Comparison of two sustainable building assessment tools applied to ...

KTH Architecture and
the Built Environment
Comparison of two sustainable building
assessment tools applied to Holmen project in
Stockholm
Wen Yuan Chung
Supervisor Dr. Dorota Wlodarczyk
Examinator Prof. Dick Urban Vestbro
Master of Science Thesis in Built Environment Analysis, within the
Master program of Environmental Engineering and Sustainable
Infrastructure
Royal Institute of Technology
Stockholm, Sweden
2005
1

Royal Institute of Technology TRITA-INFRA EX 05-083
The Department of Infrastructure ISSN 1651-0194
ISRN KTH/INFRA/EX—05/083—SE
2

Abstract
This study concentrates on application and comparison of two assessment tools for
sustainable building, GBTool and CASBEE. The two tools are used to assess a project, the
Holmen multi-family building in Stockholm, Sweden, and its sustainable performance.
The role of assessment tools is to provide a platform of communication between different
stakeholders to make the demonstration projects can be easily learned about their sustainable
success. The communication can result in stimulation on both need of the purchasers and
supply of the investors enhances the overwhelming growth of the sustainable building market.
Theoretical comparison, evaluation comparison and overall comparison are the methods to
compare the evaluation results and the contents of GBTool and CASBEE. Regarding
theoretical comparison, the evaluative framework for environmental management approaches
developed by Henrikke Baumann and Sarah J. Cowell (1999) is adapted to structure the
frameworks of GBTool and CASBEE and to compare the essence of the two tools. To acquire
an overall comparison, both the project developers’ point of view and the reasons of winning
Miljötävling 2000 (new environmental friendly building 2000 contest) are compared with the
evaluated results.
The theoretical comparison shows the structures of the two tools are similar and the difference
in-between consists in aspects of assessing dimension and involved actors. The evaluation
comparison shows similar scores from both tools among most aspects. However, for indoor
air quality, GBTool and CASBEE have different scores because GBTool is evaluated by the
occupancy questionnaires and CASBEE is evaluated by the technical settings. The low scores
of energy consumption contrast sharply with the promising perspective of the project, which
presents lack of evaluative comprehensiveness of the tools. The overall comparison also
expresses lack of evaluative comprehensiveness of both the tools for consideration to outside
air intake. Heat leakage, heat exchanger, environmental efforts of community scale and efforts
in construction phase are neglected by both tools due to the difficulties to be evaluated.
Consequently, GBTool and CASBEE can be improved with consideration of the regional
geographic and climatic situations. Some of the evaluative questions should be changed due
to the difficulties of data acquirement, high knowledge threshold of the evaluation work, and
the same sources of the evaluation and the creation work.
Keywords: GBTool, CASBEE, sustainable building evaluation, Holmen, Hammarby Sjöstad.
3

Acknowledgements
By ending up this thesis I hope to conclude my master program of environmental engineering
and sustainable infrastructure at Royal Institute of Technology, KTH, Sweden during the last
two years.
This work has been carried out at the Division for Built Environment Analysis in KTH. It is
related to the team work of sustainable building evaluation led by Dr. Mauritz Glaumann,
master of science work under supervision of Dr. Dorota Wlodarczyk.
First of all, my study and this thesis have been supported financially by the scholarship
provided both by Swedish STINT organization and Education Division of Taiwanese
government. The financial support is essential for my study in Sweden and makes me able to
fulfill my goal of doing researches abroad.
I want to thank my supervisor Dr. Dorota Wlodarczyk for giving me the crucial comments to
lead me into the academic research, for helping me to correct the mistakes I made for
academic writing, for being patient to participate in most of the important meetings. My
examinator, Professor Dick Urban Vestbro, is another teacher who inspires me for the key
points to structure academic writing.
During the evaluation work, Dr. Mauritz Glaumann is the person who guided me about the
knowledge background of Swedish buildings, discussed with me about all the problems I met
for the evaluation work and assisted me to overcome them. Thanks to his help, I could work
out the results. In addition, the kindly help from White Architect, NCC Constructions,
Glashus Ett of Hammarby Sjöstad to acquire an understanding of the Holmen project is very
much appreciated. I would like to express all my gratitude to all the people who provided
encouragement and assistance to my work within the evaluation work for helping me to solve
all kinds of problems during the last ten months.
I am very grateful to Jonathan Graham who helped me to correct the grammars, encouraged
and supported me mentally; to Mikael Elgenström, who is important to accompany me during
the past ten month; to my previous landlord, Anders Fällmar, who spent lots of time to
translate Swedish documents into English; to my parents, Ren Ping Chung and Ray Ian Chen,
who always encourage me to pursue the further progress of my career and support me
mentally.
Lastly, I wish to thank all those unnamed who supplied me data concerning the Holmen
project.
Thank you all for making this work possible.
Stockholm, 21 July 2005,
Wen Yuan Chung
4

Table of content
Abstract 3
Acknowledgements 4
Table of content 5
1. Introduction 7
1.1 Objective of the study 7
1.2 Description of the applied tools 7
1.3 Description of the evaluated project 8
2. Theoretical background 9
2.1 Literature review 9
2.1.1 How do the sustainable measures work? 9
2.1.2 Examples of challenges to green buildings 10
2.1.3 The role of sustainable building assessment tools in residential buildings 11
3. Research Methods 13
3.1 Methods of evaluation work 13
3.2 Research design 13
3.2.1 Theoretical comparison 13
3.2.2 Evaluation comparison 14
3.2.3 Overall comparison 14
3.3 The building assessment methods 15
3.3.1 GBTool 15
3.3.2 CASBEE 15
4. Case study analysis 17
4.1 The Holmen multi-family housing project 17
4.2 The main sustainable factors 17
4.3 The first prize of Miljötävling 2000 (new environmental friendly building 2000 contest)
18
4.4 Hammarby Sjöstad 19
Hammarby model 19
5. Results 22
5.1 Results of GBTool 22
5.2 Results of CASBEE 22
5.3 Scores and comments of CASBEE evaluation results 23
6. Discussion 27
6.1 Discussion of results of GBTool and CASBEE 27
6.2 Comparison 27
6.2.1 Theoretical comparison 27
6.2.2 Evaluation comparison 30
I. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development 31
II. Energy and Resource Consumption 31
III. Materials 31
IV. Environmental Loadings 32
V. Water 32
VI. Impact on site 33
VII. Indoor air quality 33
VIII. Ventilation 34
IX. Air temperature and humidity 34
X. Daylighting and illumination 35
XI. Noise and acoustics 35
XII. Controllability 35
5

XIII. Long term performance 36
Discussion of evaluation comparison by both tools 36
6.3 Overall comparison 37
7. Conclusion 39
8. References 40
9. Appendices 41
Appendix I Twelve Environmental Sustainability Indicators (ESI) 41
Appendix II Questionnaire for Occupants 42
Appendix III Skipped criteria and reasons 43
Appendix IV Q1.1.1.2Equipment Noise 44
Appendix V LR-3.2.1 Noise and Vibration 45
Appendix VI LR-3.3 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction 46
Appendix VII LR-2.2.1.2 Efficiency of reusing Non-Skeleton Materials 47
6

1. Introduction
Among various needs of daily life, the built environment constitutes more evident production
than other industries such as food, textile, transportation etc. The entire production process of
the built environment comprises materials utilization and energy consumption which result in
the apparent environmental problems. To reduce the damages of the environment, it is of vital
importance to realize how the building production process, including phases of planning,
design, construction and operation, influences the environment and how to evaluate the
significance among variety of factors. However, until now, to build sustainably is
predominantly based on a more or less intuitive approach without knowing the exact
consequences for reduction of the environmental impacts (Klunder, 2002). Thus, it is
currently crucial to establish some exact and practical measures to build sustainably and to
evaluate sustainability of construction.
This study concentrates on application and comparison of two assessment tools for
sustainable building, GBTool and CASBEE. The two tools are used to assess a project, the
Holmen multi-family building in Stockholm, Sweden, and its sustainable performance. The
evaluation criteria of the tools are categorized into 13 aspects, including energy, materials,
indoor climate quality etc. and compared in order to examine their relevance to evaluate the
merits and demerits of the assessed project. Besides, the assessment results are discussed to
analyze the performance of the project and the evaluation effect of GBTool and CASBEE.
The study is based on a group work aiming to participate in Sustainable Building Conference
2005 Tokyo. Dr. Mauritz Glaumann led Anna Borg, Petra Stromer and Wen Yuan Chung to
cooperate to get the Holmen project assessed. Anna Borg and Petra Stromer were responsible
for evaluation of GBTool and EcoEffect 1 , while I am responsible for CASBEE and GBTool.
Parts of criteria from the three tools are selected and compared to present the comprehensive
evaluation results.
1.1 Objective of the study
To establish the comprehensive references for contributors of sustainable construction,
including designers, constructors and occupants, the assessed results should be facilitated to
guide the actions to build environment sustainably. It can be significant to accumulate the
evaluated results and implementation experience to improve the actions of sustainable
environment building in the future. In addition, it is also important to keep the assessment
tools updated concerning the environmental or temporal changes. Applying the tools in
variety of projects with feedback of examination subsequently will enhance the entirety and
practicability of the tools. Thus, the objectives of the study are:
Understanding and distinguishing the similarities and differences of the two assessment
tools to realize how the two tools evaluate sustainability.
Comparing the assessed results of the tools with architect’s and constructors’ sustainable
efforts to examine whether the assessed results respond the efforts.
Suggesting how to improve the tools based on the results of applying them on the
practical projects
1.2 Description of the applied tools
GBTool has been developed since 1996 by International Initiative for a Sustainable Built
Environment (iiSBE), discussed in annual Sustainable Building Conferences (SBC), and
applied worldwide to assess the built environment. CASBEE was developed in 1990 by Japan
Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) and mainly applied for Japanese domestic projects
currently. CASBEE is known as its effectiveness of evaluation and being applied
internationally step by step, for example, in Spain, China and Taiwan. Both of the tools can be
applied for different types of building, such as housing, office building etc. The further details
will be described below.
1 Ecoeffect is a Swedish assessment tool for sustainable building.
7

1.3 Description of the evaluated project
The Holmen multi-family project consists of 106 apartments which are located in a housing
block of seven floors. It includes 2 restaurants and 1 retail shop on the ground floor. It is built
on Sickla Kaj in Hammarby Sjöstad, southeast of Stockholm. The reason to choose the
Holmen multi-family housing project for assessment is that the project is well known by its
environmental friendly ambitions, and also it won the first prize of Miljötävling 2000 (new
environmental friendly building 2000 contest) for buildings within Hammarby Sjöstad. The
main project aim was to design buildings with low energy consumption by using solar panels,
Building integrated Photo Voltaic systems (BiPV), and various energy saving measures which
will be described later.
8

