Building Sustainability Assessment Systems Corresponding to the Needs of Users

Transcription

1 IALCCE 2012 Third Interna3onal Symposium on Life- Cycle Civil Engineering Building Sustainability Assessment Systems Corresponding to the Needs of Users Antonín Lupíšek Sus3anable Building Centre, Faculty of Civil Engineering Affilia3on of Authors Czech Technical University in Prague Ho$urg Palace, Vienna, Austria, October 3-6, 2012 HoCurg

2 IntroducHon MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 2

3 Introduction Background Czech Technical University in Prague SBToolCZ methodology evelopment Sustainable Building Centre (LCA, materials, energy) University Centre for Energy Efficient Buidlings SuPerBuildings Sustainability and Performance assessment and Benchmarking of Buildings FP7 project, leader VTT Finland, Tarja Häkkinen h\p://cic.v\.fi/superbuildings. MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 3

4 Introduction SuPerBuildings Project structure MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 4

5 Scope MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 5

6 Scope PotenHal of benchmarking systems PotenHal to what? MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 6

7 Scope PotenHal of benchmarking systems PotenHal to what? What is the goal of benchmarking system? MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 7

8 Scope PotenHal of benchmarking systems PotenHal to what? What is the goal of benchmarking system? PotenHal to make change, to promote sustainability of buildings. MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 8

9 Making change MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 9

10 Making change Improvement Quality quantity MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 10

11 Making change Improvement Quality quantity Improvement of a single building (compared to common local prac3ce) Number of assessed buildings MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 11

12 Making change Improvement strategies Quality quantity Quality Avg. improvement Building Stock Typical for: Commercial certification systems MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 12

13 Making change Improvement strategies Quality quantity Quality Avg. improvement Building Stock Typical for: Legislation and standardization- supported systems MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 13

14 Success factors MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 14

15 Success factors Market coverage % of assessed bldgs. Fame percephon of brand Profit $ generated Quality improvement of building performance Overall impact MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 15

16 Success factors Quality! SelecHon of relevant indicators Balanced sexng of benchmarks - strict enough to bring improvement compared to business as usual - on the other hand imposed design measures must be feasible (impact on market share) MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 16

17 Success factors Market coverage General mohvahon to assess buildings MoHvaHon to use parhcular assessment system MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 17

18 General mohvahon to assess buildings MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 18

19 General motivation to assess buildings Main drivers Research Non- financial benefits - Social and environmental responsibility - Show of social and environmental responsibility - Proof of design team s technical excellence resul3ng in low- impact buildings projects - Other non- financial benefits Financial benefits - Direct (income) - Indirect (added value) ObligaHon MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 19

20 General motivation Financial benefits AcHon Budget (1) Demand for sustainable soluhon (2) MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session Score (1 X 2) EvaluaHon Construc3on of a new building* 100 %* 100 %* 100* Feasible Refurbishment 20 % 100 % 20 Possible 1- year rental 3 % 30 % 0.9 Impossible 10- years rental 30 % 50 % 15 Possible Purchase 120 % 100 % 120 Likely Property insurance 0.2 % 10 % 0.02 Impossible Property tax (Czech Republic) 0.1 % 0 % 0 Impossible Property tax (Nevada) 2.5 % 500 %** 12.5 Possible Financial incen3ves (Czech Republic) 5 % 500 %*** 25 Possible *Reference value. **Non- residen3al buildings and mul3- family residen3al buildings that earn cer3fica3on under LEED program may be eligible for a par3al abatement of property taxes. For more info see: h\p:// ***Ministry of The Environment of the Czech Republic offered in up to 5 % incen3ve for new built houses in passive standard. 20

21 General motivation to assess buildings AXtude of stakeholders Driving force Demand for deep analysis Assessment cost sensihvity Research and innovahon Very high Low Technical skills improvement High Moderate Financial benefit Moderate High ObligaHon Low Very high MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 21

22 Success factors Market coverage General mohvahon to assess buildings MoHvaHon to use parhcular assessment system MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 22

23 Main roles of an assessment system Source: SuPerBuildings Survey 2010 (see D3.1 at h\p://cic.v\.fi/superbuildings)

24 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

25 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

26 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Design support Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Research (common tool not needed) Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

27 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of negahve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated ParHally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors IniHal and detailed design support ParHally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value ParHally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features ParHally aggregated

28 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Performance proof Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of negahve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated ParHally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors IniHal and detailed design support ParHally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value ParHally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features ParHally aggregated

29 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Proof of features and eshmate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building ParHally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features ParHally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

30 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representa3ves Green procurement Par3ally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Performance rahng Proof of features and eshmate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building ParHally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated Na3onal and regional authori3es Quality assurance and repor3ng Par3ally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features ParHally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

31 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representahves Green procurement ParHally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated NaHonal and regional authorihes Quality assurance and reporhng ParHally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

32 Users of sustainability assessment results and their preferences Stakeholder group Main role of assessment Preferred aggregahon level Architects and designers Design support Individual criteria Community representahves Green procurement ParHally aggregated Estate agents Increase property value Fully aggregated Funding providers Design features check Fully aggregated Insurers Neighbors of the site ReporHng Proof of features and es3mate risks Evasion of nega3ve impact of building Par3ally or fully aggregated Par3ally aggregated NaHonal and regional authorihes Quality assurance and reporhng ParHally aggregated Property investors Ini3al and detailed design support Par3ally aggregated Property valuers Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated Real estate developers Increased property value Par3ally aggregated Researchers and academics Proof of new design concepts Individual criteria Users of the building Proof of building features Par3ally aggregated

33 Conclusions MS N : FrM- 3 Sustainability cer3fica3on of new and of exis3ng buildings 33

34 Conclusions Main assessment system typologies Assessment purpose Design support Performance proof Performance rahng ReporHng Users Key features Architects, designers Property investors, users of the building, neighbors of the site, real estate developers Estate agents, funding providers, insurers, property valuers MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session Support from ini3al phase to detailed design Func3onal with incomplete set of informa3on Respec3ng design workflow Performance- based Wide set of indicators Basic set of indicators Time- efficient ra3ng AggregaHon levels Individual criteria Par3ally aggregated The most recognized, but not covering the most needs Community representa3ves, regional and na3onal authori3es Selected indicators Résumé Aggregated Fully aggregated 34

35 Conclusions Landscape of assessment systems is primarily market driven - we have plenty of tools and cer3fica3on systems where the money is. There are s3ll gaps where the needs of society are (rapid shiu in performance of whole building stock). MS N : Name of Session, Minisymposia or Special Session 35

36 IALCCE 2012 Third Interna3onal Symposium on Life- Cycle Civil Engineering Affilia3on of Authors Thank you for abenhon. HoCurg Ho$urg Palace, Vienna, Austria, October 3-6, 2012