786final - Sustainability Indicators in Buildings, 2011 July

7/31/2019 786final - Sustainability Indicators in Buildings, 2011 July

1/6

786: Sustainability Indicators in Buildings

Identifying Key Performance Indicators

LoneFEIFER12

1Aarhus School of Architecture, Aarhus, Denmark2 VELUX Group, Hoersholm, Denmark

ABSTRACT: What makes a building sustainable, or green and how is the one better than the other? Thispaper aims to investigate a method on how to identify a sustainable building in an overview, looking into possiblemeasures and targets by method of performance indicators as a benchmark system. Is it viable to obtain a resultwhich can be communicated on several levels, also to decision makers being laymen? A commonunderstanding of indicators system and terminology within sustainable construction could form a platform fornavigation and communication of degrees of sustainability. An investigation of the categories and indicators ofthe upcoming international standard CEN TC 350 is performed. A methodology is elaborated into a system and

with an output usable for levelled communication, thus sourcing a common awareness of sustainability in theparticular building. As illustration, indicators are set up in an overview, and a case study is performed. .

Keywords: Key performance indicators, communication, stakeholders, triple bottom line

1. INTRODUCTION

Buildings represent a major troubleshooter in regardsto solving the imminent task of decreasing carbonemissions. Consuming more than 40% of the energyspent in industrialized countries, the building sectoris an obvious place to look for leverage on the three-part challenge to minimize energy consumption and

carbon emissions, secure political independency ofenergy availability and create economical growththrough incentives and innovations in the buildingsector. Buildings are not consumers of energy - theusers of buildings are. Who are these consumers,and thus the stakeholders?

The stakeholder landscape when discussingbuildings is very broad, with multiple interests, -some private interests, some professional, someshort-term, some long-term, all depending on theindividual approach. There is one overshadowingcommon interest for all, namely the public interest ofleveraging the huge potential of buildings into a toolsolving some of the global challenges. This paper

seeks to investigate which indicators are available tocount and account for sustainable buildings, for thepublic stakeholder in this matter. The approach takenis deliberately banal, inspired by the Albert Einsteincitation you do not really understand somethingunless you can explain it to your grandmother. If weare going to be able to address and handle thechallenge, we need common denominators that canbe understood and handled by peers, professionals,policy makers, politicians and the public in general.

Today all designs are sustainable and withenvironmental focus at least allegedly. Ever sincegreen became the new black, the building sector is

as struck by the desire to go green - and the claim tobe sustainable has become as well a claim to fame.The term green is in substantial risk to become a

mainstream hygiene factor, addressing the subjectonly on a superficial level, and not necessarilyreflecting the long-term effects or actual impacts.

Is there today such a thing as a public commondenominator within indicators of sustainability? Thispaper wishes to investigate and discuss appropriatetools, knowledge and awareness for ordering,expecting and using sustainable buildings, as well as

discuss the motive of sustainability as such.

2. INDICATORS OF TODAY

2.1. Terminology green and/or sustainable

A green building covers measures like limitingconsumption of non-renewable fuels, water, land,materials, emissions of greenhouse gas and otheremissions; minimizing impacts on site ecology, solidwaste or liquid effluents, improving indoor air quality,natural lighting and acoustics and securingmaintenance of performance. A sustainable buildingfeatures all of the same measures, and in additionaddresses longevity, adaptability and flexibility of the

object, accounts for the efficiency of resources spent,addresses safety and security, includes social andeconomic considerations and regards urban andplanning issues [1].

Sustainability is the capacity to endure, tosustain. In regards to ecology, the term describeshow biological systems remain diverse andproductive over time, examples of sustainablebiological systems are long-lived and healthywetlands and forests. In regards to humans,sustainability is the potential for long-termmaintenance of well being, which has environmental,economic, and social dimensions. So whendiscussing buildings, the core issues are long-termmaintenance and well being of the users, seen underthe aspects of environmental, economic, and socialdimensions.


