BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD for IRELAND

IRISH GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL 

BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT METHOD 

for IRELAND 

IGBC Exploratory Study 

UCD Energy Research Group - University College Dublin

CONTENTS 

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

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 

1 

SUMMARY 

IRISH GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL

2 

SUMMARY 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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 Irishbased 

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

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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 

3 

SUMMARY 


4 

SUMMARY 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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.

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. 

5 

SUMMARY 


6 

SUMMARY 


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 

for success. 

and management is essential 

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.

ABBREVIATIONS 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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

8 

1. EVALUATING ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN AND PERFORMANCE 


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

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). 


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 

9 



10 



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.


1.3 Commonly used building environmental assessment methods 

Strengths Weaknesses 

Evaluation categories Performance 

certifi cation 

rating 

Occupancy profi les 

developed or 

in development 

Developer Countries where adopted 

or licence to adopt 

No. of buildings 

certifi ed 

No. of 

buildings 

registered 

System Countries with buildings 

certifi ed or registered for 

certifi cation 2011 

Limited 

openness and 

transparency 

Mature system 

familiar to 

industry 

Unclassifi ed, 

Pass, Good, Very 

Good, Excellent, 

Outstanding 

Management, Health and Well being, Energy, 

Water, Materials, Land Use, Ecology and Pollution 

Residential, Multi-Residential, Offi ces, 

Retail, Industrial, Education, Healthcare, 

Prisons and Courts, Bespoke 

UK, Netherlands, Norway, 

Spain, Sweden, United Arab 

Emirates 

23,009 5,111 British Research Establishment 

UK, Ireland, Portugal, Spain, France, 

Luxembourg, Belgium, Netherlands, 

Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech 

Republic, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, 

Finland, Russia, Turkey 

BREEAM 

UK 

1990 

C,B-,B+, A,S LCA approved Developed 

specifi cally for 

Japan, based 

on national 

standards 

Building Environmental Quality and Performance 

and Building Loadings 

Japan Existing, New Design, 

Renovation, Heat Island, Urban Development, 

Urban Area and Buildings, 

Cities, Homes, Property Appraisal, 

Market promotion is in development. 

6654 212 Japan Sustainable 

Building 

Consortium 

Japan, Planned Certifi cation for 

building in China 2012 

CASBEE 

Japan 

2004 

Immature still in 

development 

Innovative 

based on EU 

CEN standards; 

includes LCA 

and economic 

considerations 

Bronze, Silver, 

and Gold 

Environmental Quality, Economic Quality, 

Sociocultural and Functional Quality, Technical 

Quality, Process Quality, Site 

New, Modernisation and Existing 

Offi ce and Administration Buildings, 

Modernisation and New Retail, New 

Education, Industrial, Residential Buildings, 

Hotels and Mixed City Districts 

Brazil, China, Thailand, Spain, 

Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, 

Slovenia, Czech Republic, Austria, 

Hungary, Greece, Bulgaria, 

Turkey, Russia 

301 404 German 

Sustainable 

Building Council 

Germany, Luxembourg, Czech 

Republic, Austria 

DGNB 

Germany 

2008 

Developed for 

use in Canada 

and US to national 

standards 

Based on 

BREEAM, high 

involvement 

and D+C 

process 

One, two, three, 

four globes 

Project Management, Site, Energy, Water, 

Resources, Emissions, Impacts and Indoor 

Environment 

Canada, US Design of New Construction, Management 

and Operation of Existing Buildings, 

Building Emergency Management, 

Building Environment, Fit-out 

ECD Energy and 

Environment 

Canada Ltd. In US, Green 

Building initiative 

2,698 

BOMABESt (Existing, 

Canada) 

70 (New, 

Canada) 400 

(New, US) 

3,399 

BOMABESt 

(Existing, 

Canada) 