2 Theoretical background
2.1 Literature review
To reach sustainability of building, it is primarily important to define sustainability of
building and construction. The definition usually focuses on how to deal with limited
resources, especially energy, and how to reduce the impacts on the natural environment.
Kibert’s definition for sustainable construction: “the creation and responsible management of
a healthy built environment based on resource efficient and ecological principles(Kibert,
1999)” can be considered a comprehensive definition for a sustainable goal.
The emphasis to reach sustainability of building was mainly placed on the technical issues
such as materials, building components, construction technologies and also on energy related
design concepts. Nowadays the significance of the non-technical issues, for example,
economic, social, and cultural aspects has been emphasized gradually and considered crucial.
2.11 How do the sustainable measures work?
The strategies taken to reach sustainability of the built environment provide us a promising
perspective. These strategies may work in some specific aspects. However, do they give the
positive results for the overall performance at the same time? Dr. Klunder (2002) conducted
an investigation by applying all evaluated measures for an entire project with an Integral
concept (See Table 1), resulting in an average environmental benefit by 28%.
Table 1 Environmental benefits of sustainable housing concepts in percentages (%) (Klunder. 2002)
Concept Set of measures Environmental impacts
M
F
GWP
ODP
POCP
HC
EC
AP
NP
Average
Integral 1. R c =4.0 instead of 3.0 m 2 K/W
17 35 39 29 24 24 36 21 23 28
2. U window =1.2 instead of 1.7 W/m 2 K
3. low-temperature space heating and
high-efficiency ventilation
4. 10% smaller dimension of load-bearing
structure
5. renewable materials: timber-frame
construction
6. plastics instead of lead and copper
7. 90 years service life of house instead of 75
years
2 years extension of service life of
components
8. reuse of foundation and interior wall
Flexible 1. house width 6.0 instead of 5.4 m
2. additional interior walls
-5 -9 11 7 -5 -6 -5 -4
3. service life load-bearing structure 150
instead of 75 years
Energy 1. Rc=4.0 instead of 3.0 m 2 K/W
-105 43 34 -74 -21 -33 -19 -37 -17 -25
2. Uwindow=1.2 instead of 1.7 W/m 2 K
3. insulated door, heat pump, floor heating,
solar-energy systems and high-efficiency
ventilation
Explanation of acronyms: M depletion of raw materials, F depletion of fuels, GWP global warming,
ODP ozone depletion, POCP photo-oxidant formation, HC human toxicity, EC ecological toxicity, AP
acidification, NP eutrophication.
Meanwhile, the outcomes of calculations on the Flexible concept and the Energy concept,
which take the measures considered sustainable, show that they do not compete. The Flexible
9

concept does not lead to a worthwhile improvement of the environmental performance, while
the Energy concept includes a considerable worsening situation of the environmental
performance by 25%. However, the Flexible and Energy concepts are commonly seen as the
promising ways to substantially reduce the environmental impacts of housing construction.
Sustainable buildings need to be scientifically corroborated to implement the effective
projects, otherwise, the concepts can be further damages to the environment, as the 25%
worsening result of the Energy concept.
To avoid recommitting the same errors as the above concepts, it is important to create the
accurate and effective assessment tools. A considerable number of tools based on different
local characteristics and interests are applied for environmental assessment of the built
environment today. Reijinders and van Roekel made an initial classification of assessment
tools (Reijinders, 1999) into two categories: qualitative tools based on scores and criteria, and
quantitative tools using a physical LCA (life cycle analysis) with quantitative input and output
data. With a relatively wide coverage of environmental aspects, the qualitative tools,
including GBTool, CASBEE, BREAM, LEED, EcoProfile etc, are based on building
characteristics and have been applied extensively on various building types. Examples of
quantitative tools are EcoEffect, Environment Load Profile (ELP), Eco-Quantum, BEE 1.0,
and BEAT 2000.
Some countries have utilized GBTool to assess the sustainable achievements of buildings, and
other countries developed the assessment methods of sustainable built environment earlier
than GBTool in 1996, such as LEED in United States and BREEM in United Kingdom.
Among the existed various tools, to identify the characters of the existed assessment
approaches and to improve the effectiveness of evaluation work can be more efficient than to
create a new widespread used tool with trans-regional relevance.
2.12 Examples of challenges to green buildings
Twenty River Terrace is a project of green residential high-rise building in New York City
designed by architects, Cesar Pelli & Associates. The overall goal at Twenty River Terrace
was to reduce the building’s environmental impacts during construction and over its lifetime
use, and increase its energy efficiency (Pelli, 2002). Among various problems the architect
met, one problem derived from their environmental campaign is illustrated as an example.
Concerning material sourcing, the guideline requires brick purchase from a manufacturer
within 500 miles (805 km) of the project. Two bricks manufacturer which met both green
design guidelines and the aesthetic preferences are listed as following.
1. One company met the distance requirement, but used an older, less energy-efficient kiln
without access to rail transport.
2. The other company was well beyond the five hundred mile distance requirement, but the
plant conforms to the highest international environmental standards, and they can ship by
train, which is more energy efficient than shipping by truck.
Both local sourcing and energy efficient transportation are weighed to achieve sustainable
construction. Lack of the full data to measure overall environmental impact results in decision
making more difficult.
Consequently, both the efficient assessment of sustainable strategies and architect’s problem
of implementation should progress further to make the assessment work more persuasive. In
other words, the indicators specified for various objectives can be separately defined. Also,
related indicators which met often in decision making phase can be prioritized in light of the
environmental benefits in different types or circumstances.
10

Figure 1: Regional materials used in exterior wall construction (Pelli, 2002)
2.13 The role of sustainable building assessment tools in residential buildings
To popularize sustainable building, it is crucial to consider the market operation, the need of
purchasers and the supply of investors. The building market involves investors, contractors,
designers, real estate brokers, residential purchasers and tenants. All the stakeholders are
necessarily required to accomplish sustainability of buildings and constructions.
Larsson’s investigation
(2000) of the first two
C-2000 projects
constructed, Crestwood 8 2
and Green on the Grand 3 ,
indicated that the
marginal costs for both
projects, including design
and construction phases,
was 7-8% more than a
conventional building, a
rather modest increase.
Diagram 1 the relation between market and assessment result
Assessment
Stimulate result Stimulate
Demander
Supplier
In the building industry, Housing
Investor,
the main driver is money.
This investigation can purchaser
constructor
encourage the purchasers’
market
affordable willingness,
and meanwhile, evoke the
sensitivity of the investors and developers. The demonstration projects can also convince the
2 Technical Report on Bentall Corporation Crestwood 8 C-2000 Building, April 1996, CETC, Natural Reso rces
Canada.
3 Technical Report on Green on the Grand C-2000 Building, April 1996, CETC, Natural Resources Canada.
11

construction industry of the benefits of high performance evaluated by the objective tool.
Stimulation on both demand and supply sides enhances the overwhelming growth of the
sustainable building market. Thus, the role of assessment tools is to provide a platform of
communication between different stakeholders to make the demonstration projects can be
easily learned about their sustainable success.
Once this assessment tool is extensively utilized internationally, theoretically, some
performances of various projects can be compared and the causes behind be interpreted. The
discussion about the problems of the projects should be used as a reference for future designs.
Since it is not objective to compare some performances with the various climatic and
geographic backgrounds, it is instructive to examine the range of scores evident in the case
study projects, in particular, the overall building score (Cole, 2002). Uniform definitions of
performance criteria must be established to examine the performances, such as ESIs.
Environmental Sustainability Indicators (ESIs, see Appendix I) are a limited set of absolute
performance measures that characterize sustainable building practices and that facilitate
international comparability (Cole, 2002).
After a preliminary analysis of current project costs and an informal survey of designers,
provision was made for support of incremental costs in both the design and construction phase
(Larsson, 2000). This description can be explained in two ways. On the one hand, as long as
designers used less sophisticated and less expensive materials and technologies, the budget of
whole project can be decreased more effectively. On the other hand, early decisions are
usually less expensive and make the final performance closer to the previous anticipation. The
observation of the assessment tool results in the emphasis of the design and planning phase.
Both of the explanations are able to be reached by the good assessment system in the
preliminary phase to give advice to implement design and construction.
12

3 Research Methods
3.1 Methods of evaluation work
The following diagram describes how the evaluation work of the Holmen project proceeds.
Temporal dimension
Phase 1 Criteria categorizing by data sources Phase 2
Data
Collecting
Phase 3 Data analysis
Questions categorizing for
Architect
GBTool
criteria
CASBEE
criteria
Questions categorizing for
Constructor
Questions categorizing for
Electricity company
Questions categorizing for
Building administrator
Key person
interviewing
Occupants
surveying by
Questionnaires
Applying
GBTool
Applying
CASBEE
Discussing
&
Comparing
Questions categorizing for
Building occupants
Diagram 2 Procedure of evaluation work
The evaluation of the Holmen project is structured by data categorizing, collecting and
analyzing by the sequence of time schedule. Various criteria included in different evaluation
tools are categorized into five aspects according to the data sources, architect, constructor,
building administrator, electricity company and occupants. The majority of data collecting
work is done by interviews and questionnaires. The interviews are arranged due to the
difficulties to collect parts of data, and the questionnaires are based on the occupants
satisfaction from the evaluation criteria. All the data acquired from the related authorities are
input into evaluation tools, GBTool and CASBEE to be applied. At last, discussions and
comparisons are done with the evaluation results of the tools.
3.2 Research design
To apply GBTool and CASBEE with an objective project is a way to examine and clarify the
essence of the tools. The contents of tools, the results of the assessment work, the assessed
results and efforts are compared to carry out theoretical comparison, evaluation comparison
and overall comparison, in order to reach a comprehensive understanding of the essence of
GBTool and CASBEE. The three comparisons are explained individually as follows.
3.2.1 Theoretical comparison
The evaluative framework for environmental management approaches developed by Henrikke
Baumann and Sarah J. Cowell (1999) is adapted to structure the frameworks of GBTool and
CASBEE and to represent the essence of the two tools. The purpose of using a framework is
to give a better understanding of the context structure with academically recognized
terminology and methodology. This framework comprising the three aspects, generic,
contextual and methodological aspects will be illustrated later in the discussion section (See
Table 8).
13

