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