2/6

2.2. Dimensions, standards and schemes

Environmental, economic and socialdimensions are used as protection components of

sustainable development introduced at the firstConference of the Parties (COP) in Rio 1992 [2].These three dimensions are subsequently used asinterdependent and mutually reinforcing pillars ofsustainability. An approach agreed by the ICLEI Local Governments for Sustainability in 2007 usesthe Triple Bottom Line - also known under theabbreviation of TBL or 3BL. The dimensions ofenvironmental, economic and social are popularisedinto "people, planet, and profit". The TBL uses thevery same pillars in the attempt to capture anexpanded spectrum of values and criteria formeasuring organizational (and societal) success:economic, ecological and social.

The Technical Committee CEN/TC 350, underthe EU Commission, is preparing a suite of standardsfor a system to assess buildings using a lifecycleapproach, known as Sustainability of constructionworks. The standards provide principles,requirements, methodologies and calculation rulesfor the environmental, economic and socialperformance of buildings taking technicalcharacteristics and functionality of a building intoaccount. The series of standards aims for theassessment of environmental, social and economicperformance of a building, to be made on an equalfooting, on the basis of the same technicalcharacteristics and functionality of the object of

assessment. The standards are not yet released.

Performance Indicators are quantifiableperformance measurements used to define successfactors and measure progress toward theachievement of business goals. The measures aretypically referred to as KPIs (Key PerformanceIndicators and used within a balanced scorecard as amethod of consolidations.

A comparison between the two main Europeanassessment schemes, DGNB and BREEAM withinthe three dimensions, outlines that the priority andweighting from one scheme to another can besubstantially different [3]. One calculation tool forassessments, the iisBEE calculation tool [4],overcomes national barriers by refraining from theuse of absolute values, leaving this up to the finalusers to discuss and implement. The tool is open-source and global, with an approach to meet differentambition levels within sustainability from 0 asacceptable practice to 5 as best practice. Eachprojectusing this tool can discuss and assess whichlevel is to be met, and in the final output see thisreflected in 7 performance categories. Some of thecategories are close to the TBL dimensions alsoused in the CEN/TC 350, however split further intocategories, and the aspect of culture and heritage

has been added.

2.3. Illustrative field study

Two British researchers - H. Alwaer and D.J.Clements-Croome [5] performed a field study on keyperformance indicators in assessing sustainable

intelligent buildings. The research made first a studyon identifying the key issues related to sustainableintelligent buildings (environmental, social, economicand technological factors) and to develop aconceptual model for the selection of the appropriateKPIs; secondly the research performed a critical testto stakeholders perceptions and values of selectedKPIs intelligent buildings. 20 stakeholders of theconstruction industry were invited to review andscore the 115 individual indicators. The indicatorswere derived from the most frequent UK systems(BREEAM, DQI, SPeAR), supplemented with majorinternational schemes (LEED, CASBEE, AIIB, SBCand HK-BEAM), and additional indicators related tohealth and well being and their effects on productivityand well being of users, as well as automation,intelligence and user control of the indoorenvironmental quality, air quality, temperature,daylighting and sound in the buildings were included.

In order to test an objectively optimal model, theresearchers developed a conceptual SustainableBuilt Environment Tool, which was then tested inpractice on the very same stakeholders.

3. INDICATORS OF TOMORROW

3.1. A levelled approach

Is it possible to outline a set of commondenominators which can serve as a future basic KPItool? The assumption is tested on the generalprinciples of sustainability in building constructiondescribed in ISO 15392:2008. The objectives of anassessment being: to determine the impacts andaspects of the building and its site, and to enable theclient, user and designer to make decisions andchoices that will help to address the need forsustainability of buildings [6]. The basis of the studyis formed by the CEN TC 350 standards, using thestructure of TBL in combination with the LCAprinciple [6d]. The - not yet released - standardsoutline content and a set of suggested frameworkindicators for environmental performance [6b], socialperformance [6c] and economic performance [6d].