TOOL
GBTool
Theoretical
comparison
TOOL
CASBEE
RESULT
GBTool
Evaluation
comparison
RESULT
CASBEE
Overall
comparison
Overall
comparison
FACTS &
EFFORTS
1. The winning
facts
according to
environmental
contest 2000
2. The
sustainable
efforts
described by
the architect
and the
constructor
Diagram 3. Research design
3.2.2 Evaluation comparison
The operational work of evaluation can be described as a means of collecting, analyzing,
calculating data to get all the criteria scored. Both of the two tools integrate the scored results
through statistics and chart the results to facilitate understanding of different readers. In other
words, the performance of the objective buildings can be expressed with simple charts finally
(See Chart 1, 2 ). How to get the required data and how to get the criteria scored is illustrated
in the Diagram 1.
Regarding the original geographic locations where GBTool and CASBEE were developed,
Canada and Japan, parts of the criteria of the both tools are difficult to relate to the Swedish
buildings in geographical and climatic aspects. For example, earthquakes rarely occur in
Sweden, so the criteria about earthquakes from CASBEE are skipped in this evaluation. In
this study, 28 relevant criteria of GBTool for the operation phase of the assessed building are
chosen due to their relevance to Swedish situations. In order to compare the two tools
correspondingly, 34 criteria of CASBEE which relates to the similar issues with the 28 chosen
GBTool criteria are adapted. Some criteria are skipped due to lack of Japanese domestic
regulations or difficulties of on-site measurement etc. (See Appendix III)
3.2.3 Overall comparison
The evaluation work might only be a limited part for understanding of the two tools. To
acquire an overall understanding, both the project developers’ point of view and the reasons of
winning Miljötävling 2000 (new environmental friendly building 2000 contest) are compared
with the evaluated results to check evaluative comprehensiveness of the tools. The architect’s
design efforts and the sustainable ambitions of construction, which are acquired from
interviews, express their initiatives as the project developer’s point of view. Besides, as the
first prize of Miljötävling 2000 in Hammarby Sjöstad, the judgment of the contest indicates
the outstanding facts of Holmen project, which was the previous assessment in 2000. It
clarifies the essences of the both assessments to compare the results of the two assessments.
14

3.3 The building assessment methods
3.3.1 GBTool
GBTool is a building performance assessment tool and also the software of the Green
Building Challenge (GBC) assessment method created as a workbook in Microsoft Excel.
GBTool is designed from the outset to reflect the very different priorities, technologies,
building traditions and even cultural values (Cole, 2002). It has been developed since 1996
and supported by International Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE) in
Canada. It is extensively utilized by involved countries and adapted to the local conditions,
which requires a third party to adjust itself to suit the specific assessed buildings. GBTool
consists of criteria within the major areas of environment, social and economic sectors and is
performed in the main phases of pre-design, design, construction and operation. Resource
consumption, environmental loadings and indoor environmental quality express core
requirements within the GBC process (Cole, 2002).
The procedure of manipulating GBTool including categorizing, weighting and scoring is to
analyze the constitution of sustainable building and to assess the environmental friendly
embodied effects. The method to score the techniques into assessed figures presents the
comparative essence of GBTool. The results are comparable across the four assessment
phases as well. That is, GBTool is designed to transfer the evaluated results into statistics of
building performance to be easily analyzed.
The final building score derives from the weighted aggregation of four levels, sub-criteria,
criteria, categories and performance areas, within the three core issue requirements.
D. Indoor Environmental Quality—Performance area
D4. Daylighting and Illumination—Category
D4.1 Daylight Factor—Criterion
The percentage of DF—Sub-criterion
For instance, the criteria of Daylight Factor can be scored by the given levels for the
percentage of Daylight Factor, the criteria score of Daylight Factor is weighted and integrated
with other criteria scores to compose the score of category of Lighting and Illumination and
the area of Indoor Environment.
3.3.2 CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environment
Efficiency)
CASBEE is also a building performance assessment tool and created as a workbook in
Microsoft Excel as GBTool. It was established in Japan as a governmental and academic
environmental assessment system for buildings. It covers four assessment aspects: energy
consumption, cyclic use of resources, local environments, and indoor environments. The
major objective of CASBEE in developing the system is to meet both political requirements
and market demands to achieve a sustainable society throughout building lifecycles
(Murakami, et al. 2002). CASBEE focuses on the environment areas and is divided into the
pre-design tool, the DfE (Design for environment) tool, the eco-labeling tool and the
sustainable operation and renovation tool (Japan Sustainable Building Consortium, 2003).
The final building score of CASBEE also originate from the weighted aggregation of four
levels, sub-criteria, criteria, categories and performance areas. Since the sub-criteria are
considerably based on Japanese domestic building regulations, some of scores for qualitative
criteria are given by effort checklists (See Appendix IV-VII) or referred to evaluation methods
of domestic regulations.
In CASBEE, the concept of closed ecosystems became essential for determining
environmental capacities, while before the 1960s environmental assessment paid no attention
to the fact that buildings simply discharged their environmental loadings into their
15

surroundings, as an open system. (Murakami, et al. 2002) Therefore, a hypothetical enclosed
space bounded by the borders of the building site, as shown in Figure 2.
The hypothetical boundary comprises the border of the site area and from the building top to
the basement. Within the boundary, the performance is assessed by aspect of Building
Environmental Quality & Performance (Q); out of the boundary, it is assessed by aspect of
Building Environmental Loadings (LR). Loadings assess input of material and energy into the
site area which is consumed within the site and output of emissions from the site area to the
adjacent environment and earth. (Murakami. et al. 2002) Moreover, Q and LR aspects consist
of the six following categories and the criteria thereof.
Q Building Environmental Quality & Performance
Q-1 Indoor Environment
Q-2 Quality of Service
Q-3 Outdoor Environment on Site
LR Reduction of Building Environmental Loadings
LR-1 Energy
LR-2 Resources & Materials
LR-3 Off-site Environment
Input of material & energy
into the site area
Fig 2 Hypothetical Boundary in CASBEE (Murakami, et al. 2002)
Output of emissions
from the site area
(Neighboring building)
(Neighboring building)
Hypothetical Boundary
Output of emission to earth
16

4. Case study
4.1 The Holmen multi-family housing project
Fig 3 The location of the Holmen project
www.hammarbysjostad.se/
Fig 4 The location of the Holmen project
www.stockholm.se/files/68700-68799/ file_68762.pdf
The Holmen multi-family housing project is
located along Sickla Kaj in Hammarby Sjöstad,
southeast of Stockholm. It consists of 232
occupants within 106 apartments, 2 restaurant and 1
retail shop with height up to 7 floors. The project
was completed in 2003 by NCC construction
company. Adjacent to the Holmen Project is the
Grynnan Project, which is similar to the Holmen
project except that all buildings are built identical.
The longer side of the building exposes the façade
along Sickla Kaj to southwest; contrarily, the
buildings embrace a courtyard in the northeast.
4.2 The main sustainable factors
According to the interviews with White
Architect, the design efforts of Holmen
include:
29.5cm thick exterior walls for
insulation, finishes included
heat exchanger to transfer heat from
exhausted air to intake air via
ventilation, and from waste water to
intake water as well
106 of PV modules solar panels
are installed on the southwest façade
facing Sickla Kaj street, in one
connected part of the façade, as
balcony balustrades and as part of
Table 2 Summary of the case study building
Source: NCC
17
Building Size(m2)
Site area Fig 5 The elevation of the Holmen project 4351
in Sickla Kaj
Building area Source: White Architect 3451
Gross floor area
20838
Residence Population
windows on the top floor
efficient waste handling in households and in public areas.
In the public areas, all waste has been sorted in different fractions since construction
phase. Dangerous waste is sorted separately and kept in the special storage stations.
Actively minimize the waste by consuming less than daily needs and by reducing
packages and recycle materials.
In households, sorting waste starts in kitchens. Adapt mobile vacuum waste sucking
system. Combustible waste is recycled as heat, paper is reused and rotten food waste is
converted into biogas. Other fractions, glass, batteries can be left in every block (NCC.
2000a).
232

18
Fig 6 Representative layout of the Holmen project
Source: White Architect

More efforts are presented by the constructor, NCC (NCC. 2000b).
To avoid moisture damages and mold problems, the quality control system for dry
building materials is used.
Adapt recyclable, long-lasting, easily cleaning healthy material, for example, using
ceramics in bathrooms, less glue and putty, nickel free materials and considering plants
allergy.
Large openings provide light and heat
To avoid over-heating, use sun heat protecting glass, blind folds and narrow windows for
airing.
The lighting program saves 70% energy compared to conventional solutions, by setting
locations, design choices and use efficiency.
Statistics for use of heat, hot water, electricity are accessible by occupants on internet.
4.3 The first prize of Miljötävling 2000
Holmen project won the first prize of environmental friendly building 2000 contest in
Hammarby Sjöstad. The contest judged projects on the amount of energy used and the
sustainable measures taken. The goal to construct a building in Hammarby Sjöstad is expected
to consume 50% of energy standard regulated by Swedish building regulations, BBR.
Swedish building regulations is used here as an official indicator for the basic local dwelling
response about climate, infrastructure, and living standard for energy and material
consumptions. Table 3 shows the performance of energy consumption for the Holmen project.
Table 3 Main energy statistics of the Holmen project. Source: NCC 2000a
Item source kWh/yr
Net need of basic and added energy
Losses in distribution and regulation
Added electricity for ventilation system
Added electricity for heat distribution via fans
BBR* 573774
Percentage
of BBR
Holmen 297942 51.9%
BBR 50559
Holmen 46243 91.5%
BBR 32517
Holmen 81291 250.0%
BBR 9392
and pumps Holmen 6297 67.0%
Total need of bought energy
Net need of heating energy
BBR 1141683
Holmen 809914 70.9%
BBR 573774
Holmen 346717* 60.4%
Energy produced by solar panels Holmen 16000
*BBR means Swedish Building regulations
*Net need of heating energy in Holmen project includes 297942 kWh/yr for heating and 48775 kWh/yr
for energy of fans)
The statistics show the general net need of energy reach the expectation value by 51.9 %. The
Holmen project is successful in saving heating energy by 60.4% reduction, but consumes
more ventilation energy than BBR by 250.0%. As a result, the Holmen project achieves the
energy saving by rising efficiency of energy use and lowering energy consumption.
19

