Environmental and health related criteria for buildings - ANEC

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IBO - Environmental and Health related Criteria for Buildings ANEC has therefore called for a broad European discussion involving all stakeholders, and including all relevant Commission departments. ANEC has commissioned several research projects in the past which addressed some of the major consumer concerns with respect to environmental product information (comprehensibility, comparability, reliability, precision, transparency, completeness, benchmarking and enforcement) and provided some model declarations. It became more and more clear that indicators based on life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology may not be the best option to suitably characterise and declare the environmental performance of a product (ÖKO- INSTITUT 2008). Serious limitations include omissions of relevant environmental aspects (e.g. site-specific emissions like noise or non-quantifiable impacts like biodiversity) and low accuracy and reliability of data. Hence, in many cases significant production or use phase indicators (e.g. energy efficiency, indoor emissions) derived from a variety of tools (e.g. chemical risk assessment) will be a better choice for product labelling and differentiation of similar products compared to LCA indicators.” (ANEC, 2009) “ANEC’s goal is to establish a harmonised and coordinated EU policy in this area which leads to a significant reduction of all environmental burdens associated with buildings and which takes into account not only interests of business but also the wishes of other stakeholders. The future EU scheme should be cost efficient and avoid including criteria that are common practise but have limited value for consumers.” (ANEC, 2009) 3.3. Objective of the Study The objective of the study is to provide ANEC with a background paper on environmental and health-related criteria for buildings. The background paper shall be the basis for developing a European set of environmental and health-related indicators. The study shall support ANEC in position finding processes and enable to shape the upcoming discussion on these issues. This frame was set from a consumer's perspective account by focussing on familiar information (e.g. NO x emission rather than acidification indicator for central heating burner). However, the potential readers of the study are expected to be experienced in the topics of assessing the environmental performance of buildings. In order to do so the study at hand presents an analysis of the problem of the numerous evidently uncoordinated initiatives of the Commission, reveals new perspectives, and principle solutions. It is not the aim of the study to elaborate a detailed complete criteria and indicator catalogue for an assessment method to be used in CEN/TC 350 or the EU Ecolabel for buildings as such. Final Report 18 31 03 2011
IBO - Environmental and Health related Criteria for Buildings 3.4. Scope The assessment methodology focuses on new-built projects for residential purposes. Existing buildings, buildings with major refurbishments as well as other building types (commercial buildings, education, health-care, etc.) are excluded from this report, although they are very important for sustainable development. The intention of the restriction is to prove the feasibility of the approach chosen. Nevertheless, the results of the study are expected to be applicable to all kinds of buildings in principle. The existing building assessment systems were screened with respect to small buildings, complex building assets were not be taken into account. The construction site was included in the assessment (but not the surroundings/infrastructure of the site). The scope of the study is restricted to environmental and health-related indicators. Except health-related indicators, other social indicators such as social and equal rights, accessibility or employee attitude were not taken into account. Definition of “indicator” in the context of this study Indicators are objectively verifiable and repeatable measures of a particular criterion. They tell us whether (or how far) the objectives have been achieved. One can distinguish between quantifiable and qualitative indicators. a) Quantitative indicators measure numerical values, e.g. primary energy. b) Qualitative indicators measure information which is not easily measured through numerical values such as process-related improvements, and quality of services, policies or capacity. Qualitative indicators usually need additional criteria. For example, if an intended result is to provide “high-value urban open space”, and the indicator on building level is the “quality of the green space planning”, partners will have to agree beforehand on the criteria for determining a quality process. These criteria will often be country-specific, and once agreed, they can be used in a simple monitoring checklist (UNDG, 2006 presumably). Side note: Qualitative indicators are sometimes defined in a broader sense as indicators that “cannot be counted but must be described, analysed and perceived. This can be done through, for example, interviews, role plays, art and drama 9 ”. To the authors’ point of view these non-measurable indicators are criteria rather than indicators. On contrary to the harmonisation activities of CEN/TC 350 “Sustainability of Construction Works”, which limits its scope to quantifiable environmental information (mainly LCAindicators), the study at hand considers also measureable qualitative indicators (e.g. measurements to reduce dust from construction work, quality of green space, compliance with product eco-label criteria, etc.) since this is the well-established praxis in building assessment systems. To the authors’ and commissioners’ point of view, in many cases the qualitative indicators are the more relevant indicators for describing the environmental performance of buildings. 9 e.g. http://www.sais-jhu.edu/cmtoolkit/issues-in-practice/evaluation/evaluating-change.htm, DL 15.02.2011 Final Report 19 31 03 2011
Page 1 and 2: Environmental and health related cr
Page 3 and 4: IBO - Environmental and Health rela
Page 17: IBO - Environmental and Health rela
Page 69 and 70:
IBO - Environmental and Health rela
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163:
Page 166 and 167:
Environmental Criteria for Building
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
show all

Environmental and health related criteria for buildings - ANEC

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

Delete template?

Save as template?