The framework of the three dimensions in a briefoutline:

Economical dimension contains four generalindicators, covering the cost of a building up frontand seen over years, maintenance and costs foroperations, suitability for conversions and number ofrefurbishment cycles. The social dimension coversfive indicators, mainly the impacts of a buildingrelated to its occupants, expressed by quantifiableindicators. There are3 general indicators within theenvironmental dimension, limited to the assessmentof environmental impacts and aspects of a building

on the local, regional and global environment. Thequantifiable indicators are expressed mainly as a life


3/6

cycle assessment (LCA) and with some additionalquantifiable environmental information.

The indicators have a further level of informationand grouping around the indicators from 1 to 15

different numbers. The values of each informativeindicator add up to the general indicator level. SeeTable 1 for example on one category.

Table 1: Setup of the Environmental Category withindicators and informative indicators

Indicator Informative

Environ-mentalImpacts

Abiotic depletion potentialAcidification of land and water

resources;Destruction of the stratospheric

ozone layer;Eutrophication;

Formation of ground-level ozone;Global warming potential;

ResourceInput

Use of non-renewable primaryenergy;

renewable primary energy;secondary materials;

secondary fuels;freshwater resources

AdditionalEnviron-mental

Information

Components for reuse;Materials for recycling;

Materials for energy recovery;Non-hazardous waste to disposal;

Hazardous waste to disposal ;Radioactive waste to disposal

Exported energy

The output of the score is a radar / spider webformat, used in several assessment schemes e.g.DGNB, SPeAR and iisBE Tool. .

3.2. Case study

Finally, a case analysis was performed, wherethe LCA calculation of the Model Home 2020 projectLichtAktiv House, a modernisation of a German

Settlers House, was matched against the suggestedCEN/TC 350 indicator scheme system.

As basis for the environmental assessment, thereport on LCA from TU Darmstadt was for the

environmental impact category [7], for the otherinformative indicators the general project informationwas the outline. The values used in the scheme aresubjective and based on a very general assumptionof practice parameters. The social and environmentalcategories are exemplified in figures 1 & 2.

4. RESULTS

The results of the various schemes and scalesshow a large variation. Some focus on a singleindicator, leaving out the long-term consequences,some refrain from considering the expected servicelife. The research paper by Alwaer and Clements-

Croome [5], which first groups the indicators of mainschemes, and then test a conceptual model withbroad indicators, evidently shows, that categoriesand indicators turn out with very different weightings,even amongst peers placed in the same skill group.Different individuals of the same skill group (e.g.architects) give different weightings based on theirpreferences and experiences of buildings. Even bytaking the average between the stakeholders, theaggregated results give different weightings whichcould skew the final assessment results. Also, it is aclear result that the different test persons interpretthe priority levels very differently and open, leadingto a large variation in the assigning of scores, alsowithin the same system [4]. The general result is adegree of inconsistency about the relativeimportance of different KPIs across stakeholders.The evaluations are skewed with a subjective

judgement, because there is no consensus-basedknowledge on the sustainability indicators. As a fact,there are very different, even contradictory estimatesand views about the sustainability indicators amongstthe professionals.


4/6

Figure 1: Output of the indicators within the social dimension, validated from 1-5 where 1 is below currentpractice and 5 is best practice.

Figure 2: Output of the indicators within the social dimension, validated from 1-5 where 1 is below currentpractice and 5 is best practice.


5/6

When looking into the future kaleidoscope of theCEN/TC 350 there is a suggestive outline that theoverall dimensions of environmental, social andeconomical could become predominant as meta-categories. The indicator measures for social and

economic sustainability are still in their infancy, andthe economical aspect is quite inactive or considereda hygiene factor in many of the projects making itdifficult to compare.

Several of the informative indicators underenvironmental, e.g. eutrophication and acidificationof land and water resources will mean very little tomost professionals yet. However the idea ofmeasuring the impact rather than the performance isthe merging trend, supported strongly by the financialcalculations of the added value of sustainablebuildings.

