropriate environmental assessment method
for Ireland.
The aim of the survey was to establish
the extent of knowledge and usage of
environmental assessment among building
designers and contractors, the benefi ts
perceived by building owners, providers and
managers and to assess the possible future
integration of environmental assessment
into national policy and regulation. Refer to
Appendix C.
60 questionnaires were returned, which
represented about 20% of the participants, all of
whom indicated that they were aware of building
environmental assessment, with the greatest
awareness of BREEAM (87%) and LEED (70%).
45 building designers, fi ve building contractors,
two building owner/managers, four building policy
makers and four educators completed the survey.
42% indicated that they had been involved in the
environmental assessment of buildings in Ireland.
When asked which method should be
adopted for Ireland 28% indicated BREEAM and
23% indicated DGNB, but many indicated that
they did not have enough knowledge to suggest
which should be adopted. The participants
indicated that an adopted method should be an
53
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
internationally recognized one and should assist in
developing interaction with export markets and
supply chains. They indicated the most important
factor in the adoption of a system was a credible
and robust evaluation system. 70% indicated that
they saw no value in developing a national method
solely for use in Ireland; however, 85% said that an
adopted method should be adapted to suit Irish
climatic, construction and policy issues.
Value in developing a national method?
System to be adopted for Ireland?
All of the building designers indicated that they
suggested integrating environmental issues to
their clients and design teams and 70% indicated
that they used environmental assessment criteria
as design indicators, while 52% had been involved
in projects that had been assessed using an
environmental assessment method. In their use
of environmental assessment methods they all
reported that the environmental assessment
method was introduced at the briefi ng or early
design stage of the project and indicated that
its use had a positive effect on all aspects of the
project other than building cost.
The majority of building owners indicated
good building practice as being the main reason
for undertaking environmental assessment, ahead
of client green marketing. Residential, offi ces and
healthcare buildings were most often assessed, with
the Passivhaus Standard PHPP for residential (an
energy, rather than an environmental, assessment
method) and BREEAM for non-residential.
Policy makers indicated that building
environmental performance should be a core
issue in the formation of national policy, and they
expected to see the focus on energy assessment
procedures in current Building Regulations
develop to include broader environmental issues
such as materials, water and waste in the near
future. When asked if the assessment criteria
of a nationally adopted methodology should
be similar to those being developed nationally
for green public procurement, all indicated that
avoiding duplication and providing consistency
was important, and all saw existing methods
are being a good basis for the development of
green public procurement. They also saw a role
for government departments, state agencies and
bodies in the operation and accreditation of a
nationally adopted assessment system.
No 70% Yes 30%
BREEAM 28%
LEED 10%
DGNB 23%
LBC 13%
Others 8%
Don’t Know 18%
54IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL3.
IREL
AN
D A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
The second survey targeted the design and
construction teams of certifi ed buildings in Ireland.
While system providers indicate that there are 19
certifi ed buildings in Ireland, the buildings remain
anonymous unless the client chooses otherwise.
BRE only provides information on three of the
seventeen BREEAM certifi ed buildings and
USGBC provides information on both LEED
certifi ed buildings in Ireland.
Survey questionnaires were designed to
target client, design team and contractor and
were distributed to 54 individuals who acted as
client, architect, services engineer or contractor
of 14 building projects in Ireland, including the
fi ve buildings that are publicly claimed by BRE and
USGBC and a number which are anonymous, but
known locally to be certifi ed or assessed but not
certifi ed. Refer to Appendix D.
Buildings certifi ed in Ireland not subject to client
confi dentiality. Information provided by BRE (BREEAM)
and USGBC (LEED) April 2012
26 questionnaires were returned, which
represents just under 50% of the participants and
includes returns from clients, architects, engineers
and contractors, with a number representative
of the full project team of the targeted projects.
Overall, all but two participants indicated a positive
attitude to the application of an environmental
assessment method to the building project.
Findings support the wide use of BREEAM
rather than LEED, and indicate the client, most
often, as the instigator of the ‘sustainable’
agenda and the application of the environmental
assessment method to the project. All of the
architects and engineers (excepting one engineer
who did not concur with project team members’
responses) indicated that the environmental
performance aspiration was included as part of
the project design brief, and over 60% indicated
that the requirements of the environmental
assessment infl uenced project design intent. This
required increased design input, and in particular,
notable time to undertake the environmental
assessment of the project. 88% of all participants
indicated that the process was worthwhile; those
who did not think it worthwhile indicated that
‘it did not add anything to project’ or ‘was not
properly applied’. A small number indicated that
they would use an alternative assessment method
in the future.
Building Name System/Scheme
Rating Stage
Flavour Manufacturing Ltd. IDA Industrial Park, Wexford
BREEAM Industrial 2008
Very Good
Final
Decentralised Government Of-fi ces Athlone
BREEAM Offi ces 2008
Good Final
Decentralised Government Offi ces Roscommon
BREEAM International Europe Commercial Offi ces 2008
Excel-lent
Interim
Genzyme Ireland Ltd. IDA Industrial Park, Waterford
LEED Construction
Gold Final
Symantec Ltd. Orion Building, Ballycoolin Business Park,Blanchardstown
LEED Existing Building
Gold Final
55
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
Was the process deemed to be
worthwhile?
Was the expected environmental
rating achieved?
Seven of the nine completed projects achieved the
building environmental rating that they set out to
achieve, while two indicated a lower rating, mainly
due to issues outside design team control eg.
site location. With regard to the completed and
occupied building projects most indicted that the
requirements of the environmental assessment
led to a measurable increase in build cost over
that expected while all but one, indicated positive
feedback from building occupants and a positive
impact on the building running costs.
Did the assessment involve more time
than expected?
Did the assessment requirements lead
to a more than expected cost?
The client, design team and contractor of one
of the completed and occupied private sector
projects all concurred in a worthwhile, successful
assessment and certifi cation process; however,
they all agreed that undertaking the assessment
required more design time and cost to undertake
the assessment than expected. While there was
no measurable increase in build cost for the
project, there has been positive feedback from
the client on a positive impact on the running
costs and from occupants who enjoy enhanced
indoor environmental quality.
