European Methodology For The Evaluation of

European methodology for the evaluation of
Environmental impact of buildings

- Life cycle assessment -
EUROPEAN COMMISSION, DIRECTORATE GENERAL XII FOR SCIENCE, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,
PROGRAMME APAS
REGENER PROJECT FINAL REPORT
THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT IN THE BUILDING DESIGN PROCESS
Development of a design tool box
January 1997
REGENER, Design tools page 1

Contents
3. THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN THE BUILDING

DESIGN PROCESS 1
3.1 TYPOLOGY OF TOOLS ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING 7

3.1.1 Analysis of the process of design and decision making 7
3.1.1.1 ROLES IN THE BUILDING PROCESS 8
3.1.1.2 PHASING OF THE BUILDING PROCESS 9
3.1.1.3 ANALYSIS OF THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS 11
3.1.1.4 ANALYSIS OF THE DESIGN PROCESS 12
3.1.1.5 ALLOCATION OF ROLES IN THE URBAN PLANNING PROCESS 15
3.1.2 Anaysis of environmental aspects 17
3.1.2.1 QUALITATIVE ASPECTS OF DESIGN 20
3.1.2.2 A CLASSIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 24
3.1.3 Tools on sustainable building 27
3.1.3.1 RELEVANT ASPECTS FOR THE TYPOLOGY OF TOOLS 27
3.1.3.2 SUBSTANTIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS 30
3.1.3.3 THE TYPOLOGY OF TOOLS ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING 31
3.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 34

3.2.1 Site 35
3.2.2 Technical building description 39
3.2.2.1 PRODUCT CLASS 39
3.2.2.2 ELEMENT CLASS 40
3.2.2.3 SUBSYSTEM CLASS 42
3.2.2.4 BUILDER'S YARD 44
3.2.3 Functionnal building description 44
3.2.3.1 ZONE 44
3.2.3.2 ENERGY UTILISATION 45
3.2.3.3 WATER UTILISATION 46
3.2.3.4 MAINTENANCE 46
3.2.3.5 BUILDING ELEMENT TRANSPORT 46
3.2.3.6 ASSEMBLING AND DISMANTLING 47
3.2.3.7 TREATMENT AFTER USE 47
3.2.3.8 URBAN WASTE 48
3.2.3.9 OCCUPANTS 48
3.2.3.10 BUILDING 50
3.3 OUTPUT AND VISUALIZATION 52

3.3.1 Comparison of assessment methods 52
3.3.1.1 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS (LCA) 52
3.3.1.2 THE DISTANCE-TO-TARGET (DTT) METHOD AND ENVIRONMENTAL ZONING 57
3.3.1.3 MULTI CRITERIA ANALYSIS 60
3.3.2 The integration of environmental impact assessment methods in the design of buildings 63
3.3.2.1 THE CURRENT SITUATION IN PLANNING 64
3.3.2.2 RESTRICTIONS 65
3.3.2.3 PRODUCT DECLARATION 65
3.3.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT 66
3.3.2.5 CONSEQUENCES FOR THE BUILDING PROCESS 68
3.3.2.6 PROPOSITION FOR A PROCEDURAL MODEL 70
3.3.2.7 BUILDING PRODUCT MODELS 73
3.3.2.8 CONCLUSION FOR THE THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENTS METHODS IN THE DESIGN PROCESS OF BUILDINGS 76
3.3.3 Output and visualization 76

3.3.3.1 METHODS FOR VISUALIZATION 77
3.3.3.2 OUTPUT OF ECO-OPT 80
3.3.3.3 OUTPUT OF EQUER 82
3.3.3.4 OUTPUT OF ECOQUANTUM 84
3.4 INTERCODE COMPARISON 90

3.4.1 Presentation of the exercise 90
3.4.2 The Dutch calculation 90
3.4.3 Use of EQUER 91
3.4.4 Use of ECOPRO 92
3.4.5 Comparison of results 93
3.5 REFERENCES : 97
3.6 ANNEX 1 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION USING EQUER 99
3.7 ANNEX 2 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION CONSIDERED IN ECOPRO 114

