Conference under the patronage of the Polish 

National Contact Point for Research Programmes 

Supported by:

Conference 2011 esea c og a es

of the EU

Let’s Construct Europe’s Future With Innovative Buildings and Infrastructures

Construction and Societal Challenges

Radisson Blu Centrum Hotel - WARSAW 04 / 05 October 2011

FP7 OPEN HOUSE ‐ Benchmarking and 

Construction and Societal Challenges 04 / 05 October 2011

gmainstreaming building sustainability in the EU 

based on transparency and openness p y p(open source and availability) from model to implementation.p

Marjana Sijanec Zavrl GI ZRMK, Vladimir Gumilar CCS  coordinator:Daniel Hiniesto Muñoz de la Torre Daniel Hiniesto Muñoz de la Torre

FP7 OPEN HOUSE objectiveFP7 OPEN HOUSE objective

• The overall objective of OPEN HOUSE is to develop and to implement a common European ‐transparent building assessment methodology, 

complementing the existing ones, 

for planning and constructing sustainable buildings 

by means of an open approach and technical platform.

• FP7 OPEN HOUSE ‐ Collaborative Project supported by the European Commission under the FP7‐ENV_2009 

• coordinated by ACCIONA Infraestructuras (ES), Daniel Hiniesto Muñoz de la Torre • 19 partner organizations covering 11 EU countries• 19 partner organizations, covering 11 EU countries

• Budget 4,9 mio EUR, EC contribution 3,5 mio EUR

• Project duration 36months, February 2010 ‐ January 2013j , y y

Overview of methods and tools for assessment of building sustainability

• Quantitative assessment methods ‐ i.e. LCA (based) methods , inventory of material and energy flows and impact assessment of particular flowsto environmental problems (Envest, EcoQuantum, GaBi ….)

• Qualitative assessment methods – indicators are defined , building is then scoredon several aspects (environmental and others like social, economic…), scores are weighted and aggregated to a final scoreg gg g

• First generation assessment methods – green building• Second generation assessment methods – sustainable building

Method / Tool

Environmentalaspects

Social aspects

Economicaspects

EU wide publicparticipationTool aspects aspects aspects participation

GB tool YES YES Partly PartlyBREEAM YES Partly NO NOLEED YES Partly NO NOLENSE YES YES Partly PartlyDGNB YES YES Partly NOsource: FP7 OPEN HOUSE

What does the construction sector needWhat does the construction sector needto implement the environmental / sustainable assessment

in practice?in practice?

Two different aims with development of assessment method…

Researchers:the desire for objective, scientific, 

Building industry:The desire for practical, transparent, simple to understand criteria that motivate the industry to k t k th i d t t d t blstrict perfrormance criteria in make a task the industry to respond to manageable

step changes in practice“Dr. Cole, GBC”

In building sector only:

simple, user friendly methods  are accepted 

( h ’ b d )(others won’t be used.)

Source: FP7 OPEN HOUSE

The OPEN HOUSE methodology is 

based on existing methods for 

assessing buildingassessing building sustainability 

(BREEAM, DGNB,(BREEAM, DGNB, LEED,…) and on 

existing European standards from 

ISO TC 59/SC 17, as well as CEN/TCas well as CEN/TC 

350.

Innovative elementsInnovative elements• Involvement of public participation  ‐ open source information materialised in an 

open and accessible OPEN HOUSE Platform. 

• Training activities for stakeholders, assuring in that way methodology’s proper l d (" " h dimplementation and its continuity ("OPEN HOUSE assessment training" 12th and 

13th of December in London)

• Designed and developed by a transparent and consensus process• Designed and developed by a transparent and consensus process. Therefore, it is automatically suitable for all European countries.

• Available to everybody, i.e. a non proprietary method, thus fostering the y y, p p y , gexploitation.

• A comprehensive and user‐friendly methodology, supported by an interactive web tool (OPEN HOUSE Platform) that will facilitate the communication and interaction between the building stakeholders(http://openhouse.building‐21.net/ ).

Work process List ofsustainabilityindicators

Development of OH model and Web tool

Selection ofcase studiesand external

model and Web toolexperts, call for

tenders

Testing on 60 casestudiesstudies

Selection of OPEN HOUSE indicatorsSelection of OPEN HOUSE indicators

CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF INDICATORSCRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF INDICATORS

• 1. Is the indicator suggested by CEN TC 350?

CEN/TC 350 tl d l t f E

Analysis and critical evaluation of existing assessment methodologies of

building sustainability

sk1.

2

Analysis and critical evaluation of existing assessment methodologies of

building sustainability

sk1.

2

• CEN/TC 350 currently develops a set of European Standards on the Sustainability of Construction Works.

• 2 Is the indicator suggested by the SBA Framework for

List of possible indicators

(560 entries aprox.)