Canada, US, JLL Global use Green 

Globes in Europe, Australia, Latin 

America and a large pilot in China 

SPA London, UK and Ireland 

Green 

Globes 

Canada 

2000 

More suitable 

for hot climate 

conditions with 

cooling loads 

Based on 

BREEAM and 

LEED 

One, two, three, 

four, fi ve, and six 

stars 

Management, Indoor Environmental Quality, 

Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land Use 

and Ecology, Emissions, Innovation 

Education, Healthcare, Industrial, 

Multi-Unit Residential, Offi ce, Offi ce 

Interiors, Retail Centre. Communities 

and Performance are in development 

Australia, New Zealand, South 

Africa 

524 442 Green Building Council 

Australia, New Zealand 

Green Building Council, 

Green Building Council SA 

Australia, New Zealand, South 

Africa 

Green Star 

Australia 

2003 

Developed to 

Hong Kong 

standards 

Based on 

BREEAM 

Bronze, 

Silver, 

Gold, 

Platinum 

Building receives 

a HQE or 

doesn’t, 

No rating scale. 

Site, Energy Effi ciency and Water Conservation, 

Material Use and Specifi cation, Indoor 

Environmental Quality, Innovation 

Hong Kong New Building, Existing Building, All 

building types including Mixed use 

complexes and high rise residential. 

Performance and management 

Centre of Environmental 

Technology (CET) with 

HK-BEAM Steering Committee 

200+ 

~ 9 million m2 

Hong Kong, China Not 

available 

HK-BEAM 

Hong Kong 

1990 

No signifi cant 

adoption outside 

France 

New English 

international 

version just 

launched. 

ECO-CONSTRUCTION: Siting, Materials, Low 

site nuisance 

ECO-MANAGEMENT: Energy, Water, Waste, 

Servicing and maintenance 

COMFORT: Hygrometric, Acoustic, Visual, No 

unpleasant smells 

HEALTH: Sanitary quality of areas, Air quality 

France, Brazil New Building and Existing building, in 

the Residential, Tertiary and Industrial 

sectors. Roads and Highways. In development, 

Neighbourhoods 

Association pour la Haute 

Qualite Environnementale 

597 

(commercial) 

754 

(commercial) 

France, Luxembourg, 

Belgium, Italy, Algeria 

HQE 

France 

2005 

Not aligned to 

European standards 

based on 

ISO standards. 

National adoption 

not currently 

allowed 

Well tested, 

mature, open 

system 

Certifi ed, 

Silver, 

Gold, 

Platinum 

Sustainable sites, Water Effi ciency, Energy and 

Atmosphere, Materials and Resources, Indoor 

Environmental Quality, 

Innovation in Design and Regional Priority. 

LEED 

Homes: Locations and Linkages and Awareness 

and Education 

New Construction, Existing Building 

Operation and Maintenance, Commercial 

Interiors, 

Core and Shell, Schools, Retail, 

Healthcare, Homes, Neighbourhood 

development 

Canada, Brazil, Costa 

Rica, Mexico, India 

47,567 13,193 US Green Building 

Council 

UK, Ireland, Luxembourg, Portugal, 

Spain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, 

Germany, Austria, Italy, Czech 

Republic, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, 

Finland, Russia, Turkey 

LEED 

US 

1998 

Too stringent 

for broad 

national application 

Most far reaching 

standard 

availabe today 

Certifi ed, Petal 

Recognition, 

Net Zero 

Energy 

Site, Water, Energy, Health, Materials, Equity, 

Beauty 

USA, Canada, Ireland Renovation, Landscape and Infrastructure, 

Building, Neighbourhood 

110 6 Living Future 

Institute 

USA 

Canada 

LBC 

US 

2006 

Development 

costly but cost 

effective in the 

long term 

Generic framework 

as 

basis for national 

method 

Each evaluation 

category C1-C9, 

are ranked 

A+ (excellent) 

- E (poor). 

(SB-ToolPT, 

Portugal) 

C1: Climate change and outdoor air quality 

C2: Land use and biodiversity 

C3: Energy Effi ciency 

C4: Materials and waste management 

C5: Water effi ciency 

C6: Occupant’s health and comfort 

C7: Accessibilities 

C8: Education and awareness of sustainability. 