3 DEVELOPMENT OF A DESIGN TOOLBOX
Planning and building are complex processes. Building is on the one hand a very old kind of process
and still strongly based on traditions. Many decisions concerning the building process and choices in
design are not the outcome of a rational assessment of alternatives but have grown to be 'standard' on
a regional level. Examples are the order in which window frames are placed in the wall (in the
Netherlands first the window frame, then the wall; in the UK and other countries the other way
around) or how self-evident it might seem to organize the floor plan of dwellings in one big front-to-
back familyroom and a small kitchen or two equally sized rooms, one of which also the kitchen.
On the other hand developments in technology have greatly influenced architecture and the building
process just as developments in social and economic sciences have influenced the planning and
designing process.
In almost every case planning, designing and building involves a lot of different parties, persons,
activities and roles, although it is organized in different ways in various countries and regions.
We can assume that a detailed model as proposed in task 2 needs a detailed building description as an
input to deliver an ecoprofile as an output. However, this method does not meet the need of
information of the complex planning and building process.
Therefore, the key-question of this chapter/task is: What information is needed in the different phases
of the building process in order to assess the environmental consequences of the decisions made in
every process-phase?
Because part of the answer to this question largely depends on specific regional and local
circumstances, no operational tools will be developed but a ‘design toolbox’. This toolbox contains
small boxes of relevant information which can be useful when making a design tool. Ideally there will
be boxes on the subjects of input, scheme, output and as well as ‘organizing modules’ which should
make choosing easier.
The questions that will be met in this chapter are:

Section 3.1. What are the demands to which design tools must obey to be of use in the building
and design process?
Section 3.2. What input parameters are required?
Section 3.3. Which tools do already exist how do they fit in the typology of tools on sustainable
building?
What is the output and what possible visualization methods of the design tools can
be used?

TYPOLOGY OF TOOLS ON SUSTAINABLE
BUILDING
In order to propose a model for the form and content of instruments, the target group that we define as
those immediately involved in the planning and construction process - the demand side - needs to be
analyzed and the supply side of environmental aspects proposed in existing instruments needs
examining.
A synthesis of the two analyses (paragraph 3.1.1 and paragraph 3.1.2. of the following respectively)
allows their coordination by form and content to be determined. This has been defined in 3.1.3. as a
typology of tools on sustainable building.
Analysis of the process of design and decision making
Design tools are considered to be instruments intended as aids in the building process. Therefore they
must dovetail with this process in terms of content and method. The aids must relate to the problems
confronting those involved in the building process and at the same time must latch on to the way in
which external knowledge and information is used to tackle the problem.
During the building process the content and the method of information-gathering will constantly
change. For example the question of where a new head office should be sited is quite different in
substance to the question of the spatial concept of the building and different again to the problem of
using plastic or aluminium window frames for that same head office.
Moreover, the various parties involved in creating a building will deal with these problems quite
differently. The managing director of the company requiring new headquarters wants a few clear
alternative sites to choose from and will want to take a quick decision after weighing the arguments.
A sound model for this will be of considerable help to the managing director at this stage.
A designer, however, will work out many alternatives, change them, reject them, refine them etc. in a
creative way until in the end only two or three options are left. A complex model for weighing
choices is not a handy aid for the designer. This would be much too involved and difficult to use.
What the designer needs are inspiring examples to arrive at different proposals and simple rules which
allow him to confine somewhat the endless number of possibilities.
The problems and the gathering of information, in other words, depend on the person involved in the
construction process, and the phase of the process. The next question of course is what roles and what
phasing are relevant for the contents and method of aids in the building process and what does this
mean for the design of these aids. A further analysis of how a building is built (the building process)

will help us to answer these questions. This study has been done for the Dutch situation but the results
will probably to a large extent apply to the situations in other European countries.
Roles in the building process
Who are those directly involved in the building process? Much research has been done into the
structure and culture of the planning and building process. In literature (Priemus, 1978), a distinction
is made between roles and participants in the building process. Participants are specific persons or
parties who can take upon themselves one or several roles. In the context of this survey a distinction
by roles is relevant, the actual persons or parties to a much lesser degree. This is because the method
of working and the need for information depend to a large extend on the role of the person in question
in the building process.
Burie (Priemus, 1978) distinguishes four roles:

1. administrator (the government)
2. builder
3. client
4. designer
The administrator
It is clear that the administrator is not a party directly involved in the building process. Naturally the
administrator sees to regulations and planning at the higher levels of scale within environmental
building must acquire a place. Indirectly, therefore, the administrator does indeed have influence. But
within the context of this survey, looking for instruments for those directly involved in the building
process, the administrator's role is not one that obviously needs to be scrutinised further.
The builder
The same applies to the builder as to the administrator, albeit for different reasons. The role of the
builder is disregarded because the design of the building has largely been determined at the point at
which the builder starts work.
The client and designer

What is left is the client and the designer who are closely involved in decisions that are taken in
drawing up the plans. The term client is used here for the person who issues order and can differ from
a local authority to a commercial project developer. It is important to distinguish between the roles of
the client and the designer because they work in different ways and their need for information in
general and sustainable building instruments in particular will be different. The distinction
corresponds to that made in the Dutch Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment's 1995 Action Plan on Sustainable Building between makers and decision-makers.
Decision-makers must want to build in a sustainable way and makers must be able to build in a
sustainable way. Decision-makers, according to the Ministry, are in the first place the clients in the
formal sense such as housing corporations, project developers, investors, authorities, businesses and
utilities. Makers are contractors, subcontractors, suppliers and also the architect and the town planner.
Division of roles depends on the organisational form

The roles of client, designer as well as builder and administrator in practice are not always allocated
in the same way. The diverse roles can be filled by diverse parties. There are three main forms of
organisation in the Netherlands (SBR [Building Research Organisation], 1992):
1. The traditional building process in which the architect is basically responsible for the
design and the builder is responsible for implementation; the architect is the adviser to
the independent client
2. The construction team, in which the team, usually comprising the client, the architect,
specialists and the builder, is responsible for the design and one or more contracting
partners are responsible for the implementation.
3. Turn-key, in which a turn-key organisation is responsible for both the design and
implementation.
Nevertheless, a somewhat theoretical distinction between client and designer is relevant. After all, for
the content and method of the aids the role of the parties is of greater relevance than the specific party
or person in that role.
Phasing of the building process
A distinction is made between four stages of the building process: programme, design, elaboration,
construction. These four stages have been subdivided (SBR, 1992) into eleven phases. Figure 3.1
shows the stages and phases.
Programme stage
1. Initiative: the formulation of a housing requirement based on an analysis of the organisation
to be accommodated or on the basis of a demand for accommodation observed by means of a
market survey.
2. Feasibility study: determining the financial, legal, technical and urban
development/planning feasibility of meeting the housing need; site choice.
3. Programme: converting the requirements, wishes, expectations, possibilities and limitations
in relation to the housing into a Programme of Requirements (user requirements,
functions and performance, expectations and parameters).
Design stage
4. Structure plan: determining the internal and external structure of the object in such a way
that an overall impression is given of the function and structure, the form and scale of the
building mass in conjunction with the concept development, access arrangements and urban

planning parameters; estimation of the building costs based on groups of elements, estimation of
the investment costs, estimation of the building time and deadlines schedule.
5. Provisional design: the development of a sketch of the object to be built in terms of site,
main lay-out, the structural and constructional set-up and the architectural manifestation;
estimation of the building costs based on elements, estimation of the investment costs and
running costs and revenue; adjustments to estimates of building time and deadlines
schedule.
6. Final design: deciding on the building in terms of internal constructions and heat and
energy installations; material use for building components determining the building's
external appearance; estimation of building costs based on variant elements; estimation of
the investment costs and running costs and revenue based on sections of the building;
adjustements to estimates of the building time and deadlines schedule.
Elaboration stage
7. Specifications: specifying the spatial and building parts, material use, finishing and
detailing in such a way as to produce final prices based on production methods; adjustment to
budget for investment costs and running costs and revenue; estimation of building time and
deadlines schedule.
8. Pricing: reaching binding agreements on contracting conditions: contracting fee, starting
and completion date and the diverse administrative and technical provisions; recording these
agreements, conditions and provisions in construction contracts.
Construction stage
9. Preparing the work: technically detailing the plan in the form of production and construction
drawings; planning of time, money, equipment, labour and construction site facilities, in such a
way that activities can be directed and surveyed during construction.
10. Construction: the actual building of the building in such a way that the contract documents
and thus the requirements, expectations and conditions of the client and/or potential users are
met.
11. Completion: formal conveyance of the building constructed to the client; fixing of
guarantee provisions; implementation of the remaining work and remedying of observed
shortcomings during the maintenance period.
programme design elaboration construction
initiative feasibility por sd pd fd specification price preparation construction completion
DECISION-MAKING
Figure 3.1: The building process subdivided into 4 stages and 11 phases (W/E consultants, 1996)
In the planning especially the role of the client and the designer is interesting. The builder on one
hand does not have a role in the planning process and the administration on the other hand has to do
everything with the planning process, but does not mengle in the process itself, or it has to be as the
role of a client or even a designer. From now on we will only concentrate on the role of the client and
the designer. These two roles are quite different, because they have a significantly different approach
towards information and therefore they have a different need of information. For now we use the
terms designing and decision-making. Designing is considered a mixture of continuous, problem
definition and -solving, error- elimination combined with handling enormous amounts of data mostly
in an instinctively way. Decision making is a more rational process of goalsetting, decision-making,
assessing and control usually more organized in steps and procedures. Therefore we will examine the
decision process and it’s characteristics (subsection 3.1.1.3.) separately from the design process
(subsection 3.1.1.4).
Analysis of the decision-making process
The client has a key role in the building process. He is responsible for the final result and he is the
only one who is involved in the process from beginning to end. The key activity of the client is
decision-making. Of course more is expected of a client in practice, e.g. drawing up a programme of
requirements, coordinating activities of third parties etc., but as we have said earlier this survey is
concerned with a distinction by roles and not by parties.
Mintzberg defines a decision as a specific contract entered into, usually in combination with the
provision of (financial) resources (Janssen, 1994). Mintzberg has drawn up a general model for
decision processes. The Institute for Environmental Issues has adapted this general model for