Worthwhile 88%
Not Worthwhile 12%
Achieved 78%
Not Achieved 22%
Expected Cost 63%
More Cost 37%
As Expected 22%
More Time 66%
A Lot More Time 11%
56IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
IL3.
IREL
AN
D A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
ASS
ESSM
ENT
3.4.2 Environmental Assessment System Providers Workshops
The system providers of BREEAM, LEED, DGNB
and LBC, which were selected for comparative
evaluation, were invited by the IGBC to present
their building environmental assessment systems
at the IGBC Environmental Assessment System
Providers Information Workshops through
April and May 2012. BREEAM, DGNB and LBC
presented at a workshop and LEED provided a
webinar presentation. Each of the workshops
attracted a large, diverse and interested audience,
which included building designers, manufacturers
and contractors, providers and managers, and
policy makers. The presentations assisted in
raising awareness of the systems and contributed
to the study fi ndings.
The presentations instigated lively discussion on
the adoption and adaptation of an environmental
assessment method for Ireland and indicated that
the Irish construction industry wish to engage with
the process. Many expressed the view that with
such diverse systems available, and adaptation
possible with some, it would not seem necessary
to develop a new method for Ireland.
3.5 Implementing environmental
assessment effectively for Ireland
The Key Findings are provided in the Summary
section of this document. The fi ndings of the
study identify issues that require engagement
to determine how the IGBC Board can move
forward on this issue. In order to facilitate
discussion, issues pertaining to the fi ndings are
outlined in the Summary.
A distinction is made between the issues
related to the product (assessment method)
and the process (system required to support
the methods’ use). The issues to be addressed in
relation to the development of an environmental
assessment method, and the implementation of
an effective system for Ireland, in the author’s
opinion, requires the IGBC to undertake the
following action:
Provision of a framework for the achievement ❚
of sustainable buildings in Ireland, identifying
the role of environmental assessment in its
achievement;
Engagement with industry stakeholders ❚
and policy makers to explore the alignment
of a national assessment approach with
future international and national policy, GPP
guidelines and Building Regulations;
Selection and application of a limited number ❚
of assessment methods to be applied to
representative Irish buildings to provide a full
comparative technical analysis, to highlight the
issues to be addressed in method adoption
and the specifi c evaluation criteria that
require adaptation for Irish conditions;
Further consultation with existing system ❚
designers and providers to assess the impact
of application on all stakeholders (including
clients, designers, contractors, manufacturers
and suppliers), the resources required for
achievement of certifi cation, and the process
of adopting, adapting and implementing a
suite of schemes and certifi cation system
in Ireland;
Further engagement with system stakeholders ❚
to determine, and provide where possible,
training and user support;
Development of strategies suitable for ❚
a successful implementation and market
adoption of the selected system, identifying
those members of industry who may be
directly involved or responsible for delivery of
the system, and those whose participation or
support may be necessary for its success;
Publication of a programme of key actions ❚
and players to further the delivery of an
57
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
3. IR
ELA
ND
AN
D E
NV
IRO
NM
ENTA
L A
SSES
SMEN
T
appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient,
transparent and verifi able building
environmental assessment system for Ireland.
58IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILR
EFER
ENC
ES
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
APPENDICES4
Dear
The Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) was set up to provide leadership in the move to a sustainable built
environment. The IGBC is a not for profi t Independent membership organisation open to all organisations
who commit to working to the transformation of the built environment. All of the stakeholders in the
built environment are represented, Local Authorities, Universities, Professional construction and Planning
Institutes, Government agencies, Manufacturers, Property professionals, Planners, Architects, Engineers,
contractors, facility managers, Developers, and Utility companies. We thus represent the only organisation
who can deliver the widespread and systematic adoption of certifi cation of green buildings in Ireland.
The IGBC is currently seeking expressions of interest from providers of Environmental Assessment Methods/
systems with the aim of exploring the introduction or greater distribution of an existing environmental
assessment system for use in Ireland. A task group has been set up to study best practice globally and the
feasibility of developing or adapting an existing tool. The task group will report in April to our Interim Board
and this will form the basis for a decision on how to proceed. The report will assess the need for a tool in
Ireland, compare a number of the international rating tool systems and explore the fi nancial feasibility of
supporting an Environmental Assessment Method/ system either through the IGBC or in partnership with
Government.
We are asking you to make an expression of interest in writing that sets out how your organisation would
work with us in achieving this aim. You must consider the scale of Ireland and level of construction. Please be
reasonably specifi c and brief. It can include the following:
The possibility for adaptation of your system specifi cally to take account of Irish building regulations, ❚
regional variations such as climate, construction techniques, European law etc. You may give brief case
studies of how this process has been managed in other countries and the time scale for development of
Irish ‘version’ and timescale for full implementation of certifi cation system.
The possibility of creating a specifi c new tool where these are not within your certifi cation system eg ❚
I R I S H G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
retrofi t, single housing etc and the time scale required if possible
The level of input the IGBC or other Irish Stakeholders could or would have into the adaptation of your ❚
certifi cation system.
The likely order of cost for the adaptation process for each category of building, eg. offi ces, schools, ❚
residential, development areas
The costs of certifi cation, order of costs and licensing arrangements with the IGBC ❚
Any additional costs to the IGBC if sole licensed provider of tool in Ireland for auditing, annual fees. ❚
Please provide order of costs for any training that you would provide ❚
Any other relevant information as to why your environmental assessment method is best placed to ❚
become widespread in the Irish market
If you do not allow the national adaptation of your system or do not permit the national licensing of ❚
your system please suggest other means by which you could work with the IGBC that would be mutually
benefi cial and assist in the greater uptake of environmental assessment of buildings.
Please note that the information that you provide may be used towards informing the decision of the Interim Board of the Irish Green Building Council to start further discussions with one or more providers. However this does not indicate acceptance of any fi nancial arrangements set out in your expression of interest.
If you wish to contact me by e-mail [email protected] or by telephone 353 1 681 5862 with any questions please do so.
Yours Faithfully
Pat Barry
Secretary Irish Green Building Council
I R I S H G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
I R I S H G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
Questionnaire for European Green Building Councils
What was the general make up or profi le of the GBC task group for rating tools?1.