The CEN/TC 350 indicator analysis remains asan exercise in the garage. Mainly because standards

are not released yet, the indicator sets are notfinalized, still under discussion and final revision;consensus is still years ahead of us. However thepicture drawn up is clear and can be used tocommunicate projects sustainability aspirations andbenchmarks within a relative group of weights, andsupports the point that a benchmark must staysimple and be able to give with different levels ofoverview. We may as well start using it now.

5. DISCUSSION

Different people have different views and levelsof understanding about sustainability issues. Astandardised platform for assigning relativeimportance to different sustainability impacts isrequired if there is to be a consistent basis fordecision-making [4].

The stakeholder picture within the constructionbusiness is very broad. Typically different individualsor groups are responsible for different levels withinbuilding sectors, each with their viewpoint,perspective and interest on the problems at hand,implications and solutions. Where developers couldbe looking for a return on investment, open towardsa service life discussion linked to investment interest,quantity surveyors could regard sustainable

intelligent buildings as being significantly moreexpensive from the outset - the difference ofestimating cost or monetary value. The added valuegained by being sustainable must be properlyaccounted for, and experience along with feedbackflows can provide useful evidence for future designs.

The differing views of the assessor, the buildingarchitect and the building engineer on multiplier levellead to subjective results [4] This means, thateffective project value requires an ongoing dialoguebetween all decision makers to negotiate appropriatecompromises and balance stakeholder views. Thus,by recognizing KPIs as a tool to reach consensusamong stakeholders, it seems useful to discuss a

procedure to do so as a future topic.

The problem with any statement, certification,assessment, assumption, and result in the field ofconstruction is, that the minute is has been stated,the next minute, it is questioned. This is a culture andan educational discipline to put up questions as for

results of sustainable buildings. So when the cultureis to question any fact put up, what will remain? Thesubjective conviction and belief, typically driven byaccumulated experience and ability to createconsensus in the group, using the big storage ofcommon knowledge. However, no indicators,performance categories and impact weightings arecommon knowledge yet; then it is pointless to keepdeveloping further schemes, matrix, indicatorsystems and benchmarkings, without a commondenominator and agreed starting point of theyardstick.

By defining three levels, differentiated by

complexity, communication and target groups (Table2), the approach can be targeted according to targetgroup.

Table 2: Setup of communication levels according to targetgroups and corresponding complexity

Label Target Group Complexity

PerformanceCategory

Politicians &Public

3

GeneralIndicators

Policy Makers& Press

12

Informative

Indicators

Peers &

Professionals69

The level of detailing could follow the frameworkof the CEN/TC 350 standards, and be usedaccordingly, leaving each target group within theircomfort zone and still discussing the same issue athand. The benefit of using the CEN/TC 350 asplatform is, that the particular national, private,corporate or political interests are taken care of in theone and same model, giving the overall consensusframework.

If the point of departure is shared as far as thethree levels, a lot of common luggage can be shared

initially, still allowing for differences of opinion, butwith a completely different consensus to begin with.

6. CONCLUSION

The quintessence of a sustainable building is thatit can ensure human wellbeing on a long-term basis.

A certification or an assessment must give anassurance of physical surroundings, which willsecure and maintain the wellbeing of the users. Thisis the main interest of the public as key stakeholderwithin sustainable buildings, and any attempt tobring, sell, promote or convince, legislate, pioneer,conquer, promote or demonstrate should bemeasured on a scale of what will matter most to thepublic - long-term. The decision-makers are to


6/6

legislate the framework and have policy-makersformulate quantifications of the currency with whichwe can cash a future independency of fossil fuels.They are today presented with a wide range ofstatements and postulates some are for real, some

will work, some will not - and how will we know? Wemay not know before in the next generation, andeven then, we need someone to investigate this, andto communicate it, and bring it into the commonconsensus bag of common knowledge.