C9: Life-cycle costs. (SB-ToolPT, Portugal) 

Offi ce, School, Mult-Unit Residential, 

Commercial (Italy Only) 

Not available iiSBE Czech Republic, Italy, Portugal 

and Spain.(SB Tool CZ, Protocollo 

ITACA, SB-ToolPT, and SB 

Tool Verde respectively) 

Not available Not available 

SB Tool 

(formerly 

GB Tool) 

International 

1998

12 



1.4 International growth in building 


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).

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 


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, 

13 



14 



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

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). 

15 



16 



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 Europeanwide 

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

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. 


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 

17 



18 



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).

2 

INTERNATIONAL 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT METHODS 


20 



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.

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 

21 



22 



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.

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, multiresidential, 

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 

23 



24 



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).

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). 

25 



26 



4 

1 

P 

Commercial Buildings Registered for Certifi cation in Europe 

May 2011 

9 

54 

E 

7 

9 

IRL 

1500 

approx 

38 

GB 

54 

9 

F 

28 

9 

B 

Totals: 1,699 Approx BREEAM 

149 

DGNB 

11 

1 

L 

28 

4 

NL 

Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC). 

4 

CH 

8 

149 

165 

D 

488 

0 

3 

8 

A 

3 

26 

S 

4 

14 

CZ 

2 

56 

I 

LEED 

LBC 

6 

21 

PL 

6 

14 

HU 

5 

20 

FL 

11 

11 

RUS 

8 

24 

TR

1 

P 

Certifi ed Commercial Buildings in Europe 

May 2011 

3 

12 

E 

IRL 

4000 

approx 

8 

GB 

Totals: 4,061 Approx BREEAM 

183 

15 

1 

F 

9 

1 

B 

DGNB 

Source: based on RICS, 2011, (amended to include LBC). 

1 

5 

L 

8 

2 

NL 

1 

CH 

6 

171 

9 

D 

66 

0 

1 

6 

A 

3 

4 

S 

2 

CZ 

5 

5 

I 

LEED 

LBC 

3 

4 

PL 

3 

2 

HU 

9 

FL 

1 

1 

RUS 

27 


3 

5 

TR 


28 



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

assessor registers the project for precertifi 

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 Precertifi 

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 

29 



30 



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 performancebased 

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.

Comparison 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. 

BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC - Categories and 

weightings of each system 

% 

BREEAM 

20 

15 

10 

5 

0 

DGNB 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

% 0 

LEED 

35 

30 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

% 0 

LBC 

15 

10 

5 

% 0 

Energy 

Environmental Quality 

Energy and Atmosphere 

Energy 

Health & Wellbeing 

Economical Quality 

Indoor air 

quality 

Health 

Land use & 

Economy 

Socio-Cultural and 

Functional Quality 

Sustainable Stress 

Site 

Water 

Technical Quality 

Water 

Efficiency 

Water 

Materials 

Process 

Quality 

Materials and 

Resources 

Materials 

Pollution 

Equity 

Waste 

Beauty 

Transport 

Management 

31 



32 



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 

DGNB: 

Economical 

Quality. 

ECONOMY 

ENVIRONMENT 

BREEAM: 

Pollution, 

Land use 

& Ecology, 

Energy, Waste, 

Materials 

Water 

DGNB: 

Ecological 

Quality 

LEED: 

Material & 

resources 

Energy and 

atmosphere, 

Water effi ciency, 

sustainable sites 

SUSTAINABILITY 

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, social 

and economic aspects. Source: based on Alinghizadeh 

Kherzi, 2011 (amended to include LBC). 

LBC: 

Site, 

Water, 

Energy, 

Materials. 

BREEAM: 

Transport. 

BREEAM: 

Health and wellbeing 

DGNB: 

Sociocultural and 

functional quality. 

LCB: 

Health, Equity, Beauty, 

Education 

SOCIETY

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). 

System 

Living Building Challenge 

LEED 

DGNB 

BREEAM, DGNB, LEED and LBC – topic assessed based 

on assessment criteria and weightings. Source: based on 

Alinghizadeh Kherzi, 2011, (amended to include LBC). 