Did it involve stakeholders beyond the membership of the GBC. For example was the likely buy in of 2.
government and other non member stakeholders to the tool considered?
What was the timeframe for a decision, from assembling of the task group to a fi nal decision?3.
Was fi nal decision by consensus or by majority decision?4.
What level of research into other tools was carried out into making decision. Research, academic, international 5.
experience etc.
What were the most important issues considered when making decision to choose tool?6.
Were there any particular circumstances, context within the county that infl uenced the choice, e.g. climate, 7.
national policy priorities, EU priorities etc.
Did the fi nancial viability, eg contract with existing tool provider infl uence decision?8.
What was the general usage of tools in your county prior to your decision?9.
Was the development of a new tool considered. i.e. one developed exclusively for your country.10.
Did the usage of an already existing tool in your country infl uence the choice of tools.11.
Does the Government or other public agencies use the tool as part of their Green Public Procurement of 12.
buildings.
How much national autonomy do you consider to have over the tools that you have chosen13.
Do you consider this important. Would you prefer to have more autonomy?14.
How adaptable do you consider the tool/tools that you have chosen to support?15.
What is the level of take- up of the tool in your country since you introduced it?16.
What would you have done in a different way?17.
Yes No
BREEAM LEED Other
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
Name
Organisa on
Role
1.F
ILL
THIS
SEC
TIO
N P
ART
ICIP
AN
T PR
OFI
LE
BROAD ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
ACCESSIBLE AND USER FRIENDLY
CREDIBLE AND ROBUST EVALUATION
GOOD TECHNICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM
Are you interested in becoming more involved in the IGBC study?
If so, please provide your email address:
Do you see any merit in developing a new method solely for use in Ireland?
What would you consider the most important factor in the development of an environmental assessment method to be?
LEED
DGNB
LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE
BUILDING MANAGER
BUILDING POLICY MAKER
BUILDING REGULATOR
Should your chosen method be modi ed to suit Irish clima c, construc on and policy issues?
Have you been involved in the environmental cer ca on of a building in Ireland?
Which of the exis ng environmental assessment methods do you think should be adopted in Ireland and why?
BREEAM
BUILDING DESIGNER
BUILDING CONTRACTOR
BUILDING OWNER, PROVIDER
Which assessment methods are you aware of?
Email:
Comment:
Comment:
Are you aware of building environmental assessment?
Are you a:
1. FILL THIS SECTION - PARTICIPANT PROFILE
25 April 2012, The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin
International Conference for aSustainable Built Environment Environmental Assessment Methods
Yes No
CLIENT
WWWOTHER
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
BRIEFING
TENDER
BREEAMLEED
OTHER
NO POSITIVENO POSITIVENO POSITIVENO POSITIVENO POSITIVE
Yes No
COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE
Is sustainability one of the core issues in your practice?
How did you become aware of environmental assessment? DESIGN TEAM MEMBERCONFERENCE
2. F
ILL
THIS
SEC
TIO
N -
IF Y
OU
ARE
A B
UIL
DIN
G D
ESIG
NER
or C
ON
TRAC
TOR
DEVELOPED DESIGN
THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESSBUILDING PERFORMANCE
Name and function of Building:
Have you been involved in a project that has evaluated environmental assessment of a building (but may not be certified)
If your answer is YES please answer the following:
PUBLICATION
Do you suggest integrating environmental issues to your client /design team?
Do you use environmental assessment criteria as design indicators?
NEGATIVENEGATIVENEGATIVE
What stage was the environmental assessment method introduced?
EARLY DESIGN STAGE
BUILDING COSTBUILDING MARKET VALUE
Is your experience of environmental assessment a positive one?
If not, why not?
Which assessment method, and version have you used?
Did the building assessment process have a negative, no or positive impact on?
NEGATIVENEGATIVE
THE DESIGN PROCESS
2. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING DESIGNER or CONTRACTOR
Yes No
Are you involved in the environmental assessment of buildings? Yes No
OTHER
OFFICERETAIL
SCHOOLOTHER
BREEAMLEED
OTHER
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
COMMENT:
If not, why not?
Has your experience of environmental assessment a positive one?
Has there been any feedback from occupants?
IMPROVED BUILDING PERFORMANCEINCREASED VALUE OF GREENBUILDING
INCREASED MARKETING GREEN PROFILEREDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS
If your answer is yes, please answer the following:
For what reasons are you undertaking environmental assessment?
NEW BUILDEXISTING
RESIDENTIAL
MANUFACTURING
POLICY REQUIREMENTCLIENT GREEN PROFILE
GREEN MARKETING TOOLGOOD BUILDING PRACTISE
If not, why not?
Which assessment method and version have you used?
COMMENT:
Which building occupancy profile?
Building project?
3. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING OWNER, PROVIDER or MANAGER
3. F
ILL
THIS
SEC
TIO
N -
IF Y
OU
ARE
A B
UIL
DIN
G O
WN
ER, P
ROVI
DER
and
MAN
AGER
INCREASED OCCUPANT SATISFACTION
COMMENT:
Based on experience, rate the following benefits in order of achievement:
Are environmental issues integrated in your process of providing and/or maintaining buildings?
COMMENT:
Yes No
Do you consider that Life Cycle Analysis and Costing should be evident in a nationally adopted environmental assessment method?
Do you see building environmental assessment remaining as a voluntary mechanism?
COMMENT:
Would you expect that the focus on energy assessment procedures in current Building Regulation will broaden to include broader environmental issues such as materials, water or waste in the near future?
Should building environmental performance be a core issue in the formation of national policy? 4. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING POLICY MAKER OR REGULATOR
THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN TODAY TO THE CONFERENCE REGISTRATION DESK OR TO VIVIENNE BROPHY, UCD ENERGY RESEARCH GROUP, SCHOOL OF
ARCHITECTURE, RICHVIEW, BELFIELD, DUBLIN 4.
COMMENT:
Are there aspects not currently considered by existing environmental assessment methods that should be included in Green Public Procurement guidance?
COMMENT:
Do you see a role for Government Departments, State Agencies and Bodies in the operation and accreditation of a nationally adopted assessment system?