combined decision-making and design processes. Three major phases in the decision process are
distinguished:
1. recognition or identification of the problem
2. development of solutions for the problem
3. selection of a single solution for the problem
In the building process there are three clear phases in the decision process. The client wants a building
and gives an architect the assignment to develop a good building for him. The client finally decides on
the actual construction of the 'recommendation' made by the architect in the form of a design.
The generation of solutions is the responsibility of the designer. Identification/recognition and
selection remain the core activities of the client's role. Assuming that decisions in the building process
are taken at different moments, this means that formal involvement of the client is confined to these
moments in the process. It is at these points that rapid insight into the problem has to be obtained.
The information needed at these moments can be split into information geared to formulating the
problem correctly (background, new insights etc.) and information geared to evaluating the solutions
provided by third parties (e.g. choice models).
The contents of this information will differ depending on the phase of the building process.
Naturally a decision on the entire building is not taken at a single go. At every phase of the building a
decision is taken about the further development of the initiative, the design and construction.
Analysis of the design process
It is the work of the designer to provide solutions to a problem of the client. Developing these
solutions is a creative process. Design processes may differ dramatically. Nevertheless there are a
number of common features.
Cyclical process
The design process can be described as a process in which numerous processing cycles are gone
through (Boekholt). In every processing cycle a problem is posed, points of departure are formulated,
variants developed and finally evaluated. A diagram of the design process is given in figure 3.4. The
cycles are sometimes performed in the imagination (often in milliseconds). But sometimes they are
also carried out much more explicitly and involve certain drawings, notes or calculations being made.
Elementary processing cycles
ASSIGNMENT BUILDING
development
of variant
point of
i departure a
problem evaluation of
definition variants
Figure 3.4: Diagram of the design process (W/E consultants, 1996)
A problem or a minor problem is solved in each cycle. For each cycle the designer requires
information or knowledge to be able to tackle the problem and the inspiration to develop sufficient
variants. In addition, knowledge is also needed to be able to evaluate these variants. In the majority of
cases the designer possesses all this knowledge and information by means of training, literature,
magazines, talks with colleagues, conferences, etc. However, when new areas of knowledge are
developed, such as sustainable building, the basic knowledge in this field will in many cases not be
present.
The tools for enhancing designer's knowledge of sustainable building will consequently have to be
geared to the development of this almost implicit knowledge. They should focus on the one hand on
inspiration and information for the problem definition and the development of variants, and on the
other on knowledge to be able to evaluate these variants.
Phasing in the design process

The design process is more than an endless succession of elementary processing cycles. As the design
process progresses, the method and content of the process changes. We are talking here more about
shifts of accent rather than dramatic transitions. Figure 3.5 indicates how emphasis comes to be
placed on the different elementary processes during designing. With this shift in emphasis the
designer's method differs as well by phase as does his need for information and tools (see figure 3.6).
An often used model is based on the following three phases (Jones, 1970; Boekholt): Analysis,
development of the concept and materialisation.