BREEAM 

Fully considered as a topic 

fully considered as an indicator 

partly considered 

not considered 

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 

33 



34 



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

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. 

35 



36 



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.

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 knowhow 

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. 

37 



38 



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, upto-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),

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 

39 



40 



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

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. 

Energy 

Site & 

Transport 

Building Information 

Assessment Credits 

IEQ 

Water and Waste 

Category Scores 

Environmental 

Weighting 

Single Score 

Calculation 

IBEAM RATING 

The structure of the proposed framework. 

Source: Hourigan, 2009. 

Environmental 

Loadings 

Materials 

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. 

% 0 

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 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

25 

20 

15 

10 

5 

Energy 

Indoor Environmental Quality 

Site 

Method to be simple and accessible 

Certifi cation body to be objective and free 

from private sector infl uence 

Implemented by governmental body or 

Water 

Materials 

Environmental Loading 

Innovation 

41 



42 



❚ 

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.

2.5 Green Building Councils and 


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. 

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 Role 

Austria 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 understanding 

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 understanding 

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 Italian 

national system. 

Norway NSO for BRE, Recently completed 

process of adoptation of BREEAM as 

the national assessment system. Also 

participate in the Round Table adoption 

of LEED for international use. 

Poland Have signed memorandum of agreement 

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 particular 

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 particular 

system, but the Government 

support BREEAM. 

United States Developed LEED 

43 



44 



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

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. 

45 



3 

IRELAND AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL 

ASSESSMENT 


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 Enduse 

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 

47 



48 



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 


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

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 nonresidential 

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 postprimary 

schools, funded in part or in total by DES. 

The guidelines require passive design principles 

49 



50 



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.

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 


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). 

51 



52 



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

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? 

No 70% Yes 30% 

System to be adopted for Ireland? 

BREEAM 28% 

LEED 10% 

DGNB 23% 

LBC 13% 

Others 8% 

Don’t Know 18% 

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. 

53 



54 



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. 

Building Name System/ 

Scheme 

Flavour 

Manufacturing Ltd. 

IDA Industrial 

Park, Wexford 

Decentralised 

Government Offi 

ces Athlone 

Decentralised 

Government 

Offi ces 

Roscommon 

Genzyme Ireland 

Ltd. IDA Industrial 

Park, Waterford 

BREEAM 

Industrial 

2008 

BREEAM 

Offi ces 2008 

BREEAM 

International 

Europe 

Commercial 

Offi ces 2008 

LEED 

Construction 

Rating Stage 

Very 

Good 

Final 

Good Final 

Excellent 

Interim 

Gold Final 

Symantec Ltd. LEED Existing Gold Final 

Orion Building, 

Ballycoolin 

Business Park, 

Blanchardstown 

Building 

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.

Was the process deemed to be 

worthwhile? 

Worthwhile 88% 

Not Worthwhile 12% 

Was the expected environmental 

rating achieved? 

Achieved 78% 

Not Achieved 22% 

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? 

As Expected 22% 

More Time 66% 

A Lot More Time 11% 

Did the assessment requirements lead 

to a more than expected cost? 

Expected Cost 63% 

More Cost 37% 

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. 

55 



56 



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

appropriate, robust, rigorous, effi cient, 

transparent and verifi able building 

environmental assessment system for Ireland. 

57 



58 

REFERENCES 


4 

APPENDICES 



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 

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 pat@igbc.ie or by telephone 353 1 681 5862 with any questions please 

do so. 

Yours Faithfully 

Pat Barry 

Secretary Irish Green Building Council 



Questionnaire for European Green Building Councils 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

What was the general make up or profi le of the GBC task group for rating tools? 

Did it involve stakeholders beyond the membership of the GBC. For example was the likely buy in of 

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? 

Was fi nal decision by consensus or by majority decision? 

What level of research into other tools was carried out into making decision. Research, academic, international 

experience etc. 

What were the most important issues considered when making decision to choose tool? 