Tas

List of possible indicators

(560 entries aprox.)

Tas

• 2. Is the indicator suggested by the SBA Framework for Common Metrics of Buildings?List of pre-selected indicators

(95 indicators)Definition of criteria for selection of

indicators1.3

List of pre-selected indicators

(95 indicators)Definition of criteria for selection of

indicators1.3

• This framework has been developed through a comparison of different certification systems by the members of the Sustainable Building Alliance. 

Analysis of applicability and feasibility of the indicators by OPEN HOUSE partnersTa

sk1

Analysis of applicability and feasibility of the indicators by OPEN HOUSE partnersTa

sk1

g

• 3. Is the indicator performance oriented? …..

• 5. Is the subject the indicator aims at scientifically 

List of OPEN HOUSE indicators

(55 indicators)

List of OPEN HOUSE indicators

(55 indicators)

j yclarified? …..

• 9. Is the indicator Life‐Cycle‐oriented? …..

• …..

CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR 

BE

DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR?

ACCEPTABILITY OF

2,00

2,50

3,00UK

DEFR

PL

ACCEPTABILITY OF INDICATORS PER COUNTRY

0 50

1,00

1,50

DESI CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION 

Good 2‐3

0,00

0,50

PLFR

NEEDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR?

treshold

PLES

GR

SE

CH

LEGEND3 ‐ Yes2 ‐ Yes, but... Partly1 N1 ‐ No

0 ‐ no answer, n.a.

IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR 

BE

DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY?

2 00

2,50

3,00BE

UKPL

1,00

1,50

2,00 DE

DESI

FR

0,00

0,50DESI IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE 

METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY?

treshold

PLFR

PL

GRCH

ES

LEGEND3 ‐ Yes2 ‐ Yes, but... Partly1 ‐ No

0 ‐ no answer, n.a.SE

COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR?

3,00BE

UKPL

COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR?

1 50

2,00

2,50

DEFR

0,50

1,00

1,50

DESI

COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR 

0,00

PLFR

THIS INDICATOR?

treshold

PLES

GR

SE

CHLEGEND3 ‐ Yes2 ‐ Yes, but... Partly1 ‐ No

0 ‐ no answer n a.0 no answer, n.a.

COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED?

3,00BE

UKPL

1 50

2,00

2,50

DEFR

0,50

1,00

1,50

DESI

0,00

PLFR

COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED?

treshold

PLES

GR

SE

CHLEGEND3 ‐ Yes2 ‐ Yes, but... Partly1 ‐ No

0 ‐ no answer, n.a.

3,01.1.1

1.1.2 1.1.3 1.1.41.1.57.3.1

7.3.2 7.4.1 7.6.1GROUP of INDICATORS1 environmental

LEGEND3 ‐ Yes2 Yes but Partly

2,0

2,5

1.2.11.2.2

1.2.3

1.2.4

1.2.56.3.1

6.4.1

7.1.17.1.2

7.2.12 social3 economic4 technical5 functional6 process

2 ‐ Yes, but... Partly1 ‐ No

0 ‐ no answer, n.a.

ACCEPTABILITY OF

1,0

1,51.3.1

1.3.2

1.3.3

1 4 16 2 1

6.2.2

6.2.3

6.2.47 site ACCEPTABILITY OF INDICATORS 

Good 2‐3

0,0

0,5

1.4.1

1.5.1

1.5.2

1.6.16.1.1

6.1.2

6.1.3

6.2.1

1.7.1

1.8.1

1.9.14.5.2

5.1.1

5.2.1

1.10.1

2.1.1

2.2.1

2.3.14.2.1

4.3.1

4.4.1

4.5.1

2.3.22.3.3

2.3.42.3.5

2.3.62.3.72.3.82.4.2

2.4.32.5.12.6.13.1.1

3.2.13.4.1

4.1.1

CAN THE CLIENT PROVIDE INFORMATION NEEDED FOR DETERMINATION OF PARTICULAR INDICATOR? IS THERE AN EXISTING AVAILABLE METHOD FOR DETERMINATION OF INDICATORS' VALUE IN YOUR COUNTRY?

COULD THE BENCHMARK BE SET FOR THIS INDICATOR? COULD THIS INDICATOR BE APPLIED?

OPEN HOUSE Baseline model and assessment methodology 

" ll" d " " i di"Full" and "Core" indicators system

• The OPEN HOUSE methodology is diversified in six categories:

The three pillars of sustainability Environmental Quality, Social / functional Quality and Economic Quality compose the main assessment with equal weight to each other. Technical Characteristics and Process Quality are modules, which are assessed separately. In the category The Location, the site is assessed as an extra module because it is outside the system boundaries.