Table 4. The comparison of the project cost and the sustainable efforts. Source: NCC 2000 a
Cost (SEK) percentage
The cost of the project 212,000,000 100.00%
The sustainable efforts and solutions included
within the cost of the project
16,000,000 7.55%
All the cost of sustainable solutions takes 7.55% of the total cost of the project in accordance
with Table 4. The additional 7.55 % of cost saves 48.1% of net need of basic and added
energy compared with the conventional BBR standard.
4.4 Hammarby Sjöstad
Hammarby Sjöstad is an
urban renewal and residential
project located in
south-eastern part of
Stockholm. The whole project
is expected to be fully
developed in 2016, and
comprises 9,000 apartments
for 20,000 residents in this
district. As an urban renewal
project, an old industrial and
harbor area was transformed
into a modern urban
environment with the aim of
environmental improvement.
The expansion of nature areas
as well as traffic in Stockholm
has been implemented in
harmony with the local
municipalities nearby.
(www.stockholm.se)
N
Holmen
Stockholm
Hammarby
Sjostad
Fig 7 Hammarby sjostad and Stockholm city, June 2004
(Boden. 2004) Photo: Lennart Johansson, InfoBild
Hammarby model
The Hammarby model is a system for managing energy, waste and water. All the sustainable
actions in the model contribute to the well developed infrastructure for the residence thereof
and the building constructed therein.
The model comprises the following major efforts. (Hammarby Sjöstad. 2004)
1. An eco system of its own with an on-site sewage and waste water treatment is established.
2. The heat recovered and nutrients extracted via new technology for use on farmland.
3. Surface water is treated locally to avoid overloading the sewage works.
4. Energy is produced in a renewal fuel fired district heating plant in the area.
5. Combustible waste in the area is recycled as heat and food waste is converted into bio
gas.
6. Sewage is treated to produce organic soil or compost for plants or farmland.
20

Fig. 8 The Hammarby model, Source: www.hammarbysjostad.se/press
21

5. Result
The following charts and tables show the results after assessment by GBTool, as well as
CASBEE. All the categorized aspects, sub-aspects and weights are defined by the assessment
programs. The weights present the importance of each criterion by percentage, which are not
discussed in this study.
All the scores are given according to questionnaires, interviews, field observations,
measurements, and literature reading. For questionnaires, 96 copies were distributed and 47
copies were completed on 14th April, 2005. The questions are designed for criteria A3.7, D1.6,
D2.1, D2.2, D3.2 4 of GBTool. The interviews were done with architect, constructor and
building administrator.
5.1 Results of GBTool
The Holmen project is applied in GBTool under the operation phase. The Microsoft excel
program of GBTool select the pre-installed criteria of the operation phase automatically. The
scale of scores is divided between -1 and 5, while 0 means acceptable practice, 3 means good
practice and 5 means best practice regulated on the GBTool Ms-Excel program. Table 5
shows individual aspects with their weights and scores. The result of total weighted score is
2.0.
A
B
Aspects
Site Selection, Project Planning
and Development
Energy and Resource
Consumption
Active
Weights
Weighted
scores
13% -0.3
21% 0.0
C Environmental Loadings 21% 4.1
D Indoor Environmental Quality 21% 1.7
E
Functionality and Controllability
of Building Systems
13% 1.7
F Long-Term Performance 13% 5.0
Chart 1. Scores of individual results
G Social and Economic aspects -- --
Total weighted building score 2.0
Table 5. Scores and weights of GBTool evaluation results
5.2 Results of CASBEE
There are two building types included in the Holmen project, retail/restaurant and apartment.
The following scores are given mainly due to evaluation apartment use, because the area of
apartment use is much more than that of retails. The scale of score is distributed between 0
and 5. Table 6 shows the individual scores of different aspects, the active weights and the total
scores. In the column charts (See chart 2), the scores of the main aspect, Q-1, LR-1, LR-2,
LR-3, relate to all the scores of each sub-aspects. Moreover, the scores of the main aspect
4 A3.7 Planned policies governing use of private vehicles, D1.6 Design features to control pollutants generated by
occupant activities, D2.1 Design features to maximize effectiveness of ventilation in naturally ventilated
occupancies, D2.2 Design features to ensure a satisfactory level of air quality and ventilation in mechanically
ventilated occupancies, D3.2 Design features to maintain acceptable air temperature in naturally ventilated
occupancies.
22

integrate into the hexagonal charts.
Aspects Active Weights Scores
Q-1 Indoor Environment 100% 4.1
Q-2 Quality of Service Not applied Not applied
Q-3 Outdoor Environment on Site Not applied Not applied
Q Total score of Building Environmental Quality & Performance (Sq) 4.1
LR-1 Energy 40% 2.3
LR-2 Resources & Materials 30% 3.0
LR-3 Off-site Environment 30% 3.3
LR Total score of Reduction of Building Environmental Loadings (Slr) 2.8
Table 6. Scores and weights of CASBEE evaluation results
Chart 2. Scores of individual aspect for CASBEE evaluation
5.3 Scores and comments of CASBEE evaluation results
Table 7 explains the reasons to score each criterion with the comments. In this study, the
scores are given by the defined descriptions in the CASBEE program. However, some
comments which are the facts of the performances may not be considered for scoring in the
same way as the defined descriptions. In this case, some negative comments can result in
positive scores.
23

Table 7. Scores and comments of CASBEE evaluation results
Evaluation items comments score
Q-1 Indoor Environment
Q 1.1
Q 1.1.1 Noise
Noise & Acoustics
Q1.1.1.2 Equipment Noise See Appendix IV 4
Q1.1.3
Q1.2 Thermal Comfort
Sound Absorption
Q1.2.1 Room Temperature Control
External walls, air layer +fiber board, score
0.25. Ceilings, plastering, score 0.10. Floors, P
tile, score 0.12. The average above is 0.157.
4
Q1.2.1.1
Room Temperature
setting
Q1.2.1.4 Zoned Control
Q1.2.1.5
Temperature and
humidity control
Q1.2.1.6 Occasional control
Q1.2.1.8 Monitoring systems
Q1.3 Lighting and illumination
The energy simulations are done for 20 oC in
apartments and 17 oC in stairs, stores etc.
Since the daily mean temperature during
summer extremely seldom exceed 25 oC in
Stockholm it should be possible to keep the
indoor temperature below 25 oC in summer.
According to the questionnaire 8% of the
tenants say that it is too hot in the living room
in summer time but nobody thinks it is too hot
in the other rooms. Only 3 % are dissatisfied
with the indoor temperatures in the summer.
Each floor is divided into heating zones for
each thermal load, with heating and cooling
available for each zone. A living unit can even
be divided into different zones. But there is no
air-conditioning system. Zoned Control is
better than normal
Humidity control is normally not needed in
Sweden. Temperature control is better than
normal.
The temperature for the whole dwelling can
be set, and further settings can be made for
each individual room.
Web-based information to tenants and
management staff was planned.
5
4
4
5
4
Q1.3.1 Daylighting
Q-1.4
Q1.3.1.1 Daylight factor DF=2.01% 4
Q1.3.1.3 Daylight devices There are no daylight devices 3
Q1.3.2.2 Daylight control Slight glare when facing south on a clear day. 3
Q1.3.4
Air Quality
Q1-4.1 Source Control
Lighting Controllability
There is a lighting control panel, device etc.
for broadly controlling overall lighting in the
room. Besides, the lighting system
extinguishes itself automatically in
pre-arranged minutes. No remote system.
Q-1.4.1.2 Mineral fiber Absolutely no exposed mineral fibers. 5
24
4

Q-1.4.1.3 Mites, Mold etc.
Q-1.4.1.4 Legionella
Q-1.4.2 Ventilation
Q-1.4.2.3
Consideration to
outside air intake
Q-1.4.2.4 Air supply planning
Q-1.4.3 Operation Plan
LR-1
The problem of mites and mold is not serious
in Sweden. Also, the materials were under
protection against rain on site before use.
Legionella is normally not a problem in
Swedish housing. It is not specifically
addressed here either
Air intake is placed 3 m above ground.
Outtake is placed at the roof.
Outside air is not mixed with return air, but
supplied to each room in a volume that
controlled in the central system
Q-1.4.3.1 CO2 monitoring The system is based on manual monitoring. 3
Q-1.4.3.2 Control of smoking
Energy
LR-1.2 Natural Energy Utilization
LR-1.2.1
LR-1.2.2
Direct use of natural
energy
Converted Use of
Renewable Energy
LR-1.3 Efficiency in Building Service System
LR-1.3.4
LR-1.4 Efficient Operation
Hot Water Supply
System
For retails, there is a minimum level of
measures such as smoking booths to avoid
exposing non-smokers to smoke.
32 residential living units out of 114 ones
have exterior walls on at least two sides.
Effective measures are taken to secure light
intake, but not natural ventilation.
Solar panel systems are used in place of
electrical power equipment.
The concentrated community hot water
system is used for the project, but rather than
the listed.
5
3
5
3
3
2
4
2
LR-1.4.1 Monitoring
Operational
LR-1.4.2
Management System
LR-2.1 Water Resources
LR-2.1.1 Water Saving
LR-2.1.2 Rainwater and Gray Water
No air cooling system. No gas use. Total
energy consumption monitoring is available.
Water supply for heat sources and hygiene
monitoring is available.
Organizations, systems or management
policies have been planned for operation and
management, but parts of them will
implement in the future. Target values for
energy consumption in the whole buildings
have been planned and presented to the
building owner, based on calculation of
annual energy consumption.
Water-saving toilets, 2 and 4 liters are
distinguished
3
4
4
LR-2.1.2.1 Rainwater use systems No systems for using rainwater. 3
Graywater reuse
LR-2.1.2.2 No systems for reusing gray water. 3
systems
LR-2.2 Materials of Low Environmental Load
25

LR-2.2.1 Recycled Materials
Efficiency of reusing
LR-2.2.1.2 See Appendix VII
Non-Skeleton Materials
5
Timber from
Timber from sustainably managed forests is
LR-2.2.2
Sustainable Forestry not used.
2
Materials with Low Materials with no hazardous materials have
LR-2.2.3
Health Risks
been chosen.
3
Reuse of Existing No existed structure is used.
LR-2.2.4
Building Structure etc.
3
The predicted proportion of the building
Predicted Volume of
LR-2.2.5 skeleton material not for final disposal is less
Recyclable Materials
than 50%.
1
LR-2.2.6 Use of CFCs and Halons
LR-3
LR-2.2.6.1 Fire retardant No halon fire retardant is used. 4
Off-site Environment
LR-3.2 Noise, Vibration and Odor
LR-3.2.1 Noise and Vibration See Appendix IV 5
LR-3.3
LR-3.4
Wind Damage &
Sunlight Obstruction
Light Pollution
See Appendix VI 1
1) Light pollution by exterior illumination is
not serious in Hammarby area
2) Light spill from the building interior can
be a problem due to the considerable
Large areas of window openings.
3) Light pollution due to light reflected from
buildings (glare) is not a problem on site
because this is a residential area.
5
26