COMMENT:
FURTHER COMMENT:
Should the assessment criteria of the nationally adopted methodology be similar to those currently being developed nationally in accordance with EU Directives for Green Public Procurement?
COMMENT:
Do you consider that the environmental assessment criteria within existing methods are a credible basis for achieving Green Public Procurement?
COMMENT:
COMMENT:
4. F
ILL
THIS
SEC
TIO
N -
IF Y
OU
ARE
A B
UIL
DIN
G P
OLI
CY M
AKER
OR
REG
ULA
TOR
Re: Certifi ed and Assessed Buildings in Ireland Survey
Dear ,
I write to you from the Irish Green Building Council (IGBC) who are currently undertaking research investigating environmental assessment methods. The IGBC members have highlighted building environmental assessment as pertinent issue to be addressed. This research will be the fi rst step in a process that will aim to provide a recommendation on the utilisation of environmental assessment methods in Ireland.
To achieve this objective we are requesting design teams and contractors involved with buildings that have undergone assessment and possible certifi cation to complete a short questionnaire, which I have attached.
This questionnaire has been sent to all members of the design team for (inset project name here). I hope that you will agree to help in our research. As a respondent you are requested to provide your name: however when the information is collated, all references to particular buildings, design teams and respondents will be removed.
The completed questionnaire should be returned to me in the pre-addressed and stamped envelope, ideally within the next week phase. If you have any queries regarding this questionnaire please don’t hesitate to contact me by telephone: 01 7162770 or by email: [email protected].
In anticipation thank you for your cooperation. Your participation in this research study will assist, we hope, in the selection of a suitable environmental assessment tool in Ireland.
Yours faithfully,
Vivienne Brophy IGBC Interim Board Member
P.S. If this letter has reached you in error and you know of someone more relevant to complete the survey, please forward this information on to us or on to the relevant person. Thank you very much.
Irish Green Building Council | 1st Floor, 63 Lower Mount St, Dublin 2 | www.igbc.ie | Company No. 492948
I R I S H G R E E N B U I L D I N G C O U N C I L
Client
Project Name
Project Location
Role on Project
Project Cost
Assessment Cost
Assessment methodology Used LEED BREEAM Other Please name:
How did you become aware of the
assessment methodology used?
Design Team on
this Project
Design team on
another Project
Other Client /
Building
Seminar /
Conference
Internet /
Other
Was an environmental aspiration
included as part of the design brief?Yes No
Was there a notable time requirement
on your behalf?Yes No If so please
comment:
Did the environmental assessment
involve more or less time that you
expected?
Less Time As expectedMore time than
expected
A lot more
time
Too Much
time
Was there a quantifiable change in the
quality of the building?Yes No If so please
comment:
Did the assessment cost more than you
expected it to?Less Cost As expected
More cost than
expected
A lot more
cost
Too Much
cost
Did the assessment lead to a
measurable increase in the build cost?Less Cost As expected
More cost than
expected
A lot more
cost
Too Much
cost
Did the sustainability rating of the
building improve the marketability of
the building? (If relevant)
Yes No If so please
comment:
Was the site location informed due to
the environmental assessment?Yes No
If so please
comment:
Did life cycle costing affect decisions on
the installed systemsYes No
If so please
comment:
(Life Cycle Costing is based on the
predetermination of initial outlay of
costs based upon the items whole life
cost; running, maintenance, removal,
etc)
Did the building receive a Building
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display Energy
Certificate (DEC) and if so what rating
was achieved?
Were any energy efficiency systems
installed in the building?
Has there been positive feed back from
the building occupants?Yes No
If so please
comment:
Has there been a positive impact on the
expected building running costs?Yes No
If so please
comment:
Do you feel that the whole process
could be deemed as worthwhile?Yes No
Please
comment:
Did you achieve the Environmental
Rating that you set out to achieve?Yes No
Please
comment:
If you were to be involved in another
project would you specify the use of a
sustainability methodology?
Yes No
Overa
ll Experience
Executi
ve D
ecis
ions
Meth
odolo
gy
Energ
y U
sePro
ject
Build
ing
Feedback
Pro
ject
Experience
tim
ePro
ject
Experience /
Valu
e f
or
money
If yes: Would you specify the
methodology previously used?
Design TeamProject Name
Project Location
Role on Project
Project Cost
Assessment Cost
Assessment methodology used LEED BREEAM Other
Please
name:
How did you become aware of the
assessment methodology used?Client
Design team
member
Other Client /
Building
Seminar /
Conference
Internet /
Other
Was an environmental aspiration
included as part of the design brief?Yes No
Was there a notable time
requirement on your behalf?Yes No If so please
comment:
Did the environmental assessment
involve more or less time that you
expected?
Less Time As expected
More time
than
expected
A lot more
time
Too Much
time
Was there a quantifiable change in
the quality of the Building?Yes No If so please
comment:
Did the assessment cost more than
you expected it to?Less Cost As expected
More cost
than
expected
A lot more
cost
Too Much
cost
Did the assessment lead to a
measurable increase in the build
cost?
Less Cost As expected
More cost
than
expected
A lot more
cost
Too Much
cost
Did the environmental rating of the
building improve the marketability of
the building? (If relevant)
Yes No If so please
comment:
Did the requirements of the
environmental methodology
influence the design intent for the
project?
Yes No Please
comment:
Did the methodology require design
that would not have normally been
undertaken?
Yes No Please
comment:
Did the building receive a Building
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display
Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so
what rating was achieved?
Were any energy efficiency systems
installed in the building?
Has there been positive feed back
from the building occupants?Yes No
If so please
comment:
Has there been a positive impact on
the expected building running costs?Yes No If so please
comment:
Do you feel that the whole process
could be deemed as worthwhile?Yes No
Please
comment:
Did you achieve the Environmental
Rating that you set out to achieve?Yes No
Please
comment:
If you were to be involved in another
project would you specify the use of
an environmental methodology?
Yes NoOvera
ll Experience
Meth
odolo
gy
Energ
y U
seD
esi
gn Influence
Pro
ject
Build
ing
Feedback
Pro
ject
Experience t
ime
Pro
ject
Experience /
Valu
e f
or
money
If yes: Would you specify the
methodology previously used?