1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP)

1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)

1.3 Acidification Potential (AP)

1.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP)

1.5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

1.6 Risks from materials

"Full" and "Core" Environmental

Quality

1.7 Biodiversity and Depletion of Habitats

1.8 Light Pollution

1.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne)

1.10 Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy

1.11 Water and Waste Water

1.12 Land use

1.13 Waste

indicators system1.14 Energy efficiency of building equipment (lifts, escalators etc.)

2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility

2.2 Personal Safety and Security of Users

2.3 Thermal Comfort

2.4 Indoor Air Quality

2.5 Water Quality

2.6 Acoustic Comfort

2.7 Visual Comfort

2.8 Operation Comfort

Environmental Quality

1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP)1.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP)1.3 Acidification Potential (AP)1.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP)

1.5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP)

1.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne)

1 10 Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage

Social / Functional

Quality

2.9 Service Quality

2.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution

2.11 Public Accessibility

2.12 Noise from Building and Site

2.13 Quality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and Site

2.14 Area Efficiency

2.15 Conversion Feasibility

2.16 Bicycle Comfort

2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing

2 18 L l M t i l

1.10 of Renewable Primary Energy1.11 Water and Waste Water1.12 Land use

1.13 Waste

2.1 Barrier-free Accessibility2.3 Thermal Comfort2.4 Indoor Air Quality2.6 Acoustic Comfort

2.18 Local Material

Economic Quality

3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

3.2 Value Stability

Technical

4.1 Fire Protection

4.2 Durability of the structure and Robustness

4.3 Cleaning and maintenance

4 4 R i t i t h il t hi h t d th k

Social / Functio

nal Quality

2.7 Visual Comfort2.8 Operation Comfort2.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution2.11 Public Accessibility2.12 Noise from Building and Site2.15 Conversion Feasibility2.16 Bicycle Comfort2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing

2.18 Local MaterialTechnical

Characteristics 4.4 Resistance against hail, storm high water and earthquake

4.5 Noise Protection

4.6 Quality of the building shell

4.7 Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation

5.2 Integrated Planning

5.3 Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning

Economic

Quality3.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC)

Technical

Characteristics

4.6 Quality of the building shell

4.7 Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling

Process Quality

5.4 Evidence of Sustainability during Bid Invitation and Awarding

5.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

5.6 Quality of the Executing Contractors/Pre-Qualification

5.7 Quality Assurance of Construction Execution

5.8 Commissioning

5.9 Monitoring, Use and Operation

Process Quality

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation

5.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process

5.8 Commissioning

The location

6.1 Risks at the Site

6.3 Options for Transportation

The location

6.1 Risks at the Site

6.2 Circumstances at the Site

6.3 Options for Transportation

6.4 Image and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood

6.5 Vicinity to amenities

6.6 Adjacent Media, Infrastructure, Development

Source: D1.5 Baseline model and assessment methodology, FRAUNFOFER

"Full" and "Core" indicators systemFull  and  Core  indicators system• The OPEN HOUSE full 

system includes a list of 56 indicators.

• The OPEN HOUSE core system is a set f 31 i di ( hof 31 indicators (that make part of the full 

system). 

“Basic and quick sustainability assessment” and “Complete assessment”

• 2 levels of assessment were developed:

• “Basic and quick sustainability assessment”f d i h d i i b ildi– for design phase and existing buildings 

– gives first idea of sustainability level 

– no stringent documentation needed, based on estimations, but must be reasonable

– the assessment is possible in several days and will be done in an assessment workshopp

• “Complete assessment”– complete documentation required for "OPEN HOUSE ‐ core indicators”

– and the "Basic and quick sustainability assessment" for the rest of the indicators from the "OPEN HOUSE ‐ full system“

– the assessment takes several weeks (assessment workshop and documentation)

Weighting

Primary QualityPoints

indicatorPoints

maximal

Degree of performance

indicator

Indicator Weighting

Category Weighting

Degree of performance

overall1.1 Global Warming Potential (GWP) 67 100 67% 11.2 Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) 50 100 50% 11.3 Acidification Potential (AP) 10 100 10% 11.4 EutrophicationPotential (EP) 0 100 0% 11.5 Photochemical Ozone Creation Potential (POCP) 25 100 25% 11 6 Risks from materials 100 100 100% 1

OPEN HOUSE Full System Indicators

Weighting1.6 Risks from materials 100 100 100% 11.7 Biodiversity and Depletion of Habitats 100 100 100% 11.8 Light Pollution 75 100 75% 11.9 Non-Renewable Primary Energy Demands (PEne) 50 100 50% 11.10 Total Primary Energy Demands and Percentage of Renewable Primary Energy 100 100 100% 11.11 Water and Waste Water 100 100 100% 11.12 Land use 10 100 10% 11.13 Waste 25 100 25% 11 14 Energy efficiency of building equipment (lifts escalators etc ) 25 100 25% 1