6. Discussion
6.1 Discussion of results of GBTool and CASBEE
In GBTool, the best scored aspect is long-term performance. The maintenance log and staff
training contribute to the result principally. The aspect of environmental loadings is high
scored as 4.1 due to atmospheric emissions, solid and hazardous waste, water retention. Since
the building does not reuse rainwater and stormwater, so the atmospheric emissions, solid and
hazardous waste result in high scores. The indoor environmental quality which gets a
moderate score, 1.7, incorporates criteria of indoor air, ventilation, temperature and humidity,
daylighting and noise. Among these multiple categories of evaluation, the lower scores come
from occupants’ dissatisfaction, CO 2 concentration and speed of air flow. For controllability
evaluation of building systems, the personal control of heating system and lighting control for
non-residence cause low score. Concerning energy consumption, the difficulties to acquire
data limited the assessed criteria. The electrical peak demand scores 0.2 5 , which can be
incomprehensive to cover all concerns. The only aspect unable to meet acceptable practice is
project planning and development. Lack of bicycle secure storage spaces leads to minus score,
which might express the convenient mass rapid transportation system as well.
In CASBEE, the indoor environment including noise, temperature, daylighting and air quality
scores 4.1 which means better than normal. Noise and temperature control score high because
of the Swedish building regulations and well-developed infrastructure. The daylighting
system does not comprise special devices, but the automatic extinguishment contributes to
good practice. Considering air quality, the good practice is because mineral fiber, mold and
mites are not problems under Scandinavian environment. The difficulties to acquire data also
cause problems of collecting data for energy consumption; accordingly, the qualitative criteria
are more applicable than quantitative ones. The disadvantage of exterior wall locations 6 and
the hot water supply system influence the average of total score of energy use, even though
the monitoring and management scores are good and the solar panel effort is approved. The
water saving facilities raises the score of water resources higher than normal. No hazardous
and CFC materials are used and the score of material use is average. Noise, wind and light
comprised in off-site environment assessment is evaluated primarily by investigation at
planning phase. Wind damage investigation is generally not important in Sweden, so it gets
evaluated low.
6.2 Comparison
6.2.1 Theoretical comparison
The framework of environmental management approaches (Baumann. et al. 1999) is used as a
checklist to be filled in with characters of GBTool and CASBEE. In Table 8, the aspects and
categories defined by the framework of environmental management approaches are listed in
the left side, and GBTool and CASBEE are filled in the blanks of the right side if they fit in
with the definitions of the categories. According to the table, the structure and features of the
two tools are stated later
Table 8 Aspects of environmental management approaches (Baumann.et al. 1999)
Aspects
Generic aspects
Categories
5 The peak monthly electrical demand for the total building is 10.9 W/m 2 , as determined by metered consumption
records over a one-year period. The score is 0.2 in accordance with the defined description of scoring in GBTool
program.
6 The criteria LR-1.2.1 score the performance by if the exterior walls are on at least two sides to ensure effective
light intake and natural ventilation. However, most of the apartments in the Holmen project are in the size of 2
bedrooms, 1 living room, 1 kitchen and 1 bathroom, which do not take up large areas to reach two sides of exterior
walls. The large areas of window openings compensate this disadvantage instead.
27

Nature of
approach
Contextual aspects
Type of
decision-maker
Overall purpose
Object analyzed
Perspective
Type
Decision-makers
Uses
focus
Methodological aspects
Investigated
dimensions
Character of the
approach
♦ Concept -- --
♦ Tool [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Governments/authorities [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦
♦
♦
♦
Nature of perspective
Main dimensions
Industrial
companies/business
enterprises
Non-governmental
organizations(NGOs)
Individuals(for example, as
consumers)
Decision support: operative
or strategic
[GBTool]
[GBTool]
[CASBEE]
[CASBEE]
-- --
-- --
♦ communication [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Ecosphere [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Technosphere -- --
♦ Prospective [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Retrospective [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Environmental [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Economic [GBTool] --
♦ Social [GBTool] --
Emphasis on procedure -- --
♦ Problem identification -- --
♦ Problem formulation -- --
♦ Modeling -- --
♦ Interpretation -- --
♦ Implementation -- --
♦ Feedback and learning -- --
Emphasis on modeling [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Flexibility in Model(s) used -- --
♦ Defined model(s) used [GBTool] [CASBEE]
Basis for
♦
Additional models used for
interpretation
What is kept constant in a comparison
-- --
28

comparison
System boundaries
Type of data (input
and output data)
Evaluation of
results
/Interpretation
♦ Measured environmental -- --
parameter or indicator
♦ Facility [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Quantity of product or
-- --
service
♦ ‘Total production unit’ -- --
♦ External standard or other -- --
level of acceptability
♦ Lifetime -- --
Spatial modeling [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦
♦
♦
One geographical area
(single site)
Many geographical area
(many sites)
No defined geographical
areas (No defined sites)
[GBTool]
[CASBEE]
-- --
-- --
Time modeling [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦
♦
♦
Subject data
Nature of data
Presentation of results
Snapshot view somewhere in
time (past, present or future)
Snapshot views at intervals
over a period of time
Whole lifetime included
(used of discounting rate)
[GBTool]
[CASBEE]
-- --
-- --
♦ Physical systems [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Social and economic systems [GBTool] --
♦ Quantity [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Quality [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Single parameters [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Fewer parameter [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ Many parameter [GBTool] [CASBEE]
Purpose of additional models for evaluation
♦ To aggregate data [GBTool] [CASBEE]
♦ To identify critical data -- --
Most characters of GBTool and CASBEE appear similar in this framework. They can be
regarded as tools, and the various data sources indicate that they support communication.
Since both of them evaluate the previous phase and the subsequent phase, this implies that
they are used both in prospective and retrospective ways. The object analyzed in all these
application is the ecosphere, since the focus is on identifying the environmental effects
associated with building use rather than on improving a technological system. The number of
actors involved is large, but their participation still depends on the financial situation.
However, they base their evaluation on the documents produced by the applicant, i.e. the
national team for carrying out GBTool or CASBEE assessment in accordance with the
regulations. As part of the process, the public is consulted and encouraged to participate
actively in meetings and responding to questionnaires. Also, the applicant must be in
29

consultation with architects and constructors.
GBTool starts to assess economic and social aspects in 2005 and both GBTool and CASBEE
always comprise environmental aspects. Regarding use of models for scoring their effects,
both tools require defined models used.
The basis for comparison in both GBTool and CASBEE is facility, usually comparing
proposed sites before and after construction. Concerning system boundaries, both tolls can be
defined by the spatial and temporal modeling. In practice, by judgment from the use of
drawings and the contents of many checklists used, spatial modeling of both tools focuses on
the one geographical area around the planned facility. In temporal modeling, criteria from
building construction and operation are included giving snapshot views of the present and
future state of the geographic area. As comprehensive assessment tools, most data collected in
GBTool and CASBEE describe the physical system, but some in GBTool refer to the social
system as well. The two tools tend to be a mixture of quantitative and qualitative data. The
Purpose of additional models for evaluation is to aggregate data in a way that incorporates
the scores of the involved facts.
The outcomes of GBTool and CASBEE are concluded by tables of main aspects and charts,
so the results can be presented both in the form of a single or many parameters.
Consequently, after applying GBTool and CASBEE with the framework of environmental
management approaches, the difference in-between consists in aspects of assessing dimension
and involved actors. As a result, the structures of the two tools are similar.
6.2.2 Evaluation comparison
The evaluation team work is based on the tool of Ecoeffect. Dr. Glaumann chose the criteria
of GBTool which are relevant for the Holmen project and Swedish built environment. In other
words, GBTool and EcoEffect complement each other in the evaluation team work. 28 criteria
are chosen from GBTool as the following comparison. Subsequently, as a tool developed in
Japan, 34 criteria of CASBEE are used which belongs to the similar issues with the above 28
criteria and can significantly relate to GBTool. The reasons to skip some criteria are as
follows (See also appendix III), which are decided among the discussions of the team work
1. The inapplicable criteria for the other building types, i.e. school and hospital,
set by CASBEE Ms-Excel program
2. For climatic and geological reasons, like earthquakes and air-conditioning
3.
4.
Lack of Japanese regulations reference
The implementation problems of CASBEE digital program itself
5. Difficulties of on-site measurement
6. The other criteria which correspond to none of the chosen criteria of GBTool
are also skipped.
The discussion for comparison is divided into 13 aspects according to the category of GBTool.
The 13 aspects are divided as following.
I. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development
II. Energy and Resource Consumption
III. Materials
IV. Environmental Loadings
V. Water
VI. Impact on site
VII. Indoor air quality
VIII. Ventilation
IX. Air temperature and humidity
X. Daylighting and illumination
XI. Noise and acoustics
XII. Controllability
XIII. Long term performance
30

The comments of CASBEE scoring reference are listed in Appendix IV.
I. Site Selection, Project Planning and Development
Criteria of GBTool
A3
Urban Design and Site Development
score
A3.6 Actual support for bicycle use -0.3
Analysis
For operation phase of site selection, project planning and development aspect, the number of
secure storage spaces for bicycles is less than 17% of the residence population, so the score is
under 0. The indicator of bicycle use should be also considered with the proximity to the
public transportation and the living essential functions.
In this aspect, there is no criterion of CASBEE similar with that of GBTool.
II.
Energy and Resource Consumption
Criteria of GBTool
score
B2 Actual electrical peak demand for building operations -0.1
LR-1 Energy
LR-1.2 Natural Energy Utilization
Criteria of CASBEE
score
LR-1.2.1 Direct use of natural energy 2
LR-1.2.2 Converted Use of Renewable Energy 4
LR-1.3 Efficiency in Building Service System
LR-1.3.4 Hot Water Supply System 2
Analysis
In GBTool, the peak monthly electrical demand for the total building is 11.1 W/m2 which is
higher than the standard of GBTool scoring 0.
In CASBEE, 72% (32 out of 114) have exterior walls on at least two sides. However, the
entire project adapts broad areas of windows to improve direct use of daylight. In this case,
the broad areas of window openings can compensate the disadvantage of fewer exterior walls
for each unit. The converted use of renewable energy primarily counts use of sunlight, solar
panels. Concerning aspects of efficiency in building service system, the score can be lower
than normal due to the regional difference, that is, use of the concentrated hot water supply
system in Stockholm.
Generally speaking, the difficulties of data acquirement and varied ways of regional statistics
for energy consumption result in incomplete evaluation. As far as the difference of regional
statistics is concerned, this aspect is assessed by the facilities used which can be easier
assessed in CASBEE than in GBTool. The assessment can be comprehensive if the facilities
used are trans-regional considered.
III. Materials
Criteria of CASBEE
score
LR-2.2 Materials of Low Environmental Load
Analysis
LR-2.2.1 Recycled Materials
Efficiency of reusing Non-Skeleton
LR-2.2.1.2
Materials
5
LR-2.2.2 Timber from Sustainable Forestry 3
LR-2.2.4 Reuse of Existing Building Structure etc. 3
LR-2.2.5 Predicted Volume of Recyclable Materials 1
31