DESIGN PROCESS
analysis concept development materialisation
attention focus
elementary processing cycles

PROBLEM PLAN
© 1996 W/E consultants sustainable building
Figure 3.5: Changing method and content during the design process (W/E consultants, 1996)
During the analysis phase, the assignment and the physical situation is subject to an investigation. The
goals are still uncertain, problems still unclear, everything is open. It is in this phase that the designer
is most receptive to new ideas, influences, knowledge from outside. Ultimately the assignment will be
reformulated and focused in such a way (with the consent of the client), that in the eyes of the
designer it can result in a worthwhile and feasible plan.
Information is obtained by means of documents which have directly to do with the assignment
(programme of requirements, policy documents, etc.), familiarity with similar projects from
professional journals and possibly excursions and finally study in greater depth of specific or key
themes of the assignment, for one thing by means of studying the literature on the theory, applied
solutions etc.
The synthesis phase is the stage of developing the concept. Developing the concept involves the
creative act of changing a complicated problem into a simple problem, by lending it shape and by
deciding where the emphasis must come to lie and what has to be eliminated. Goals, assignment and
problem demarcation are decided on. It is also the stage at which the main problem is subdivided into
smaller sub-problems which can be developed further comparatively independently of one another.
The main structure (design and construction and a general choice of materials) is developed. New
information is admitted selectively at this stage. It is only if there are specific problems that special
journals or reference works are deliberately consulted or information obtained from third parties
(suppliers or specialists).
programme design uitwerking construction
initiative feasibility por sd pd fd specification price preparation construction completion
DECISION-
MAKING
DESIGNING
analysis development of materialisation

the concept
Figure 3.6: Changing method and need of the designer by phase of the design process (W/E
consultants 1996)
At the evaluation stage, the number of options is reduced to a single option as soon as possible. The
aim of the designer is to reduce the secondary uncertainties to zero until of all the possible designs
ultimately one is left. It is at this stage that the materials of the building and the details are worked
out. Information is obtained mainly by means of suppliers and reference works.
Formal verification points

Alongside the subdivision into design phases, there are formal checking points in the design process
which allow designer and client to evaluate the development of the design. These formal verification
points for the designer coincide with those of the client. These moments have been defined earlier on
the basis of the SBR phasing of the building process. These points barely coincide at all with the
above phasing of the design process.
Allocation of roles in the urban planning process
The process of creating a building was analyzed above. This analysis was used to formulate the
criteria for sustainable building that respond to the way in which the main participants in the building
process work, the client or the decision-maker and the designer. The same line of thinking can also be
followed for the formulation of plans at higher levels of scale: what criteria do the sustainable
building instruments have to meet if they are to link up to the designing and decision-making
practices of those immediately involved in town planning and regional planning?
The building process distinguishes between client and designer as the main roles. The same
subdivision applies to planning at higher levels: a designer designs a plan, the client decides.