33%Environmental Quality

Weight may be set to 1.14 Energy efficiency of building equipment (lifts, escalators etc.) 25 100 25% 12.1 Barrier-free Accessibility 100 100 100% 12.2 Personal Safety and Security of Users 100 100 100% 12.3 Thermal Comfort 100 100 100% 12.4 Indoor Air Quality 75 100 75% 12.5 Water Quality 25 100 25% 12.6 Acoustic Comfort 75 100 75% 12.7 Visual Comfort 50 100 50% 12 8 Operation Comfort 65 100 65% 1

67%

g y1‐5

2.8 Operation Comfort 65 100 65% 12.9 Service Quality 20 100 20% 12.10 Electro Magnetic Pollution 10 100 10% 12.11 Public Accessibility 0 100 0% 12.12 Noise from Building and Site 0 100 0% 12.13 Quality of the Design and Urban Development of the building and Site 0 100 0% 12.14 Area Efficiency 25 100 25% 12.15 Conversion Feasibility 50 100 50% 12 16 Bicycle Comfort 100 100 100% 1

33%Social /

Functional Quality

Weight of categoryb ti ll2.16 Bicycle Comfort 100 100 100% 1

2.17 Responsible Material Sourcing 100 100 100% 12.18 Local Material 100 100 100% 13.1 Building-related Life Cycle Costs (LCC) 85 100 85% 13.2 Value Stability 100 100 100% 1

4.1 Fire Protection 0 100 0% 14 2 D bilit f th t t d R b t 75 100 75% 1

33%Economic Quality

may be nationallyspecific tbd.

4.2 Durability of the structure and Robustness 75 100 75% 14.3 Cleaning and maintenance 25 100 25% 14.4 Resistance against hail, storm high water and earthquake 75 100 75% 14.5 Noise Protection 50 100 50% 14.6 Quality of the building shell 65 100 65% 14.7 Ease of Deconstruction, Recycling, and Dismantling 100 100 100% 1

5 1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation 0 100 0% 1

56%Technical Characteristics

5.1 Quality of the Project’s Preparation 0 100 0% 15.2 Integral Planning 100 100 100% 15.3 Optimization and Complexity of the Approach to Planning 75 100 75% 15.4 Evidence of Sustainability during Bid Invitation and Awarding 25 100 25% 15.5 Construction Site impact/ Construction Process 75 100 75% 15.6 Quality of the Executing Contractors/Pre-Qualification 50 100 50% 15.7 Quality Assurance of Construction Execution 65 100 65% 15.8 Commissioning 20 100 20% 1

46%Process Quality

5.9 Monitoring, Use and Operation 0 100 0% 1

6.1 Risks at the Site 75 100 75% 16.2 Circumstances at the Site 0 100 0% 16.3 Options for Transportation 25 100 25% 16.4 Image and Condition of the Location and Neighbourhood 50 100 50% 16.5 Vicinity to amenities 100 100 100% 1

55%The location

Source: D1.5 Baseline model and assessment methodology, FRAUNFOFER

Testing of OPEN HOUSE methodologyTesting of OPEN HOUSE methodology

• Assessment of particular (60) case studies, by means of the OPEN HOUSE baseline model andOPEN HOUSE baseline model andmethodology

• Evaluation of specific aspects of theEvaluation of specific aspects of the OPEN HOUSE assessment methodology

• Aim: To evaluate and refine the methodology by the feedback resulting from case studies and real sustainable public procurement cases and other t k h ld i tstakeholders inputs.

OPEN HOUSE Platform ‐ Forum

• for all interested stakeholders

• link to methododlogy and elaborated test caseslink to methododlogy and elaborated test cases

OPEN HOUSE methodology will soon be available li d t t d i 60 EU ffi b ildion‐line and tested in 60 EU office buildings

Finalisation of the web tool

Source: OPEN HOUSE Web tool, www.oh.building-21.net, APINTECH

Web sites

• http://www openhouse‐fp7 eu/ ‐ OPEN HOUSE Home Page: for basic• http://www.openhouse‐fp7.eu/ ‐ OPEN HOUSE Home Page: for basic dissemination purposes mainly; with a link to OPEN HOUSE Platform.

• http://openhouse.building‐21.net/ ‐ OPEN HOUSE Platform: This is the website where the indicators and the final methodology will be uploaded. It has also a FORUM where partners and stakeholders’ suggestions and p ggconcerns should be posted in order to make the methodology more transparent. All interested partners and stakeholders can access prior registrationregistration. 

• http://collab.apintech.com/ ‐ OPEN HOUSE Webcollab Tool: This is aninternal web page for OPEN HOUSE partners only. 

http://www openhouse fp7 eu/http://www.openhouse‐fp7.eu/

Thank you!