For material aspects, GBTool does not include any criteria to evaluate operation phase.
In CASBEE, the definitions of project territory vary from one project to another. Paving of
sidewalk, for instance, belongs to the public construction, so some of the materials included in
CASBEE cannot be assessed.
IV. Environmental Loadings
C1
Criteria of GBTool
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
C1.2
C2
Actual (calculated) GHG emissions from all energy
used for annual building operations
Other Atmospheric Emissions
C2.1
C2.2
C2.3
C3
Actual (calculated) emissions of ozone-depleting
substances during building operations
Actual (calculated) emissions of acidifying
emissions during building operations
Actual (calculated) emissions leading to
photo-oxidants during building operations
Solid Wastes
Actual solid waste resulting from building
C3.2
operations
score
3.1
5
5
5
5
Criteria of CASBEE
score
LR-2.2.6 Use of CFCs and Halons
LR-2.2.6.1 Fire retardant 4
Analysis
In GBTool, assessments of environment loadings depend on the amount of GHG (Green
House Gas), ozone-depleting substances, acidifying, photo-oxidants emissions and solid
waste handling. The above assessments individually result from the measurement or
calculation of CO2-equivalent emissions from primary non-renewable energy used, SO2 and
ethene equivalent emission from energy and fuels use and the implemented steps of sorting
and recording.
In CASBEE, halon fire retardant is not used according to Swedish legislation. Due to material
data with chemical terminology are not easy to be acquired, insulation materials and
refrigerants cannot be assessed. Generally speaking, the strict Swedish laws and the less
polluted environment contribute the high scores of environment loadings. In addition, GBTool
emphasizes the measurement after use while CASBEE concentrates on the possible materials
used.
V. Water
C4
Criteria of GBTool
Rainwater, Stormwater and Wastewater
C4.2
Actual liquid effluents from building operations sent
off the site
C4.3 Actual retention of rainwater for later re-use 0
C4.4 Actual untreated stormwater sent off the site 5
score
2.5
Criteria of CASBEE
score
LR-2.1
Water Resources
32

LR-2.1.1 Water Saving 4
LR-2.1.2
Rainwater and Gray Water
LR-2.1.2.1 Rainwater use systems 3
LR-2.1.2.2 Graywater reuse systems 3
Analysis
In GBTool, calculation of water use for sanitary equipment, and retention of rainwater and
stormwater are addressed to assess water resources aspects. In CASBEE, water resources
concern about reuse of rainwater and graywater, also about the water saving facilities. Hence,
water reuse and retention are considered for both water aspects of the two tools. Since the
project does not retain natural falling water and take active measures to reuse water, the
comprehensive performance is normal.
VI. Impact on site
C5
Impacts on Site
Criteria of GBTool
C5.4 Actual handling of hazardous waste on site 5
score
LR-3 Off-site Environment
Criteria of CASBEE
LR-3.3 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction 1
Score
LR-3.4 Light Pollution 4
Analysis
In GBTool, the hazardous waste assessment requires another tool to score. The score is given
by Ecoeffect evaluation.
In CASBEE, the off-site environment is assessed by wind and light situation. Concerning the
light pollution, the large openings of windows lead to spill of interior light. Thanks to the
local residential neighborhood, the exterior illumination and glare reflected from adjacent
buildings do not produce problems. In this aspect, the two tools evaluate different criteria,
which makes it difficult to compare the results.
VII. Indoor air quality
D1
Indoor Air Quality
Criteria of GBTool
Score
D1.4 Actual pollutant migration between occupancies 3
D1.5 Pollutants generated by building maintenance 3
Actual levels of pollutants generated by occupant
D1.6
activities
0
D1.7 Actual levels of CO2 concentrations 0
Q-1.4 Air Quality
Criteria of CASBEE
Score
Analysis
Q1-4.1 Source Control
Q-1.4.1.2 Mineral fiber 5
Q-1.4.1.3 Mites, Mold etc. 5
Q-1.4.1.4 Legionella 3
33

In GBTool, occupants’ questionnaires present dissatisfaction of indoorair quality. Lack of
concern about CO2 concentration also results in low score.
In CASBEE, due to the local situation, most criteria are considered with the Japanese
background, such as the humid climate for mites and mold, air-conditioning system for
legionella. That is the reason why Holmen can be scored higher.
VIII. Ventilation
Criteria of GBTool
D2
Ventilation
D2.2
D2.3
Actual satisfaction with level of air quality and
ventilation in mechanically ventilated occupancies
Actual air movement in mechanically ventilated
occupancies
Score
3
1.7
Q-1.4.2 Ventilation
Criteria of CASBEE
Score
Q-1.4.2.3 Consideration to outside air intake 5
Q-1.4.2.4 Air supply planning 3
Analysis
In GBTool, ventilation is assessed by occupancy survey and measured air speed. Both of the
two criteria stress the performance of implementation.
In CASBEE, assessment of ventilation considers the locations of air intake and indoor and
exterior air circulation. Both of the two criteria are assessed by the technical arrangements,
but not the implementation results as GBTool.
IX. Air temperature and humidity
Criteria of GBTool
Score
D3
Air temperature and relative humidity
D3.1
Actual acceptability of air temperature and relative
humidity in mechanically ventilated occupancies
3
Criteria of CASBEE
Score
Q1.2 Thermal Comfort
Q1.2.1 Room Temperature Control
Q1.2.1.1 Room Temperature setting 5
Q1.2.1.4 Zoned Control 4
Q1.2.1.5 Temperature and humidity control 4
Q1.2.1.6 Occasional control 5
Analysis
In GBTool, thermal Comfort is assessed by occupancy satisfaction. In CASBEE, room
temperature control is evaluated by the settings of indoor temperature, the accessibility of
zones and the mechanisms of temperature controllability. In this aspect, GBTool considers the
implementation performance rather than arranged mechanical facilities for CASBEE.
34

X. Daylighting and illumination
Criteria of GBTool
D4
Daylighting and Illumination
D4.1
Actual acceptability of daylighting in primary
occupancy areas
score
5
Criteria of CASBEE
score
Q1.3 Lighting and illumination
Q1.3.1 Daylighting
Q1.3.1.1 Daylight factor 4
Q1.3.1.3 Daylight devices 3
Q1.3.2.2 Daylight control 3
Analysis
Both GBTool and CASBEE evaluate Daylight Factor, but 2.01 DF score 5 in GBTool and 4
in CASBEE. It appears that CASBEE is more difficult to be qualified than GBTool in the
daylight aspect. In CASBEE, the orientations of windows are considered as well. Due to lack
of daylight device concerns, the Holmen project is score normal in CASBEE.
XI. Noise and acoustics
D5
Noise and Acoustics
Criteria of GBTool
score
D5.1 Actual noise attenuation through the exterior envelope 3
D5.2
Actual transmission of building equipment noise to
primary occupancies
3
D5.3
Actual noise attenuation between primary occupancy
areas
3
Criteria of CASBEE
score
Q-1 Indoor Environment
Q 1.1.1 Noise & Acoustics
Q1.1.1.2 Equipment Noise 4
Q1.1.3 Sound Absorption 4
LR-3.2 Noise, Vibration and Odor
LR-3.2.1 Noise and Vibration 5
Analysis
In GBTool, the noise evaluation depends on other evaluation methods, and the Swedish
method, Ljudklass, was used to score exterior noise, equipment noise and interior noise.
In CASBEE, all the three criteria are assessed by the efforts for noise avoidance and materials.
Interviews with architects and constructors contribute to the answers to the levels of efforts.
Architects and constructors approve the noise efforts positively with the strict Swedish
building regulations.
XII. Controllability
Criteria of GBTool
E Functionality and Controllability of Building Systems
score
35

E3 Controllability
E3.2
Actual capability for partial operation of building
technical systems
E3.3
Actual degree of local control of lighting systems in
non-residential occupancies
E3.4
Actual degree of personal control of technical systems
by occupants
3
0
0
LR-1.4
Efficient Operation
Criteria of CASBEE
score
LR-1.4.1 Monitoring 3
LR-1.4.2 Operational Management System 4
Q1.3 Lighting and illumination
Q1.3.4 Lighting Controllability 4
Q-1.4.3 Operation Plan
Q1.2.1
Q-1.4.3.1 CO2 monitoring 3
Q-1.4.3.2 Control of smoking 3
Room Temperature Control
Q1.2.1.8 Monitoring systems 4
Analysis
In GBTool, controllability was assessed by field observation for personal control of heating
and lighting.
In CASBEE, assessment of heating and lighting controllability examines accessibility of
control panels and zoning. Concerning the indoor air quality, CO2 and smoking monitoring is
assessed by the central control system and measures. And the overall operational monitoring
lies in records and reports for all aspects.
XIII. Long term performance
F
F1
Long-Term Performance
Flexibility and Adaptability
Adaptability to future changes in type of energy
F1.5
supply.
F2 Maintenance of Operating Performance
F2.4 Provision and maintenance of a building log 5
F2.6 Training of operating staff 5
Analysis
In GBTool, records of maintenance, staff training and energy supply adaptability contribute to
evaluation of long-term performance. All the three criteria are scored according to interviews
with building administrator and constructor.
In CASBEE, no criterion is relevant for aspect of long-term performance.
Discussion of evaluation comparison by both tools
Energy aspects are assessed lower in both tools. The electrical peak demand is higher than
GBTool standard, which is correspondent with the energy prediction in the environmental
friendly contest (See Table 3, Main energy statistics of the Holmen project). The result is
contestable, so more follow-up statistics should be involved. According to previous
experience of other national teams, it shows that the benchmark of energy issues is relatively
high, so it is difficult to get high score (Yokoo, et al. 2002).
3
36