One difference with the building process, however, is that in the case of planning at higher levels the
local authority ends up in a dual role. On the one hand the local authority is the client for the plans at
different levels of scale, while on the other hand the local authority formulates the policy to steer third
parties in the direction of the authority's choice (by legislation, subsidies or other incentives).
The same method of processing cycles within the three main phases of analysis and synthesis and
evaluation apply to designing during the town planning process and during the building process (see
figure 3.7). One difference is that in the building process the transition from the synthesis phase to the
evaluation is coupled with a shift in content from concept development to materialisation. This shift
does not take place at higher levels.
The concept is the final product of the designer. Whereas in the building process, the concept is filled
in further with the material aspects of the design, at higher levels of scale the concept is filled in with
a concept at a lower level until ultimately it is filled in with a concept for a building or the
organisation of the space for which the material aspects are then filled in. The material aspects of
public space can be regarded as being part of the urban planning level.
For the decision-maker, contrary to what happened in the building process, no one-off programme of
requirements is drawn up that remains relevant for the entire process. This can be done in the building
process of course because the decision-maker basically remains the same. This does not apply to the
client's role at higher levels of scale. The client will be a different one at each level. These will always
be authorities with the exception of the lowest level, the urban plan; it is at this level that private
individuals (project developers, housing corporations) can function as clients. This means that a new
programme of requirements has to be drawn up for each planning level and that the plan has to be
checked against these.
Spatial planning Urban development plan Building plan
DECISION-
MAKING
DESIGNING
Figure 3.7 Phasing of the design process at different levels of scale (W/E consultants, 1996)
Anaysis of environmental aspects
A listing of already existing sustainable building instruments in the Netherlands revealed that a new
set of definitions is developed for each instrument and that each instrument applies its own
classification by aspects. Closer analysis reveals that at least five instruments or approaches towards
them provide a basis for arriving at a general structure for environmental aspects.
1. The first approach is the Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment's Plan of
Action (1995-I). The summing-up of environmental aspects in the Plan at the end of 1995 is
interesting because the Ministry was taking the initiative here to encourage clarity. This list of
aspects is also the most recent.
2. Secondly, the Dutch Environmental Council for the Construction Industry (INTRON, 1994 and
1995) has made an attempt to create an umbrella concept of environmental aspects, where having
several players involved is a clear plus. The emphasis on the building plan phase is a drawback to
using the system at urban planning level.
3. A third classification of environmental aspects was drawn up by the Dutch RBU project group on
Administrative Bandwidth (RBU, 1995-I and 1995-II), where the focus on the urban planning
level is important.
4. A fourth list is quoted by the Dutch Ministry of Housing in its publication 'Environmental
Quality Criteria for new residential areas' (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment, 1994-II). This list is very useful on account of its focus on space and quality and
coherence between the two.
5. Finally, the strategy paper on Wastage (Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment, 1995-III) deserves mention, notably on account of the theoretical framework it
offers.
The aspects as designated and arranged by the above sources are listed below.
1. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

Plan of Action
urban planning level
landscape (use of existing patterns)
raw materials (closed land balance sheet, restricting infrastructure, use of
secondary materials, high-grade use of raw materials)
water (rain and surface water)
traffic (promoting walking, cycling, public transport, selective car
use)

nature (structuring, use of urban green areas)
energy (sun-oriented parcelling of land, compact construction, early
decisions on sustainable energy sources)
waste (conditions for separate storage of household waste)
building and material level

materials (SBR materials list as basis)
energy (Energy Performance Standard, aiming to achieve 15%
reduction compared to level at 15 December 1995)
water (water conservation in households)
waste (separation of building and demolition waste into >6 fractions,
creating space for storing and processing waste separately)
health (against radon and lead emissions)
2. Environmental Council for the Construction Industry (MBB)

environmental profile (result of LCA)
depletion
abiotic substances
biotic substances
pollution
greenhouse effect
depletion of ozone layer
human toxicity
ecotoxicity
photochemical oxidant formation
acidification
eutrophication
waste heat
odour
noise
degradation
ecosystem/countryside
victims
environmental measures
energy
waste
raw materials
emissions
nuisance
3. RBU project group (Leidsche Rijn 1995)

supra-local environmental quality
curb water consumption
curb energy consumption
curb raw-material usage
curb generation of waste
retain ecological functions and stocks
curb use of space for urbanisation
local environmental quality

noise
odour
risks (safety)
water pollutants
air pollutants
soil pollutants
residential environment
usage value of local green amenities and water (accessibility, quality of surface water)
usage value of green amenities and water in surrounding area
usage value of amenities locally/in the surrounding area
mixing of functions (mixing of work, leisure, living)
accessibility of employment in the surrounding area
quality in terms of social safety
quality regarding identity and orientation (urban development, cultural history,
geomorphology)
planning quality
new techniques
flexibility in phasing
involvement of residents
vulnerability of environmental objectives
4. Ministery of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

Environmental quality criteria of new housing areas
soil (protection, pollution)
groundwater (protection, system)
surface water
ecological assets (main ecological structure (encroachment on nature and landscape;
no housing areas in core areas or nature development areas and
avoiding any blockage of ecological connections, small-scale ecological
links)

landscape assets (valuable areas, valuable elements/urban green structure)
encroachment of valuable landscapes
protection of:
spatially visual assets (openness, smallness of scale, specific pattern of land parcelling,
plantation or development)
cultural history assets (patterns of value in term of cultural history (roads and land
parcelling) and elements (farms, country estates)
geographical assets lateral moraines, dunes and other forms of relief
specific soil structure
preserving areas of quiet
5. Ministery of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