Were there any particular circumstances, context within the county that infl uenced the choice, e.g. climate, 

national policy priorities, EU priorities etc. 

Did the fi nancial viability, eg contract with existing tool provider infl uence decision? 

What was the general usage of tools in your county prior to your decision? 

Was the development of a new tool considered. i.e. one developed exclusively for your country. 

Did the usage of an already existing tool in your country infl uence the choice of tools. 

Does the Government or other public agencies use the tool as part of their Green Public Procurement of 

buildings. 

How much national autonomy do you consider to have over the tools that you have chosen 

Do you consider this important. Would you prefer to have more autonomy? 

How adaptable do you consider the tool/tools that you have chosen to support? 

What is the level of take- up of the tool in your country since you introduced it? 

17. 

What would you have done in a different way? 


1.FILL THIS SECTION PARTICIPANT PROFILE 

LEED 

Name 

Organisaon 

Role 

DGNB 

LIVING BUILDING CHALLENGE 

BUILDING MANAGER 

BUILDING POLICY MAKER 

BUILDING REGULATOR 

Have you been involved in the environmental cercaon of a building in Ireland? 

Do you see any merit in developing a new method solely for use in Ireland? 

Yes No 

BREEAM LEED Other 

Which of the exisng environmental assessment methods do you think should be adopted in Ireland and why? 

BREEAM 

Should your chosen method be modied to suit Irish climac, construcon and policy issues? 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

What would you consider the most important factor in the development of an environmental assessment method to be? 

BROAD ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 

ACCESSIBLE AND USER FRIENDLY 

CREDIBLE AND ROBUST EVALUATION 

GOOD TECHNICAL SUPPORT SYSTEM 

BUILDING DESIGNER 

BUILDING CONTRACTOR 

BUILDING OWNER, PROVIDER 

Which assessment methods are you aware of? 

Comment: 

Comment: 

Are you interested in becoming more involved in the IGBC study? 

If so, please provide your email address: 

Email: 

Are you a: 

Are you aware of building environmental assessment? 

25 April 2012, The Royal Hospital, Kilmainham, Dublin 

International Conference for a 

Sustainable Built Environment 

1. FILL THIS SECTION - PARTICIPANT PROFILE 

 

Environmental Assessment Methods 

Yes No

2. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING DESIGNER or CONTRACTOR 

2. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING DESIGNER or CONTRACTOR 

COMPLETE THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS WHERE APPROPRIATE 

Is sustainability one of the core issues in your practice? 

How did you become aware of environmental assessment? 

Do you suggest integrating environmental issues to your client /design team? 

Do you use environmental assessment criteria as design indicators? 

Name and function of Building: 

Did the building assessment process have a negative, no or positive impact on? 

THE DESIGN PROCESS 

NEGATIVE 

THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS 

NEGATIVE 

BUILDING PERFORMANCE 

NEGATIVE 

BUILDING COST 

NEGATIVE 

BUILDING MARKET VALUE 

NEGATIVE 

CLIENT 

DESIGN TEAM MEMBER 

CONFERENCE 

PUBLICATION 

WWW 

OTHER 

BREEAM 

LEED 

OTHER 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Have you been involved in a project that has evaluated environmental assessment of a building (but may not be 

certified) 

Yes No 

If your answer is YES please answer the following: 

What stage was the environmental assessment method introduced? 

BRIEFING 

EARLY DESIGN STAGE 

DEVELOPED DESIGN 

TENDER 

Which assessment method, and version have you used? 

Is your experience of environmental assessment a positive one? 

If not, why not? 

NO POSITIVE 

NO POSITIVE 

NO POSITIVE 

NO POSITIVE 

NO POSITIVE 

Yes No

3. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING OWNER, PROVIDER and MANAGER 

3. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING OWNER, PROVIDER or MANAGER 

Are environmental issues integrated in your process of providing and/or maintaining buildings? 

Are you involved in the environmental assessment of buildings? 

If your answer is yes, please answer the following: 

For what reasons are you undertaking environmental assessment? 