ContractorProject Name
Project Location
Role on Project
Project Cost
Assessment Cost
Was an environmental methodology
requirement included as part of the
tender documents?
Yes No
If yes:
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
If No:
Yes No
Yes No
Was a completed environmental
assessment required as part of final
handover?
Yes Not
Was the incurred impact on cost as
expected?Less Cost As expected
More cost than
expected
A lot
more
cost
Too Much
cost
Was there any specific issues that
incurred beyond expected cost?
Was the incurred impact on
programme as expected?Less Time As expected
More time than
expected
A lot
more
time
Too Much
time
Was there any specific issues that
incurred beyond expected delays?
Was there a quantifiable change in
the quality of the building?Yes No
If so please comment:
Did the environmental rating of the
building improve the marketability of
the building? (If relevant)
Yes NoIf so please comment:
Was there additional requirement
required for the following:
Sourcing Materials Yes No If so please comment:
Transportation of Building Materials Yes No If so please comment:
Construction impacts on site and
surroundingsYes No
If so please comment:
Waste Management Yes No If so please comment:
Building commissioning Yes No If so please comment:
Building Monitoring and MaintenanceYes No
If so please comment:
Did the building receive a Building
Energy Rating (BER) or a Display
Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so
what rating was achieved?
Were any energy efficiency systems
installed in the Building?
Has there been positive feed back
from the building occupants?Yes No
If so please comment:
Has there been a positive impact on
the expected building running Yes No If so please comment:
Do you feel that the whole process
could be deemed as worthwhile?Yes No Please comment:
Did you achieve the Environmental
Rating that you set out to achieve?Yes No
Please comment:
If you were to be involved in
another project would you
encourage the use of a
environmental methodology?
Yes No
Overa
ll Experience
Pro
ject
Build
ing
Feedback
Energ
y U
seConst
ructi
on
Requirem
ents
Meth
odolo
gy
Pro
ject
Experience
Cost
Pro
ject
Experience
Tim
e
Pro
ject
Experience
Valu
e f
or
Money
If Yes: Was the allowance included for an accurate representation of
the incurred cost involved in complying with the methodology
requirements?At what stage of the project was the environmental methodology
introduced?
If Yes: Was the uplift an accurate representation of the incurred cost
involved in complying with the methodology requirements?
If yes: Was a specific level
required?
If yes: Would you specify the
methodology previously used?
Did your company have any previous experience in this
methodology?
What was the environmental methodology required?
Was there an agreed uplift in construction cost based upon the
introduction of the methodology?
Was there an allowance included for enivironmental assessment in
the tender price for the project?
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
REFERENCES5
71
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
REF
EREN
CES
Aggeri, F. (1999). Environmental Policies and ❚
Innovation – a knowledge-based perspective
on cooperative approaches. Research Policy,
28, pgs. 699-717.
Alinghizadeh Khezri, N. (2011). Building ❚
Environmental Assessments and Low
Energy Architecture. Thesis submitted for
MSc Sustainable Architecture, Norwegian
University of Science and Technology
(NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. Internet:
NTNU. Available at: http://www.ntnu.no/ Last
accessed: 9 March 2012.
Ali-Toudert, F. (2007). Towards Urban ❚
Sustainability: Trends and Challenges of
Building Environmental Assessments Methods.
Portugal SB07. Sustainable Construction,
Materials and Practice – Challenge of the
Industry for the New Millennium. Internet:
IOS. Available at: www.booksonline.IOSpress.
com/ Last accessed: June 2012.
Australian Sustainable Built Environment ❚
Council (ASBEC). (2011). Australian Building
Rating Tools – NABERS and Green Star.
Internet: NABERS. Available at: http://www.
nabers.com.au/ Last accessed: 31 July 2012.
Air Quality Sciences (AQS). (2009). Building ❚
Rating Systems (Certifi cation Programs):
A Comparison of Key Programs. Internet:
AQS. Available at: http://www.aerias.org/ Last
accessed: 10 February 2012.
Benchmark Centre. (2010). Testing ❚
Certifi cation Systems for Sustainable Buildings.
Report by Benchmark Centre for the Danish
Construction Sector in collaboration with
Danish Building Research Institute. Provided
by Green Building Council Denmark.
Brophy, V. (2005). Current building design ❚
procedures in Ireland – a potential barrier
to sustainable design and construction.
MArchSc thesis in the School of Architecture,
Landscape and Civil Engineering, University
College Dublin. Available in UCD
Architectural Library.
Building Research Establishment (BRE). (2011). ❚
What is BREEAM? Internet: BRE. Available at:
http://www.bre.org/ Last accessed: 8
March 2012.
Building Research Establishment (BRE). (2012). ❚
Personal Communication with David Leonard,
BREEAM International and Bespoke Manager,
April 2012.
Burke, S. (2012). Personal communication ❚
with Sinead Burke, Offi ce of Public Works.
March 2012.
Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P. and Kok, N. (2012). ❚
Supply, Demand and the Value of Green
Buildings. Report for RICS Research. Internet:
RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.org/
research. Last accessed: 29 March 2012.
Cole, R. (2003). Building environmental ❚
assessment methods: A measure of success.
IeJC. May 2003.
Cole, R. (2004). Changing context for ❚
environmental knowledge. Building Research
& Information, 32(2), March-April, pgs 91-109.
Cole, R. (2005). Building environmental ❚
assessment methods: redefi ning intentions
and roles. Building Research and Information,
33(5), pgs 455-467.
Cole, R. (2006). Shared Markets: coexisting ❚
building environmental assessment methods,
Building Research and Information, 34(4), pgs
357-371.
Cole, R. (2011). Motivating Stakeholders ❚
to deliver environmental change. Building
Research and Information, 39(5), pgs 431-435.
Commission of the European Communities ❚
(COM). (2006). COM 545 - Action Plan
for Energy Effi ciency: Realizing the Potential.
Internet: COM. Available at: http://www.
ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 16 March 20012.
Commission of the European Communities ❚
(COM). (2008a). COM 400 - Public
Procurement for a Better Environment.