The economical dimension and the profit aspectare in fact the weakest dimension in terms ofindicators. Public interest is that sustainablebuildings stay within financial reach and socialaccessibility. It is highly problematic, that the financialaspect is not really a part of the discussions. Thisdimension cannot be left out, sustainability must, inorder to mean a difference, be within social reach,

and that means that it cannot only be available forthe well-off private or public clients. Can you actuallyput a price on wellbeing, or rather on the absence ofit? The consequences of a failing health, of lack ofefficiency and absence of workers, early need forcare, exceed surely the economical calculations ofthe upfront costs of constructing a sustainablebuilding. Prevention goes above and beyondtreatment, also when it comes to buildings.

The successful transformation of the individualunderstanding into high quality indicators stands outas the dilemma, no matter the grouping and levellingof indicators and categories.

Policymakers and politicians are notprofessionals and will never be. Therefore theconstruction industry should start simplifying,planners should decipher the concept of sustainablebuildings, take it out of the rocket science universeand keep it simple. The most imperative need is tokeep it on a simple level, as a minimum whenexplaining it to politicians, or to your grandmother, asEinstein said.

Even though the issue is very complex, it couldbe concentrated to three levels by consensus.Politicians stay on top, they got time for 3 bulletpoints, policy makers can handle the complexity of

12 levels, and peers and professionals go all the wayto the informative indicator level, where you mustknow your way through the 69 (and counting)indicator informatives - like acidification andeutrophication, and so forth.

The grouping of performance categories andderiving indicators in the CEN TC/350 could becomea common denominator, subject to be challengedand discussed, but leaning on the very sameframework would mean a great difference. How theweighting and subjective assessments is made, willbe a whole other challenge, which employs aspectsof general education at the schools, information to

the public and much more educational aspects ingeneral, if a satisfying level of common knowledgewithin this field should be reached.

Health is our maybe most precious resource, wemust be sure to programme accordingly since wedepend on this for future wellbeing through a healthytriple bottom line. We need grandmother to live for aslong, that we have time to explain the whole issue

about sustainable buildings to her, and we will thenneed to have our grandchildren explain us the nextsteps, that is, if we live that long.

7. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to Nils Larsson for making his workaccessible and for inspiration in general, to Lars-OvePersson for making it feasible and to Peter Lawaetzfor making it possible.

8. REFERENCES

[1] Larsson, N. (November 2010). Buildingperformance assessment, SB Method andSBTool.

[2] Report of the United Nations Conference onEnvironment and Development, R. d.-1. (1992).

[3] Birgisdottir, H. (n.d.). Retrieved 12 2010, fromComparison of how the concept of sustainabilityis covered in Assessment Schemes DGNB &BREEAM, by Harpa Birgisdottir, SBI:http://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe

_breeam_dgnb.pdf[4] iiSBE Tool 2010:http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-

2010[5] H. Alwaer, D. Clements-Croome. (2010, April).

Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority

setting in using the multi-attribute approach forassessing sustainable intelligent buildings.Building and Environment # 45 (4).

[6] prEN 15643a. General Frameworkb. Framework for the assessment of

environmental performancec. Framework for the assessment of

social performanced. Framework for the assessment of

economic performancee. prEN 15804: Environmental product

declarations core rules for the productcategory of construction products

f. prEN 15978 Sustainability ofconstruction works - Assessment ofenvironmental performance of buildings- Calculation method

[7] Manfred Hegger, T. B. (2010). kobilanzierungVELUX Model Home 2020 LichtAktiv HausHamburg. Fachbereich Architektur, FachgebietEnergieeffizientes Bauen. Darmstadt:Technische Universitt Darmstadt..
http://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool-2010http://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdfhttp://www.dk-gbc.dk/media/8958/101029_dkgbc_styregruppe_breeam_dgnb.pdf

Documents

786final - Sustainability Indicators in Buildings, 2011 July