Aspect of environmental loadings from GBTool also including water and impact on site score
4.1 is close to the evaluation of CASBEE. It shows that CO 2 , SO 2 and ethene equivalent
emission and implementation of solid waste are assessed excellent. Hazardous and halon
materials are good, but lack of natural water retention is scored normal.
Aspect of indoor environmental quality including indoor air quality, ventilation, air
temperature and humidity, daylighting and illumination, noise and acoustics score 1.7 in
GBTool. For indoor air quality and ventilation, GBTool and CASBEE have different scores
because GBTool is evaluated by the occupancy questionnaires and CASBEE is evaluated by
the technical settings. It can be explained that Holmen are equipped with good ventilation for
indoor air quality but the occupants dissatisfied the current situation. Temperature, humidity
and noise are scored well by both tools. Daylighting is assessed well in the primary
occupancies, but not in the related devices.
For aspect of controllability, temperature, lighting, CO 2 and smoke are evaluated better than
normal by both tools. But in non-residential occupancies control of lighting systems and
personal control of technical systems contribute the low score principally.
6.2.3 Overall comparison
Table 9 Features of the Holmen project
Features
Advantage
Correspondent criteria of
GBTool
score
Correspondent
criteria of
CASBE
score
Reduction of
heat leakage
Energy saving
from heating
system
Waste
handling
Sustainable
construction
thick exterior walls
lower energy losses
in distribution
heat exchanger from
air and water
solar panel
efficient
sorting
waste
reduction in the use
of harmful materials
B3.2 Use of on-site
renewable energy
systems.
C3.2 Actual solid waste
resulting from building
operations
C1.2 Actual (calculated)
GHG emissions from all
energy used for annual
building operations
C2.1Actual (calculated)
emissions of
ozone-depleting
substances durin g
building operations
C2.2 Actual (calculated)
emissions of acidifying
emissions during building
operations
C2.3 Actual (calculated)
emissions leading to
photo-oxidants during
building operations
Skip
ped
5
3.1
5
5
5
Q-1.2.1.3
Perimeter
performance
LR-1.2.2
Converted Use
of Renewable
Energy
LR-2.2.6.1
Fire retardant
LR-2.2.6.2
Insulation
Materials
LR-2.2.6.3
Refrigerants
Skip
ped
4
4
Skip
ped
Skip
ped
37

Advantage
from
Hammarby
model
disadvantage
ventilation
reduction of the
negative
environmental effects
from transports
during construction
and operation of the
buildings
An eco system of its
own with an on-site
sewage and waste
water treatment is
established.
Energy is produced in
a renewal fuel fired
district heating plant
in the area.
Combustible waste in
the area is recycled as
heat and food waste
is converted into bio
gas.
Added electricity for
ventilation system
C1.1 GHG emissions
embodied in construction
materials.
B1.1 Predicted
non-renewable primary
energy embodied in
construction materials.
B1.1 Predicted
non-renewable primary
energy embodied in
construction materials.
D2.1 Actual effectiveness of
ventilation in naturally
ventilated occupancies
D2.2 Actual satisfaction with
level of air quality and
ventilation in mechanically
ventilated occupancies
D2.3 Actual air movement in
mechanically ventilated
occupancies
D2.4 Actual effectiveness of
ventilation in mechanically
ventilated occupancies
Skip
ped
Skip
ped
Skip
ped
Skip
ped
3
1.7
Skip
ped
Q-1.4.1
Ventilation air
volume
Q-1.4.2Natural
ventilation
performance
Skip
ped
Skip
ped
Q-1.4.3
Consideration to 5
outside air intake
Q-1.4.4 Air
supply planning 3
Most scores of the assessed criteria correspond the relevant positive and negative performance
except some technical evaluation which is not able to respond the results after use, for
example, Q-1.4.3 Consideration to outside air intake.
Heat leakage, heat exchanger, environmental efforts of community scale and efforts in
construction phase are neglected by both tools. Heat leakage might be difficult to be estimated.
Heat exchanger can be included as a supplement of techniques checklist. However, in the
construction phase the embodied waste can be considerable due to limited construction
duration. The public collective sustainable efforts of community scale would contribute some
achievement which cannot reach in a single building scale.
38

7. Conclusion
According to the above results and discussion, the identification and suggestion to improve
GBTool and CASBEE can be summarized as following.
Features of GBTool
1. emphasizes the measurement after use
2. evaluates by questionnaires
3. include other evaluation tools or use ready figures from other assisting tools
Features of CASBEE
1. concentrates on technical results under operation
2. no questionnaires, mainly technical evaluation
3. assessed with variety of checklists, tables of efforts and the regional building regulations
The current problems and recommendations of improvement
Some regional concerns can be difficult to get appropriate scores for the local geographic and
climatic situations, for instance, earthquakes, humidity, air- conditioning and heating system.
These criteria can be categorized individually or created trans-regionally. Strict regional
building regulations, well-developed regional infrastructure and less-polluted environment
undoubtedly contribute to higher scores. Contrarily, aspects which are not problems for local
concerns result in the irrelevant scoring, such as wind damage, mites and mold.
The difficulties of data acquirement and varied ways of regional statistics, like various
measure units, result in difficulties of evaluation and skipped criteria in this research. Data
with academic chemical terminology are not easy to be acquired, either. Although detailed
checklists enhance the objectivity of the score, but sometimes they can be also led to
difficulties to acquire data. More persons in the evaluation team with various professional
backgrounds or better communication with data sources can solve this problem.
Some criteria should be connected with other relative ones to make the result objective. For
example, bicycle use can be considered with the proximity to the public transportation and the
proximity to the locations of the living essential functions, for instance, food shopping and
school.
In CASBEE, the hypothetic boundary of project comprises the border of the site area and
from the building top to the basement (See Figure 2). Within the boundary, not all the
involved constructions are meaningful to assess the project. Paving of sidewalk, for
instance, belongs to the public construction, is difficult to get assessed for the material
use because of different durations of constructions.
The criteria can be separated into qualitative and quantitative ones. The qualitative
criteria score the issues by yes-no questions, for example, if the efforts for reducing
equipment noise are applied (See Appendix IV). The quantitative criteria score the
issues by values of the related measurement, for example, the wind speed of the
indoor air. To get all the criteria scored, the methods to acquire the facts and the
related values can be divided into questionnaires, interviews, field observations,
measurements and literature reading. All the methods may assist to acquire qualitative
and quantitative data. However, when some qualitative data are necessarily acquired
by the architect’s design work or the construction work, in other words, when the
evaluation and the creation work come from the same sources, the scoring would not
be objective. To avoid this circumstance, the qualitative criteria can be changed into
the quantitative ones which are more objective with values. Otherwise, the assessor
should be ready with enough understanding of the assessed building before evaluation
or the criteria data should be acquired by non-developers. The criteria can be also
designed with comprehensive concerns by questions from different points of view to
reach the objectivity of scoring.
39

8. References
Baumann, H, and Cowell, S. 1999. An Evaluative Framework for Conceptual and Analytical
Approaches Used in Environmental Management. Greener Management International
26, P. 109-122.
Boden, Asa. 2004. Det groan, det skona, det hallbara-den moderna staden. Handbook of
Hammarby Sjöstad, P.14
Cole, Raymond. 2002. Review of GBTool and Analysis of GBC 2002 Case-Study Projects.12
Nov, 2002 (accessed in Jan 2005)
Hammarby Sjöstad 2004. Brochure of Hammarby Sjöstad.
Japan Sustainable Building Consortium. 2003. Manual of Comprehensive Assessment System
for Building Environment Efficiency. P. 2,3
Kibert, Charles J. “Establishing Principles and a Model for Sustainable Construction,”
Proceedings: the First International Conference on Sustainable Construction, 6-9
November 1994, 1-10, Tampa, Florida, U.S.A..
Klunder, Gerda. 2002. The Search for the Most Eco-Efficient Strategies for Sustainable
Housing Construction. Proceedings: Sustainable Building 2002 International
Conference, September 23 - 25, 2002, Oslo, Norway.
Larsson, Nils. 2000. Green Building: An Overview. Apr 2000
Murakami, S., Sakamoto, Y., Yashiro, T., Iwamura, K., Bogaki, K., Oka, T., Sato, M., Ikaga,
T., and Endo, J. 2002. Comprehensive Assessment System of Building Environmental
Efficiency in Japan (CASBEE-J). Proceedings: Sustainable Building 2002
International Conference, September 23 - 25, 2002, Oslo, Norway.
NCC. 2000a. Miljötävling 2000. Records of energy consumption translated into English by
Anders O. Fällmar.
NCC. 2000b. Kvarteret Holmen- NCCs bidrag till ett miljovanligt byggande och boende.
Document of environmental friendly performance translated into English by Anders O.
Fällmar.
Pelli, Rafael. 2002. Designing a Green Apartment Building in New York City: A Case Study.
Proceedings: Sustainable Building 2002 International Conference, September 23 - 25,
2002, Oslo, Norway.
Reijinders L, van Roekel A. Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the environmental
improvement of buildings. Journal of Cleaner Production 1999; 7:221-5
Yokoo, N., Oka, T. 2002. Comparison of Buildings-assessment Results of Green housing in
Japan by using Eco Homes, LEED, GBTool and Green housing A-Z. Proceedings:
Sustainable Building 2002 International Conference, September 23 - 25, 2002, Oslo,
Norway.
http://www.stockholm.se/templates/template_121.asp_Q_mainframe_E_template_117.asp_Q_
number_E_66795_A_category_E_13171, accessed in June 2005, accessed in June
2005
http://www.stockholm.se/files/68700-68799/ file_68762.pdf , accessed in June 2005
http://www.hammarbysjostad.se/, accessed in June 2005
40

9. Appendix
Appendix I Twelve Environmental Sustainability Indicators/(ESI)
ESI-1 Total net consumption of primary embodied energy, GJ
ESI-2 Net annualized consumption of primary embodied energy, MJ
ESI-3 Net annual consumption of primary energy for building operations, MJ
ESI-4 Net annual consumption of primary non-renewable energy for building
operations, MJ
ESI-5 Net annualized primary embodied energy and annual operating primary
energy, MJ
ESI-6 Net area of land consumed for building and related works, m 2
ESI-7 Net annual consumption of potable water for building operations, m 3
ESI-8 Annual use of grey water and rainwater for building operations, m 3
ESI-9 Net annual GHG emissions from building operations, normalized for net
area and occupancy, kg.CO 2 equivalent
ESI-10 Predicted CFC-11 equivalent leakage per year
ESI-11 Total weight of materials re-used in Design from on-site or off-site uses,
kg.
ESI-12 Total weight of new materials used in Design from off-site uses, kg.
41