Communication from the Commission of
the European Parliament, The Council, the
72IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILR
EFER
ENC
ES
European Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions. Internet:
COM. Available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/
Last accessed: 29 February 2012.
Commission of the European Communities ❚
(COM). (2008b). COM 397 – Sustainable
Consumption and Production and Sustainable
Industrial Policy Action Plan. Communication
from the Commission of the European
Parliament, The Council, the European
Economic and Social Committee and the
Committee of the Regions. Internet: COM.
Available at: http://www.ec.europa.eu/ Last
accessed: 16 March 2012.
Construction Products Association (CPA). ❚
(2012). CEN/TC350 Standards. Internet: CPA,
Available at: http://www.constructionproducts-
sustainability.org.uk/ Last accessed: 21
January 2012.
Crookes, D. and deWit, M. (2002). ❚
Environmental economic valuation and its
application in environmental assessment: an
evaluation of the status quo with reference to
South Africa. Journal of Optimization Theory
and Applications, Vol 11 (5). 2002.
Department of Communications, Marine ❚
and Natural Resources (DCMNR) (2007).
Delivering a Sustainable Energy Future for
Ireland - Energy Policy Framework 2007-2020.
Internet DCMNR. Available at: http://www.
dcenr.ie/ Last accessed: 16 March 2012.
Department of Communications, Energy ❚
and Natural Resources (DCENR) (2009).
Maximising Ireland’s Energy Effi ciency – the
National Energy Effi ciency Action Plan 2009-
2020. Internet DCENR. Available at: http://
www.dcenr.ie/ Last accessed: 16 March 2012.
Department of the Environment, Community ❚
and Local Government (DECLG). (2011).
National Action Plan on Green Public
Procurement (draft for public consultation).
Internet: DECLG. Available at: http://www.
declg.ie/ Last accessed: 19 March 2012.
Department of the Environment, Community ❚
and Local Government (DECLG). (2012). A
Our Sustainable Future – A Framework for
Sustainable Development for Ireland Internet:
DECLG. Available at: http://www.environ.ie/
Last accessed: 7 June 2012.
Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges ❚
Bauen (DGNB) (The German Sustainable
Building Council). (2011). Excellence Defi ned.
Sustainable building with a systems approach,
DGNB brochure. Internet: DGNB. Available at
http://www.dgnb.de/ Last accessed: 6
March 2012.
Deutchse Gesellschaft fur Nachhaltiges Bauen ❚
(DGNB) (The German Sustainable Building
Council). (2012). Personal Communication
with Frank Heinlein, Director of Strategic
Management, April 2012.
Ding, G.K.C. (2008). Sustainable Construction ❚
– The Role of Environmental Assessment
Tools. Journal of Environmental Management,
86 (2008) 451 – 464.
Dolan, J. T. (2012). Personal communication ❚
with John Dolan, Senior Building Services
Engineer, Planning / Building Unit, Department
of Education and Skills. May 2012.
du Plessis, C. and Cole, R. (2011). Motivating ❚
Change: Shifting the Paradigm. Building
Research and Information, 39:5, 436-449.
Eichholtz, PMA., Kok, N. and Quigley, JM. ❚
(2010). Doing Well by Doing Good: Green
Offi ce Buildings. American Economic Review,
100, pgs 2494-2511.
Eider, A. (2010). Best practice on green or ❚
sustainable public procurement and new
guidelines. Report from EU fw7 Open House
Project WP1. Internet: Open House. Available
at http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/ Last
accessed: 28 February 2012.
European Commission (EC). (2004a). ❚
Directive on the coordination of procedures
for the award of public works contracts, public
supply contracts and public services contracts.
73
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
REF
EREN
CES
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.
europa.eu/ Last accessed: 21 February 2012.
European Commission (EC). (2004b). ❚
Directive coordinating the procurement
procedures of entities operating in the water,
energy, transport and postal services sectors.
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.eur-lex.
europa.eu Last accessed: 21 February 2012.
European Commission (EC). (2008). GPP ❚
Training Toolkit. Internet: EC. Available at:
http://www.ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 29
February 2012.
European Parliament and the Council of ❚
the European Union (EU), (2002). Directive
2002/91/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council on the Energy Performance of
Buildings. [Internet]. EU. Available at: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20 April 2012.
European Parliament and the Council of ❚
the European Union (EU), (2006). Directive
2006/32/EC of the European Parliament and
the Council on the Energy use Effi ciency and
Energy Services. [Internet]. EU. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20
April 2012.
European Parliament and the Council of ❚
the European Union (EU), (2010). Directive
2010/31/EU of the European Parliament and
the Council on the Energy Performance of
Buildings (Recast). [Internet]. EU. Available at:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20
April 2012.
Fenner, R.A. and Ryce, T. (2008). A ❚
comparative analysis of two building rating
systems. Part 1: Evaluation. In Proceedings of
the Institution of Civil Engineers, Engineering
Sustainability, 161, March 2008 Issue ESI, pgs
55 – 63.
Flora, R. and Moser, M. (2000). Driving Market ❚
Demand for Green Buildings in Pittsburg. In:
Boonstra, C., Rovers, R., Pauwels, S. (eds.),
Proceedings of the International Conference
Sustainable Building 2000. Best: Aneas
Technical Publishers.
Fowler, K. M. and Rauch, E. M. (2006). ❚
Sustainable Building Rating Systems Summary.
Pacifi c Northwest National Laboratory,
operated for the U.S. Department of Energy.
Internet: Mendeley. Available at: http://www.
mendeley.com/ Last accessed: 10 March 2012.
Franzitta, V., La Gennusa, M., Peri, G., Rizzo, ❚
G. and Scaccianoce, G. (2011). Towards a
European Eco-label brand for residential
buildings: Holistic or by-components
approach? Energy, 36, pgs. 1884-1892. Elsevier.
Haucke, F and Volkening, N. (2011). The ❚
Sustainability Strategies of European Property
Companies – An analysis. IVG Research Lab
4/2011. Internet: IVG. Available at: http://www.
ivg.de/ Last accessed: 8 March 2012.
Hendrik, S. (2012). What impact could building ❚
rating tools have in helping to drive more
sustainable building practice in Ireland? Thesis
for MSc Architecture: AEES, University of East
London.
