Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development 35
The Development of Environmental Labeling of Buildings; a case study of Sustainability Applications in UK, Ieeland and Egypt
2 1 Alwan Zl, Hudson G , Greenwood D I Northumbria University, U.K 2 Moll MacDonald St Ann's Wharf, 112 Quayside Newcastle-upon-Tyne NE13DX
1 Environmental Assessment: The Background
The first simplified environmental assessment and certification system was the BREEAM rating system developed in the UK in 1990. Interestingly, the motivation for developing BREEAM came from a group of private sector speculative developers (led by Stanhope plc) wanting to differentiate the quality of their buildings from their competitors in a boom market (The Stanhope Corporation, 2009). At the same time, the protocols and standards for Life Cycle Environmental Assessment (LCA) were under development and being adapted from product assessment to building assessment. There was a tension between the 2 constituencies BREEAM was perceived as simplistic, but LCA was perceived as complex and impractical, especially for buildings which are composites of materials and products, each of which must be reconciled with the lifetime operation al performance of the building. In many European countries these initiatives continued in parallel and are gradually being reconciled over time - BREEAM now uses LCA-based credits for materials based on comparative elemental LCA profiles. Also launched around the same time, ISO 14000 for Environmental Management Systems was later mandated for use by suppliers to the European Commission. This created the potential for coordination between the design and operational performance and management ofbuildings (Howard, 2005). 36 Alwan Z, Hudson G & Greenwood D
2 BREEAM and LEED
Breeam (the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method) is devised and operated by the UK Building Research Establishment (BRE) and over the past decade the UK version has been adapted for use in many other countries. This environmental assessment method is generally accepted as having widespread support in the UK (Holmes and Hudson, 200 I). The objectives of BREEAM are: To distinguish buildings ofreduced environmental impact in the marketplace To encourage best environmental practice in building design, operation, management and maintenance To set criteria and standards going beyond those required by law and regulations To raise awareness of owners, occupiers, designers and operators of the benefits of buildings with reduced environmental impact. The assessment method gives outcomes as credits; the final classification of the assessment being then based on the number of credits. Classifications are Pass, Good, Very Good and Excellent, and an additional classification of "Outstanding" was added in 2008, partly due to the perception that the "Excellent" classification was being met with relative ease. The assessment method and certification process itself provides a method of distinguishing buildings of reduced environmental impact and encouraging their use. In the USA a similar system - the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is run by the Green Building Council,. Its categories are Certified, Silver, Gold and Platinum (USA, Green Building Council,2010).
3 Case Studies from the UK and Ieeland
In the following section we will compare two BREEAM case studies: one from 2000, and one from 2009 with the aim of identifying the changes that have occurred in terms of mechanisms for improving sustainability in the Built Environment.
3.1 A case study from tbe UK
The focus of the case study was an 11, 150m2 office development, which has been converted from a redundant post sorting office (Figure I). The four-storey post-war building is constructed in cavity brickwork in a square U shape with the two points of the U facing south. SustainabJe Architecture and Urban Development 37
Figure I; Central Square External View (Holmes and Hudson, 2001)
lt was reported by Holmes and Hudson (2001) that the objective of a BREEAM "Excellent" rating influenced both the original design of the building and the refining stage, to optimize the score. According to the authors, "Tbe structure is very robust with reinforced concrete noors and roof and two basement levels. Single storey buildings in the centre of the U were demolished and the space used to create an atrium with a white fabric roof and incorporating a spectacuJar, sculptural, open staircase. See figure I The final assessment was then carried out and a final score of 73 «'excellenf) was achieved". (Holmes and Hudson, 2001)
Table 1 summarises the changes made to the design to achieve the "Excellen( rating. During the design phase, the engineers encountered difficulty in sourcing materials to meet the BREEAM constraints. This was very time-consuming, but it was important to ensure that the specified materials were readily available, especially when there were pressures to change the specification during the construction phase. Changes made to the design (Table I) could be considered minor and not a fundamental change in design philosophy of the building. 38 Alwan Z, Hudson G & Greenwood D
Table I: Changes made to the design to aehieve a BREEAM Exeellent rating Holmes and Hudson, 200 I ater services Specification changes were made to include smaller eistern sizes and erating taps. Additional urinal flushing controls were included.
andscape planting Plant species were changed to support "city wildlife'
entilation services Fal(ade details were amended to include a higher ercentage of opening windows.
ir intake and exhaust positions were re-sited to avoid potentiallocalised pollution sourees.
ui/ding design Changes were made 10 provide a separate outside building fo smokers and a separate storage are for recyclable materials.
aterials Speeification ehanges were made to souree "greener' aterials for windows, insulation and timber.