COMMENT: 

Building project? 

Which building occupancy profile? 

Which assessment method and version have you used? 


COMMENT: 

Based on experience, rate the following benefits in order of achievement: 

Has there been any feedback from occupants? 

COMMENT: 

Has your experience of environmental assessment a positive one? 


COMMENT: 

Yes No 

Yes No 

POLICY REQUIREMENT 

CLIENT GREEN PROFILE 

GREEN MARKETING TOOL 

GOOD BUILDING PRACTISE 

OTHER 

NEW BUILD 

EXISTING 

RESIDENTIAL 

OFFICE 

RETAIL 

MANUFACTURING 

SCHOOL 

OTHER 

BREEAM 

LEED 

OTHER 

Yes No 

IMPROVED BUILDING PERFORMANCE 

INCREASED VALUE OF GREENBUILDING 

INCREASED MARKETING GREEN PROFILE 

REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS 

INCREASED OCCUPANT SATISFACTION 

Yes No 

Yes No

4. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING POLICY MAKER OR REGULATOR 

4. FILL THIS SECTION - IF YOU ARE A BUILDING POLICY MAKER OR REGULATOR 

Should building environmental performance be a core issue in the formation of national policy? 

COMMENT: 

Do you see building environmental assessment remaining as a voluntary mechanism? 

COMMENT: 

Yes No 

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? 

Do you consider that Life Cycle Analysis and Costing should be evident in a nationally adopted environmental assessment method? 

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: 

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: 

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.


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: vivienne.brophy@ucd.ie. 

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. 


Building 

Project Experience 

Overall Experience Energy Use Executive Decisions Project Experience /Value for money 

Methodology Project 

Feedback 

time 

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? 

Was an environmental aspiration 

included as part of the design brief? 

Was there a notable time requirement 

on your behalf? 

Did the environmental assessment 

involve more or less time that you 

expected? 

Was there a quantifiable change in the 

quality of the building? 

Did the assessment cost more than you 

expected it to? 

Did the assessment lead to a 

measurable increase in the build cost? 

Did the sustainability rating of the 

building improve the marketability of 

the building? (If relevant) 

Was the site location informed due to 

the environmental assessment? 

Did life cycle costing affect decisions on 

the installed systems 

(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? 

Has there been a positive impact on the 

expected building running costs? 

Do you feel that the whole process 

could be deemed as worthwhile? 

Did you achieve the Environmental 

Rating that you set out to achieve? 

If you were to be involved in another 

project would you specify the use of a 

sustainability methodology? 

Design Team on 

this Project 

Design team on 

another Project 

Yes No 

 

 

Other Client / 

Building 

Yes No If so please 

comment: 

Less Time As expected 

More time than 

expected 


comment: 

Less Cost As expected 


More cost than 

expected 


expected 


comment: 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

If so please 

comment: 

If so please 

comment: 

If so please 

comment: 

If so please 

comment: 

Please 

comment: 

Please 

comment: 

Seminar / 

Conference 

If yes: Would you specify the 

methodology previously used? 

A lot more 

time 

A lot more 

cost 

A lot more 

cost 

Internet / 

Other 

Too Much 

time 

Too Much 

cost 

Too Much 

cost

Building 

Project 

Overall Experience Energy Use Design Influence Project Experience /Value for money 

Methodology Project 

Feedback 

Experience time 

Design Team 

Project Name 



Project Cost 


Assessment methodology used 

How did you become aware of the 

assessment methodology used? 

Was an environmental aspiration 

included as part of the design brief? 

Was there a notable time 

requirement on your behalf? 

Did the environmental assessment 

involve more or less time that you 

expected? 

Was there a quantifiable change in 

the quality of the Building? 

Did the assessment cost more than 

you expected it to? 

Did the assessment lead to a 

measurable increase in the build 

cost? 

Did the environmental rating of the 



Did the requirements of the 

environmental methodology 

influence the design intent for the 

project? 

Did the methodology require design 

that would not have normally been 

undertaken? 


Energy Rating (BER) or a Display 

Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so 

what rating was achieved? 


installed in the building? 