Wastage Strategy Paper
energy market: (energy consumption, generation of electricity, heating,
transport).
raw material market: (recovery/processing of non-renewable raw materials, notably
transport and processing, bulk materials),
environmental market: (notably energy consumption for (waste) water treatment)
biodiversity: (in a direct sense of particular importance for food supplies
and regeneration of environmental stocks: clean air, clean
water, fertile soil).
space : (notably in relation to space for food and wood supplies and
encroachment on as a result of too little space in one's own
environment).
Other sources
internal environment
microclimate
Qualitative aspects of design
Quantitative and qualitative aspects are often thrown together in the assessment of environmental
effects. This has a number of drawbacks. First of all, doubts may arise as to the environmental effects,
which in themselves are objective and quantifiable. Secondly, the qualitative aspects and discussion
of them are at risk of being pushed to the background. And finally, such an approach fails to tie in
with existing practice in the construction and design process, in which it is precisely the quantitative
aspects that are weighed against qualitative aspects on a continuous basis. It would appear highly
important to give non-quantifiable environmental qualities, and quality more generally, their own
position, alongside the quantitative aspects. What is construction quality and urban development
quality and what is their relevance to environmentally aware construction?
There are various views on how the quality of a building should be described and assessed. One view
is that the quality of the product is entirely dependent upon the extent to which the product satisfies
user objectives. In architecture and in urban planning, there is, however, general agreement that this is
too narrow a definition of quality. Apart from usage value, there are also other values of buildings and
city areas that determine the ultimate quality. These values naturally differ by level of scale.
Building quality
In the Dutch Architecture Policy Memorandum (Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and
Environment and the Ministry of Welfare, Health and Cultural Affairs, 1991), the concept of
architectural quality is introduced to designate the total quality of a building. Any construction has a
particular architectural quality.
For example, the roof of a bicycle shed exhibits architectural quality as much as a cathedral. Defined
in this manner, architectural quality comprises three aspects, according to this Memorandum: usage
value, cultural value and future value. Some architects and architecture critics are of the opinion that
architectural quality relates exclusively to the cultural value.
Usage value therefore has a goal-means connotation. The usage value indicates the extent to which
constructions and the immediate environment satisfy practical usage requirements. The relationships
with the sustainability of the building are clear: use of space, the internal climate and maintenance and
heating. The Memorandum broadly speaking identifies three components:
- Ergonomics relating to the dimensions of areas, interrelationships, flexible layout and internal and
external accessibility.
- A good internal climate; the presence and quality of elementary amenities such as sanitary facilities,
heating, ventilation, lighting and thermal and acoustic insulation.
- Operational management: cleaning, maintenance and heating.
The cultural value of a building exceeds the specific need underpinning the development. The
architectural design may symbolise new social ideas or a new type of construction assignment, it may
enter into a dialogue with traditional solutions, with the designer's own oeuvre or particular styles of
building. This brief summary readily indicates that the cultural value of a building can be assessed in
very different ways. What we are dealing with is different views, without any question of good or bad.
There will therefore be no end to the discussion of these views, even if only because there will be no
end to social the changes, to which the architectural design could respond. One such matter for debate
could be whether and to what extent sustainability of a building and, more generally, rising
environmental awareness, should be reflected in the design of the building.
Future value is the third element of architectural quality as listed by the Architectural Memorandum.
This concept refers to the time factor in the assessment of architectural quality. Future value is partly

derived from the sustainability of constructions (materials used and construction). In this respect there
is a direct relationship with functional quality. But even if there is no impending premature decline,
the possible uses may be limited. The building may clash with its surroundings to such an extent that
doubts are cast as to its value for future generations. Future value therefore refers to future usage
value and to future cultural value.
The relationship with sustainable building is evident. A longer life span substantially restricts the use
of materials and energy. In addition, restrictions on maintenance during the management phase of the
building also figure. Finally, the extent to which age, or ageing of the building is visible, or is made
visible, has a clear interface with cultural quality.
De Vreeze (1989) looks more closely at the aspects that currently play an important part in the
assessment of architecture. He sets architectural quality alongside quantifiable quality elements which
we have primarily assembled here under the heading of usage value.
Links can be established with environmentally aware construction for each aspect: use of specific
materials, how to value ornaments and the perception of the space. The aspects listed by De Vreeze
are as follows:
- The quality of the craftsmanship: Has the building been made attractive, have the details been
done well, do the various materials create a coherent and attractive whole, is the construction
functional and clear?
- Symbolic qualities: is recognisable, sheltering, monumental or deliberately unpretentious,
urban versus rural atmosphere, social and functional identity.
- Soberness versus ornament: Soberness can have its own inimitable beauty, but can also
induce boredom. Ornament can contribute to visual quality and create an exciting spectacle,
but can also degenerate into kitsch. Colour is important in this context, but also texture and
detail.
- It is not only the material aspects of the design which are important, but above all the non-
material aspects: space. The shape and dimensions (height!) of rooms, atriums, doorways,
overhangs and balconies, but also their interrelationships and the transitions from internal to
external.
Urban development quality