Appendix II Questionnaire for Occupants
Questionnaire for Occupants
The following questions are from Green Building Tool to assess the sustainable
development of the Holmen project. If you cannot understand the meaning of
any question, don’t hesitate to contact:
William, Wen Yuan Chung, master student of KTH
Mobile phone 070-336-0283, Home phone 08-6243-888
Kungshamra 71/0117, 17070, Solna, Sweden
Outgoing questionnaires= 96
Incoming questionnaires= 47
[Questions for the whole project]
GA3.7 How often do you commute by car?
100% = 9 st 50%= 5 st 25%= 21 st 0%= 6 st No answer= 6 st
GD1.6 Are you satisfied with indoor air quality produced by
neighbor-generated pollutants?
yes 4% occasionally no 13% no 75% no answer 8%
GD2.1 Are you satisfied with the quality of natural ventilation from doors and
windows?
yes 13% generally yes 25% frequently no or no 56%
no answer 6%
GD2.2 Are you satisfied with the air quality and ventilation from indoor
mechanically ventilation?
yes 10% generally yes 17% frequently no or no 64%
no answer 9%
GD3.2 Is the temperature in primary occupancy areas can be kept, within a
swing range (+ or -) less than 3 degree s centigrade?
yes no no 2 degrees can be changed by the occupants
42

Appendix III Skipped criteria and reasons
1. The inapplicable criteria for the other building types set by CASBEE
Ms-Excel program
Q-1.2.1.7 Allowance for after-hours air conditioning
Q-1.2.2.2 Sound Insulation of partition wall
Q-1.2.2.3 Sound Insulation of floor slabs
Q-1.2.2.4 Sound Insulation of floor slabs
Q-1.3.1.2 Openings by orientation
Q-1.4.2.2 Natural ventilation performance
2. The irrelevant criteria for climatic and geological reasons
Q-1.2.2 Humidity Control
Q-1.2.3 Type of Air Conditioning
LR-1.3.1 HVAC System
3. The skipped criteria due to lack of Japanese regulations
Q-1.2.1.3 Perimeter performance
Q-1.2.2.1 Sound Insulation of openings
Q-1.3.2.1 Glare from light fixtures
Q-1.4.1.1 Chemical pollutants
Q-1.4.2.1 Ventilation air volume
LR-1.1 Building Thermal Load
4. The skipped criteria due to the problems of CASBEE digital program
Q1.2.1.2 Valuable loads and following-up control
LR-1.3.6 Equipments for Improving Energy Efficiency
5. The skipped criteria due to difficulties of on-site measurement
Q 1.1.1.1 Background Noise
6. The skipped criteria due to the focus on non-residential users thereof
LR-1.3.2 Ventilation System
LR-1.3.3 Lighting System
LR-1.3.5 Elevators
7. The other criteria which correspond to none of the chosen criteria of
GBTool are also skipped.
43

Appendix IV Q1.1.1.2Equipment Noise
A. Efforts for reducing equipment noise in
non-residential buildings
B. Efforts for reducing equipment noise in
residential buildings
Level
Floor areas for Off, Sch, Rtl,
Rst, Hsp, Htl, Fct portions
m²
Level
Floor areas for Residential
portions
m²
3 Types of
equipment
Examples of countermeasures
3
Types of equipment
Examples of
countermeasures
Low-noise vents, low-noise intakes,
1) Water supply and
Anti-noise pipe cladding,
1) Vents and intakes
positions, air speed and volume,
drainage noises from
anti-vibration rubber support
etc.
toilets, bathrooms etc.
fittings, positioning, etc.
2) Interior air
conditioning
equipment
Noise prevention covers, positions,
etc.
2) Water hammer
Use of appropriate water
pressure, selection of
preventive fixtures, etc.
3) Noise from the
machine room
(penetrating
noise)
Noise prevention covers, sound
absorption and sound insulation for
the machine room, positions, etc.
3) Noise from air
conditioning room units
Selection of low-noise
equipment etc.
4) As above
(Noise
transmitted through
solids)
Anti-vibration platform,
anti-vibration rubber elements, etc.
4) Noise from air
conditioning external
units
Anti-vibration rubber
supports, anti-vibration mats,
selection of low-noise
equipment types, etc.
5) Noise from ducts
Sound absorber ducts, sound
and pipes
(penetrating
absorber elbows, sound absorber
boxes, sound insulating pipe
5) Ventilation
Selection of low-noise
equipment etc.
noise)
cladding, position etc.
Anti-vibration suspension or
6) As above
supports, flexible joints,
(noise transmitted
anti-vibration treatment of
through solids)
penetrating parts.
7) (Exterior) Noise
from cooling towers
8) (Exterior) Noise
from intakes and
vents
Baffles, anti-vibration support,
positions, etc.
Position, appropriate air volume
and speed, etc.
44

Appendix V LR-3.2.1 Noise and Vibration
Efforts to be evaluated
Credits
Level of efforts
High Low None
Efforts
I. Dwellings (or equivalent building types)
Excluded 2 1 0
1) Noise generated by the exterior machinery of air conditioning systems for individual
dwellings should be evaluated according to the type of equipment, the installation
location, installation spacing and the presence of noise countermeasures.
2 2 1 0
2) The presence of measures to reduce wind roar generated from the edges of
balconies.
Excluded 2 1 0 3) Other
II - Common areas and external areas or entire building.
2 2 1 0
4) Observation of local environmental standard values for noise and vibration, based
on laws and bylaws.
2 2 1 0 5) Selection of low-noise equipment types.
6) Consideration of the installation positions of equipment that generates vibration and
1 2 1 0
noise, and countermeasures against those sources (sound absorbers,
sound-absorbent lagging, vibration-damping construction, earthquake resistance
processing etc.).
7) Consideration for background noise produced by exhaust fans etc. (consideration
2 2 1 0
for the positions of exhaust vents, ventilation holes and other openings, adequate
distance from the next building, etc.).
2 2 1 0
2 2 1 0
2 2 1 0
8) Measures to prevent the propagation of noise to adjacent land (anti-noise measures
such as sound-baffling walls and trees etc.).
9) The presence of measures to reduce wind roar generated by building exterior
materials and other sources.
10) Presence of measures to reduce the impact of noise on adjacent areas (caused by
automobile and motorbike parking areas on the site).
Excluded 2 1 0 11) Other
(2)
(1) Total 11
12
Maximum
Credits = Credits Credits
Credits =
(2)
(1) Total 8
8
Maximum
Credits = Credits Credits
Credits =
(3) Credits Ratio ((1) / (2)) = 0.92
(3) Credits Ratio ((1) / (2)) = 1.00
Evaluate as “Off, Sch,
Rtl, Rst, Hal,Fct” building types.
Evaluate as “Hsp, Htl,
Apt” building types.
45

Appendix VI LR-3.3 Wind Damage & Sunlight Obstruction
Efforts to be evaluated
Credits
Level of efforts
High Low None
Efforts
I. Prediction of wind damage
(including measures scheduled for implementation)
0 2 1 0
1) Carry out a preliminary survey of local conditions, such as wind direction and
wind speed.
(Include a survey of matters such as the heights and positions of surrounding
buildings.)
0 2 1 0 2) Use of simulations and other tools to predict wind damage
II. Restriction of wind damage
Excluded 2 1 0
3) Measures for the restriction of wind damage
(arrangement of building form, such as its position, orientation, volume and height)
4) Measures to reduce the impact of wind damage that does occur
Excluded 2 1 0 (Structural elements against wind, such as eaves and roof, and arrangements
around the exterior of the building).
1 2 1 0
5) Placement of plants, fences and other shielding elements
(measures on the exterior)
Excluded 2 1 0 6) Other
III. Consideration of impediments to natural airflow
0 2 1 0
7) Building planning that avoids impeding natural airflow in adjacent buildings
(with particular consideration to avoid the new building blocking natural airflow in
summer).
IV. Restriction of sunlight obstruction
1 2 1 0
8) Consideration of shade cast on adjacent sites
(Were arrangements made to reduce the impact of shade cast by the building on
adjacent sites?).
46

Appendix VII LR-2.2.1.2 Efficiency of reusing Non-Skeleton Materials
Table A
Table of reused construction materials which score 1 point
Type
Materials
used
Name Use Name of raw materials used
Heat-resistant
and
fire-resistant
materials
Sidewalks, cycle paths,
Regular brick
Sewage sludge
parking lots etc.
Regular brick Entire building outer shell Metal scraps (aluminum dross)
General building roof
Urethane film
waterproof material
waterproofing Overall
waterproofing repair for old
Waste glass
Waterproof
materials
Asphalt waterproof
material
impermeable layers.
Building waterproofing
materials
Waste tires
Impermeable layer
protection materials
Concrete roofing
Impermeable layer protection
materials
Waste tires
Staircase
components
Staircase anti-slip
treatment
Resilient rubber finishes for
staircases
Waste tires, construction waste
etc.
Finishing
paints
Finishing paints
Interior décor finishing
materials
Waste glass
Interior and
exterior décor
materials
PC curtain-wall PC curtain-wall Waste glass (cullet)
Sound absorption Acoustic board for walls and
Expanded polystyrene waste
materials
ceilings
Sound absorption
materials
Acoustic board for walls and
ceilings
Waste glass (cullet)
Acoustic insulation
panel
Reduction of noise on
building staircases
Waste tires
Press-formed flooring
Direct-laid resilient rubber
flooring
Waste tires
Flooring
Floors for food processing
factories etc.
Waste glass
False floor
Dry false floor underlay for
sound insulation
Waste particle board
False floor Floor panels Waste polypropylene resin
False floor
False floor wiring storage
systems
Waste glass (cullet)
47

False floor False floors for offices Waste glass (cullet)
False floor Floor panels
Fused slag from urban garbage
incinerators
Veneer
For indoor and outdoor sports
Waste from domestic thinned
facilities Laminated roof
timber (Cedar, cypress, pine)
board
Decking
Promenade decking, play
equipment
Wood scraps from demolition,
reused plastics
Medium-density fiber
(MDF) board
For buildings, fixtures and
furniture etc.
Sawmill waste, plywood waste,
thinned timber
General residential and
Thermal insulation
non-residential insulation
Waste paper
materials
Eco-bricks (walls)
Interior and exterior wall
finishes
Waste glass
Paving tiles Paving of sidewalks etc. Tile fragments
Paving
materials
Paving tiles
Paving tiles
Exterior walls, interior walls,
outside walls and floors
Permeable, non-slip tiles
(General sidewalks etc.)
Waste glass
Scallop shells
Resilient paving
materials
Permeable paving, playing
fields, promenades
Waste tires
48