3.2 A ease study from lceland
BREEAM has been applied to two visitor eentres in west and east of Iceland, and a eentre tor Icelandic studies. The elient wanted a praetieal, trustworthy, aeeepted method of assessing buildings whieh showed eonsideration for the loeal environmental conditions in Ieeland. As outlined by Valdimarsson (2009) Ieeland has many features whieh ean provide the ideal eonditions for the creation of a sustainable building. These include a significant national uptakeof renewable sourees of energy, with geothermal energy providing 50% of total primary energy use and 68% being supplied eollectively by all renewables (Fridleifsson, 200 I). The Icelandic authorities thought the BREEAM system provided an excellent checklist for good design , and allowed for decisions to be made earlier in the design process. However certain elements of BREEAM were clearly alien to the Icelandic infrastructure and so me of the standard criteria appeared weak compared to current Icelandic benchmarks. In additions there were issues surrounding accountability of C02 production and renewable energy use (Birgisd6ttir, 2009). From this example it is elear that there are a number of eountry-specific faetors and local considerations that must be taken into ac count when implementing an existing environmental assessment system in a particular new country. In summary, BREEAM had proved to be useful as a benchmarking tool for Ieeland, however some aspect ofthe tool did not translate weil. Sustainable Arehiteeture and Urban Development 39
4 Is BREEAM Suitable for Any Country?
The expansion and popularity of the BREEAM system has led to the development of the BREEAM International and BREEAM Bespoke (for speeifie buildings other than those eovered by the original BREEAM sehern es) to eater for the needs of other buildings, for example, theatres or swimming pools. BREEAM International has been further developed to meet the needs of more diverse international projeets and their partieular loeal planning requirements of speeifie eountries: examples being BREEAM Retail Europe and BREEAM Gulf. For a benchmarking tool to work weIl a number of eriteria are considered paramount: the tool must be, Verifiable and affordable: the system must be easily understood and capable ofbeing provided at reasonable cost. The systems needs to be complimentary or linked to the speeific regulatory system in that particular country against which the eredits can be aehieved. This enables improvements that are measurable against established guidelines. In addition thc system, while maintaining the required regulatory, administrative and engineering or scientific complexity, should also be an easy enough tool to be applied and used by assessors of various bodies from governmental departments to eommercial organisations. Appropriate to the loeal climate and environment: thc BREEAM system for example, having originated in the UK gives low priority to water eonservation, whereas BREEAM Gulf has been adapted for that partieular environment. Similarly, thc assessment weightings of the BREEAM assessment criteria are ehanged to give water (with 30% of the assessment) priority over energy (whieh is the key issue in the standard UK schemes). Furthermore, in BREEAM Gulf references to ASHRAE and other standards are made in addition to the'standard" CIBSE guidance as the base measure for certain credits (BSRIA 2009). The figure below demonstrates the general emphasis of the major eategories of Pearls, BREEAM, and LEED and their weighting in each rating system. It also shows that there is a considerable overlap between the three systems with each system having its on particularities, (Integrated Design Process in the case ofPearls, Facilities Management in the Case ofBREEAM, and Regional Priority in the ease ofLEED). It ean be seen that within the Pearls of the Estidama the emphasis is plaeed on major factors affecting a much more extreme weather climate in which buildings have to operate in 40 Alwan Hudson G & Greenwood 0
Figure 2 .Examples ofweightings for different systems (Carboun 2010)
• Appropriate to the professional infrastructure: in the UK, for example, the "Considerate Constructor" credit relies on Ihe existence of an independent construction inspection scheme. If a region or a country does not have such a scheme, then another method of demonstrating this aspeet of the environmental labelling needs to be developed. These eriteria, and the difficulty in meeting them in every loeal situation, have led to the development of a number of initiatives taking plaee whereby sustainable assessment lools are being developed 10eally. These inc1ude a fairly well-developed example is the sustainability assessment tool designed for Abu Dhabi known as '·Estidama". Meanwhile the Egyptian Green Bui/ding Couneil i5 in the proeess of produeing its own appropriate assessment tool - The Green Pyramid Rating System (GPRS). GPRS will have three levels for eategorizing buildings in terms of their green eredentials, namely Silver, Gold and Green Pyramid awards. It has to be said that no benehmarking system is perfeet and as environmental factors and eonditions vary across different eountries so does the validity systems. For example in the energy elements of BREEAM, buildings producing least C02 achieve greater points. However in IceJand where the eleetricity supply Is heavily dependent on renewables to begin witl-} actual reduetions in C02 where hard to aehieve, and thus did not translate to better building performance. Similarly the other good example of where transfer or eategories does not fit into loeal eonditions i8 provision in public transport, A country like Iceland has a very small population of around 300 000 inhabitants, and therefore very low population density, and therefore provisions of public transport will limit. Thus obtaining points under the BREEAM, public transport provisions for buildings would be impossible for sueh a country Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development 41
5 Changes in Environmental Benchmarking Systems over the Last Ten Years
As should be evident from the examples given in this paper, Environmental Benchmarking Systems are tools to deliver change in the Built Environment. As such, it is hardly surprising that they should change themselves. The targets set by building environmental assessment tools should be agents of change in raising standards, particularly in terms of energy efficiency and reduced carbon emissions. In order to achieve their primary aims, and to work efficiently and effectively with design and construction professionals, assessment tools must raise standards, in increments and over time frames that are challenging within the prevailing market conditions. This is best encapsulated in a diagram from Burnett (2005) (see diagram below).