Hourigan, N. (2009). The Development of a ❚
Building Environmental Assessment Method
for Ireland. MArchSc thesis in the School of
Architecture, Landscape and Civil Engineering,
University College Dublin. Available in UCD
Architectural Library.
Inbuilt, (2010). BREEAM versus LEED. White ❚
Paper. Internet: INBUILT. Available at: http://
www.inbuilt.co.uk Last accessed: May 2012.
International Council for Local Environmental ❚
Initiatives (ICLEI). (2008). Green Public
Procurement and the European Ecolabel.
Internet: EC. Available at: http://www.
ec.europa.eu/ Last accessed: 20 February
2012.
International Energy Agency (IEA). (2010). ❚
Energy Performance Certifi cation of Buildings
- a policy tool to improve energy effi ciency.
The Policy Pathway Series. Internet: IEA.
Available at: http://www.iea.org/ Last accessed:
21 February 2011.
International Living Building Institute (ILBI). ❚
(2010). Living Building Challenge 2.0 - A
74IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILR
EFER
ENC
ES
Visionary Path to a Restorative Future.
Internet: ILBI. Available at: https://ilbi.org/ Last
accessed: 5 March 2012.
International Living Future Institute (ILFI), ❚
(formerly the ILBI). (2012). Materials Red List.
Internet: ILBI. Available at: https://www.ilbi.org/
Last accessed: 25 May 2012.
International Organisation for Standardisation ❚
(ISO). (2011). Sustainability in building
construction - Sustainability indicators - Part 1:
Framework for the development of indicators
and a core set of indicators for buildings.
Internet: ISO. Available at: http://www.iso.org/
Last accessed: 25 January 2011.
International Real Estate Business School ❚
(IREBS). (2011). Potential of Creating a Global
Certifi cation System for Sustainable Buildings.
ED Batna, S. Internet: IREBS. Available at: http://
www.irebs.de/ Last accessed: 1 March 2012.
Irish Green Building Council (IGBC). (2012). ❚
Report on Better Building International
Conference for a Sustainable Built
Environment, Royal Hospital Kilmainham,
Dublin. 25 April 2012. Internet: IGBC.
Available at: http://www.igbc.ie/ Last accessed:
21 May 2012.
Joint Research Centre’s Institute for ❚
Prospective Technological Studies (JRC IPTS).
(2011). Green Public Procurement Offi ce
Buildings Technical Background Report.
Report for EC, DG Environment. Internet: JCT.
Available at: http://www.susproc.jrc.ec.europa.
eu/ Last accessed: 22 February 2012.
Jones Lang LaSalle. (2008). Green Building ❚
Rating Systems: Going Beyond the Labels –
October 2008. Internet: JLDS. Available at:
www.joneslanglasalle.com/ Last accessed: 29
February 2012.
Kaatz, E., Root, D., Bowen, P. and Hill, R. (2006). ❚
Advancing key outcomes of sustainability
building assessment. Building Research and
Information, 34:4, pgs 308-320.
Kenneth, S. (2009). BREEAM and LEED to ❚
work together on New Global Standard.
Building UK, March 2009.
Kibert, C. J. (2007). The next generation of ❚
sustainable construction. Building Research
and Information, 35:6, pgs 595-601.
Larsson, N. and Macias, M. (2012). Overview ❚
of the SBTool assessment framework. Internet:
iiSBE. Available at: http://www.iisbe.org/ Last
accessed: 15 July 2012.
Larsson, N. and Poel, B. (2002). Solar Low ❚
Energy Buildings and the Integrated Design
Process – An introduction. International
Energy Agency (IEA) Task 23. Arnhem: IEA.
Lee, W L., Chau, C K., Yik, F W., Burnett, J. and ❚
Tse, M. S. (2002). On the study of the credit-
weighting scale in a building environmental
assessment scheme. Building Research and
Information, 37, pgs 1385-1396.
Lewis, M. (2002). What is the Value of LEED™ ❚
Certifi cation? Environmental Design +
Construction, June 2002.
Lohan, M. (2012). Personal Communication ❚
with Michael Lohan, Property Manager, IDA
Ireland. May 2012.
Longlife (2009). Longlife project information. ❚
Internet: Longlife. Available at: http://www.
longlife-world.eu/ Last accessed: 1 March
2012.
Lutzkendorf, T. and Lorenze, D. (2007). Using ❚
an integrated performance approach in
building assessment tools. Building Research
and Information, 34:4, pgs 334-356.
Lutzkendorf, T., Fan, W. and Lorenz, D. (2011). ❚
Engaging fi nancial stakeholders: opportunities
for a sustainable built environment. Building
Research and Information, 39:5, pgs. 483-503.
Masterson, E. (2012). Personal communication ❚
with Eleanor Masterson, Deputy Chief
Architectural Advisor, HSE Estates. June 2012.
Mateus, R. and Braganca, L. (2011). ❚
Sustainability assessment and rating of
buildings: developing the methodology SBTool
PT-H. Building and Environment, 46, pgs
1962-1971.
75
IRIS
H G
RE
EN
BU
ILD
ING
CO
UN
CIL
REF
EREN
CES
Munch, J. (2009). Sustainability Assessment ❚
of Buildings. Masters thesis for DTU
Management, Technical University of Denmark.
Internet: DTU. Available at: http://www.dtu.dk/
Last accessed: 30 March 2012.
Natural Step. (2012). Our Approach - the ❚
Natural Step Framework. Internet: Natural
Step. Available at: http://www.naturalstep.org/
Last accessed: 5 April 2012.
New Zealand Green Building Council ❚
(NZGBC). (2006). Green Building Assessment
Tool Research project. Final report prepared
for the Ministry for the Environment. Internet:
Ministry for the Environment. Available at:
http://www.mfe.govt.nz/ Last accessed: 11
March 2012.
O’Brien, Brian (2012). Personal ❚
communication with Brian O’Brien, Irish
representative of ILFI, April 2012.