Has there been positive feed back 

from the building occupants? 

Has there been a positive impact on 

the expected building running costs? 





If you were to be involved in another 

project would you specify the use of 

an environmental methodology? 

LEED BREEAM Other 

Client 

Design team 

member 

Yes No 

 

 

Other Client / 

Building 


comment: 


More time 

than 

expected 


comment: 



More cost 

than 

expected 

More cost 

than 

expected 


comment: 

Yes No Please 

comment: 

Yes No Please 

comment: 

Yes No 

If so please 

comment: 


comment: 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Please 

comment: 

Please 

comment: 

Please 

name: 

Seminar / 

Conference 

A lot more 

time 

A lot more 

cost 

A lot more 

cost 



Internet / 

Other 

Too Much 

time 

Too Much 

cost 

Too Much 

cost

Project Project Project 

Building 

Construction 

Overall Experience Energy Use 

Experience Experience Experience 

Methodology 

Project 

Feedback 

Requirements 

Value for Money Time 

Cost 

Contractor 

Project Name 



Project Cost 


Was an environmental methodology 

requirement included as part of the 

tender documents? 

If yes: 

If No: 

Was a completed environmental 

assessment required as part of final 

handover? 

Was the incurred impact on cost as 

expected? 

Was there any specific issues that 

incurred beyond expected cost? 

Was the incurred impact on 

programme as expected? 

Was there any specific issues that 

incurred beyond expected delays? 

Was there a quantifiable change in 

the quality of the building? 

Yes No 

Yes No 



Yes No 

 

 


expected 

More time than 

expected 

If so please comment: 

Did the environmental rating of the 


Yes No 


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 

surroundings 

Yes No 


Waste Management Yes No If so please comment: 

Building commissioning Yes No If so please comment: 

Building Monitoring and Maintenance 


Energy Rating (BER) or a Display 

Energy Certificate (DEC) and if so 

what rating was achieved? 


installed in the Building? 

Has there been positive feed back 

from the building occupants? 

Has there been a positive impact on 

the expected building running 





If you were to be involved in 

another project would you 

encourage the use of a 

environmental methodology? 

What was the environmental methodology required? 

Did your company have any previous experience in this 

methodology? 

Was there an allowance included for enivironmental assessment in 

the tender price for the project? 

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? 

Was there an agreed uplift in construction cost based upon the 

introduction of the methodology? 

If Yes: Was the uplift an accurate representation of the incurred cost 

involved in complying with the methodology requirements? 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

If yes: Was a specific level 

required? 




Please comment: 

Please comment: 



Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

A lot 

more 

cost 

A lot 

more 

time 

Too Much 

cost 

Too Much 

time 

t

5 

REFERENCES 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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. 


(COM). (2008a). COM 400 - Public 

Procurement for a Better Environment. 

Communication from the Commission of 

the European Parliament, The Council, the 

71 

REFERENCES 


72 

REFERENCES 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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. 


(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 


Construction Products Association (CPA). 

(2012). CEN/TC350 Standards. Internet: CPA, 

Available at: http://www.constructionproductssustainability.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 


European Commission (EC). (2004a). 

Directive on the coordination of procedures 

for the award of public works contracts, public 

supply contracts and public services contracts.

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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://eurlex.europa.eu/ 

Last accessed: 20 April 2012. 



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. 



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 

73 

REFERENCES 


74 

REFERENCES 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

Visionary Path to a Restorative Future. 

Internet: ILBI. Available at: https://ilbi.org/ Last 


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 creditweighting 

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.

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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 


Open House (2012). Open House project 

information. Internet: Open House. Available 

at http://www.openhouse-fp7.eu/ Last 


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 

75 

REFERENCES 


76 

REFERENCES 


❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

❚ 

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 


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. 


(USGBC). (2012a). BREEAM Equivalency for 

LEED. Internet: USGBC. Available at: http:// 

www.usgbc.org/ Last accessed: 21 July 2012. 


(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.

BUILDING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHOD for IRELAND

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?