'Suslamable Building' Target
I" I --::~~~t:s------r---+II---B":".;~!~-~:-~-' dlfficulty. cost, eie i
BaseiinelBenehmark
Tomsffame»
Figure 3: Raising standards over time (Burnett 2005)
Gains that result from the implementation of assessment tools have already been documented. For example, in the US, improvements of around 30% over energy benchmarks have been reported for buildings qualifYing for the LEED Silver award (Burnett, 2005). 42 Alwan Z, Hudson G & Greenwood D
5.1 Design Stage (OS) and Post Construction Survey (PCS)
Traditionally a Design Stage assessment will produce a rating based on information at the design stage. The BREEAM methodology and tool was revised in 2008, and now includes a Post Construction Survey (PCS). This means that the assessment process will ensure that any environmental modifications made at the design stage are continued to the built phase (Building Sustainability, 2008).
5.2 Credits for Innovation
In addition to the above, under BREEAM 2008, credits will provide extra recognition for innovations that improve a Building's sustainable performance that are not covered under the standard assessment criteria. (BREEAM, 2008) There are two ways to achieve these: By exceeding the exemplary performance level requirements of an existing BREEAM topic By having a feature of the building or a process assessed by BRE Global deemed "innovative".
6 Conclusions
It can clearly be seen that there is a gradual worldwide movement towards the sustainability rating of buildings. A number of standard benchmarking schemes have been developed and that number is increasing as particular geographical, climatic and other localized needs are accommodated. For example, the IceJandic case study indicates some weakness in using the BREEAM methodology in that region. This illustrates the fact that the future deveJopment of these tools should examine opportunities for local variations. Whatever the system employed, environmental benchmarking systems can influence early-stage design, and this is their primary aim in promoting sustainable building practice. While this is the case, there is still massive scope for improvement, as all existing systems, while they go some way to promoting sustainability, do not appear to deliver a "step change" in design thinking in terms of changing the way in which buildings are used or promoting wider sustainability issues. While Benchmarking systems specifically LEED in the USA, and BREEAM in the United Kingdom have existed on national basis for many years and many buildings have been certified. It is only relatively recently that such too1s have been exported to other countries and therefore the concept of transferability has not been applied and tested worldwide. Therefore as part of the gradualleaming process, over time the systems will adapt gradually to changes in Iocal conditions and climates. It could also be suggested at this while different vers ions of Sustainable Architecture and Urban Development 43 benchmarking tools have different weightings, as mentioned earlier BREEAM Gulf has priority tür water use as its focus, this could change in the future as systems become more established for particular need ofa country or region. Another critical factor which has influence of such systems and has a proportional influence on the effectiveness of the system is the role of the BREEAM assessor in the design process. Usually it is the designers, planners and architects to influence design, but the involvement of the assessor at an early stage is pivotal in achieving as successful implementation ofbenchmark or rating for a building. lt is usually left to an assessor to make a variety of complex judgments on a variety of issues which lead to an overall score.
References
Bi rgisd6tti r, A. (2009). Experience From Current BREEAM projects. What does lcelandic sustainable building approach need to include? EFLA Consulting Engineers, fceland. [unpublished PowerPoint presentation] BSRIA (2009) BREEAM or LEED - strengths and weaknesses ofthe two main environmental assessment methods. A vailable at http://www.bsria.co.uklnewsibreeam-or-leed/. [accessed 22.12.2009] Building (2008) Building Sustainability: A new face for BREEAM. A vailable at http://www .building.co. uklsustain_ story.asp?sectioncode=3 2&storycod e=31 15416#ixzzOetOb6f2t. [Accessed 15.1.20 I 0] Building (2010) Building Sustainability: BREEAM, LEED, Regulations and the Codes. A vailable at http://W\\'W.building.co.uklsustain_section.asp?navcode=3732. [Accessed 15.1.2010] Bumett, J (2005) Assessing the performance ofbuildings ± only the final product counts. The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27- 29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo) 1621-1628. Estidama (201 0) Available at www.estidama.org. [Accessed 5.2.2010] Fridleifsson, JB (2001) "Geothermal energy IWr tLiK bKnKfit WftLIK LKWLIK'I Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 5 (3) 299-312. Holmes., J and H udson.,G (2001), The application ofBREEAM in corporate real estate: A case study in the design a city centre office development. Journal of Corporate Real Estate 5 (I) 66-78 Housing and Building National Base (2009) A vailable at: http://www.hbrc.edu.eg/ahbrc/. [Accessed 12.12.09]. Howard., N (2005) Building environmental assessment methods in practice. The World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29 September 2005 (SB05Tokyo). 2009-2015 44 Alwan Z, Hudson G & Greenwood D
The Stanhope Cooperation (2009) A vailable at: http://www.stanhopeplc.comJ?page=51&id=543. [Accessed 8.12.2009] The USA Green Building Couneil. Available at http://www.usgbe.org/ . Aceessed [12.02.10] Valdi marsson., 6 (2009) Using environmental assessment methods in procurement and eonstruetion of publie buildings in leeland. Govemment Construetion Contracting Ageney Iceland [unpublished PowerPoint presentation ]