O’Connor, A. (2012). Personal communication ❚
with Aidan O’Connor, Department of the
Environment, Communitany and Local
Government. June 2012.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and ❚
Development (OECD). (2009). Environmental
Performance Reviews: Ireland 2010. Internet:
OECD. Available at: http://www.oecd.org/ Last
accessed: 19 March 2012.
Open House (2012). Open House project ❚
information. Internet: Open House. Available
at http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/ Last
accessed: 28 February 2012.
Offi ce of Public Works (OPW). (2007). ❚
Sustainability Policy of the Offi ce of Public
Works (OPW). Internet: OPW. Available at:
http://www.opw.ie/ Last Accessed: 15 July
2012.
Parker, J. (2009). BREEAM or LEED – ❚
strengths and weaknesses of the two main
environmental assessment methods. BSRIA.
Internet: BSRIA. Available at: http://www.bsria.
co.uk/ Last accessed: 2 February 2012.
Poston, A., Emmalual, R. and Thomson, C. ❚
(2010). Developing holistic frameworks for
the next generation of sustainable assessment
methods for the built environment. In Egbu,
C. (Ed) Proceedings 26th Annual ARCOM
Conference, 6-6 September 2010. Leeds, UK.
Association of Construction Management, pgs
1487-1496.
Reed, R., Bilos, A., Wilkinson, S. and Schulte, ❚
K-W. (2009). International Comparison of
Sustainable rating Tools. JOSRE, vol 1, no 1,
2009. Internet: Costar. Available at: http://www.
costar.com/josre/ Last accessed: 6
March 2010.
Reed, R., Wilkinson, S., Bilos, A. and Schulte, ❚
K-W. (2011). A Comparison of International
Sustainable Building Tools – An Update. In
Newell, G. (Ed) Proceedings 17th Annual
Pacifi c Rim Real Estate Society Conference,
16-19 January 2011. Gold Coast, Australia.
Internet: PRRES. Available at: http://www.
prres.net/ Last accessed: 8 March 2012.
Roderick, Y., McEwan, D., Wheatley, C, and ❚
Alonso, C. (2009). A Comparative Study of
Building Energy Performance Assessment
between LEED, BREEAM and Green Star
Schemes. Proceedings Eleventh International
IBPSA Conference, July 27-30, 2009. Glasgow,
Scotland. Internet: IBPSA. Available at: http://
www.ibpsa.org/ Last accessed: 31 July 2012.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ❚
(RICS). (2011). Going for ‘Green’. Sustainable
Building Certifi cation Statistics Europe.
Internet: RICS. Available at: http://www.rics.
org/ Last accessed: 5 January 2011.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors ❚
(RICS). (2012). Ska Rating. Internet: RICS.
Available at: http://www.rics.org/ Last accessed:
25 May 2012.
Sayce, S, Ellison, L, Parnel, P. (2007). ❚
Understanding investment drivers for UK
sustainable property. Building Research and
Information, 35:6 pgs 629-643.
Saunders, T. 2008. A Discussion Document ❚
76IR
ISH
GR
EE
N B
UIL
DIN
G C
OU
NC
ILR
EFER
ENC
ES
Comparing International Assessment Methods
for Buildings. BRE, Glasgow.
Sustainable Building Alliance (SBA). (2010). ❚
A framework for common metrics. Internet:
SBA. Available at: http://www.sballiance.org/
Last accessed: 15 July 2012.
Schultmann, F., Sunke, N. and Kruger, P. K. ❚
(2009). Global Performance Assessment
of Buildings: A critical discussion of its
meaningfulness. Internet: SASBE. Available at:
http://www.sasbe2009.com/ Last accessed: 10
March 2012.
Sleeuw, M. (2011). A Comparison of BREEAM ❚
and LEED Environmental Assessment
Methods. A report to the University of East
Anglia Estates and Building Division. Internet:
UEA. Available at: http://www.uea.ac.uk/ Last
accessed: 1 May 2012.
Todd, JA., Crawley, D., Geissler, S. and Lindsay, ❚
G. (2001). Comparative Assessment of
environmental performance tools and the
role of the Green Building Challenge. Building
Research and Information, 29 (5), pgs. 324-
335.
Toth, FL. and Hizsnyik. E. (1998). Integrated ❚
environmental assessment methods: evolution
and applications. Environmental Modeling and
Assessment, 3(3), pgs 193-207.
Udall, R. and Schendler, A. (2005). LEED is ❚
Broken….lets fi x it. Grist magazine. Internet:
Aspen Snowmass. Available at: www.
aspensnowmass.com. Last accessed: 14 March
2012.
UK Green Building Council. (2009). Making ❚
the case for a Code for Sustainable Buildings.
A Report by the Code for Sustainable
Buildings Task Group. Internet: UKGBC.
Available at: http://www.ukgbc.org/ Last
accessed: 7 February 2012.
UK Green Building Council. (2010). BREEAM ❚
Consultation – UK GBC consults members
on the future direction of BREEAM.
Consultation Findings Report. Internet:
UKGBC. Available at: http://www.ukgbc.org/
Last accessed: 7 February 2012.
UK Green Building Council. (2011). The ❚
Ecolabel for Buildings: A proposal for effective
implementation. UKGBC Draft Publication.
United States Green Building Council ❚
(USGBC). (2011). Information on Rating
Systems and Certifi cation Tools. Internet:
USGBC. Available at: http://www.usgbc.org/
Last accessed: 14 March 2012.
United States Green Building Council ❚
(USGBC). (2012a). BREEAM Equivalency for
LEED. Internet: USGBC. Available at: http://
www.usgbc.org/ Last accessed: 21 July 2012.
United States Green Building Council ❚
(USGBC). (2012b). Personal communication
with Jennivine Kwan, Vice President,
International Operations, April 2012.
Usher, PJ. (2004). Traditional ecological ❚
knowledge in environmental assessment and
management. Artic, 53(2), pgs 183-193.
Whoriskey, P. (2011). A Future Irish ❚
Construction Industry Environmental
Assessment Method: BREEAM or LEED?.
Undergraduate Thesis for BSc in Construction
Management, Dublin Institute of Technology.
Yates, A., Baldwin, R., Howard, N. and Roa, S. ❚
(1998). BREEAM 98 for Offi ces. BRE Report
no. 350, Watford: BRE.