The same applies to urban development design as to the design of a building. Here, too, attention is
paid to the qualitative aspects of space against quantifiable components. It is, however, clear in
advance that where it is difficult to talk about the quality of a building, it is, if possible, even more
difficult when it comes to dealing with spatial or urban development quality. This is because of a
much more complex interplay of aspects and players.
In describing urban development quality, we will attempt to tie in with the description of building
quality.
In its Fourth Policy Document on Spatial Planning (VINEX from the Dutch acronym) (1988), the
Dutch Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment proposed a comparable three-pronged
approach to the assessment of spatial quality, the same as for architectural quality: usage value,
perceived value and future value. The drawback to this classification compared to what has been dealt
with above is that the cultural notion of planning has been replaced by the perceived value. This
narrows down the concept of cultural quality, which is something to be avoided. Furthermore, the
aspect of the future value of urban development quality would appear to be of even greater
importance than architectural quality. The fact is that in urban development, the concept of time is of
much greater importance than it is in architecture. Frits Palmboom has defined the challenge facing
the VINEX as 'preparing the existing landscape for urbanisation'. The concept of time and continuity
are clearly expressed here.
The RARO (1990) has attempted to define these concepts more closely.
Usage value refers to the extent to which something satisfies the requirements that arise from the goal
for which it is to be used. Hence, a wide range of activities that take place in a particular location are
made easier and more attractive as a result of accessibility, dimensions, design and layout of the place
in question. A favourable environment and the absence of nuisance also play some part here. Relevant
aspects are accessibility of amenities, meeting housing wishes and the usability and safety of public
spaces.
In a comparable manner to the cultural value of a building, the cultural value embodies a criticism or
comment on a social line of thinking or philosophy of the profession. The resources to be applied here
fall under the term perceived value as defined by the Ministry. When we speak of perception we think
primarily of sensory perceptions, i.e. what one hears, sees, feels and smells. But it also extends to the
feelings that one has and the way in which one assesses the whole complex.
Aspects of such perceived value are:

- identity and continuity
- appearance
- green amenities
- height of the construction
- variation
- clear streets pattern
- colour
As already indicated, the future figures highly in urban planning. What one is doing is designing and
developing expensive structures and facilities with a very long life span. What is required is a utopian
dimension to the urban development plan. And some vision of desired developments in the long term
is certainly needed. Aspects of future values are as follows:
- long-term vision
- life cycle
- creating a structuring effect, potential
- adaptability of the housing stock
- sustainability (material usage)

- presence of additional space
- manageability
- underground infrastructure
The Dutch Ministry has not adopted the division into usage, cultural and future value, nor the way in
which it has been elaborated by the RARO. More recent publications (Dutch Ministry of Housing,
Spatial Planning and Environment, 1994-VI) adopt a different classification and identify different
aspects such as:
- process: conurbation as an integration framework and process quality
- cohesion: mixing of functions, pluriformity, public space and mobility
- high quality: demand side of house construction, demand side of utility construction, social
safety, density, flexibility and identity
- sustainability: nature in the city, water, soil quality, waste, raw materials/materials, energy, noise,
long usage/life span and air.
A classification of environmental aspects
The stock-taking of environmental aspects in several Dutch instruments on sustainable building

showed that a great many differing aspects come into play for defining environmental quality or
environmental impact. The terms that are used may differ in meaning. An urban development plan for
example looks primarily at location-specific environmental aspects, whilst the emphasis in the
building plan is on the materials used and energy consumption. This may lead to one and the same
plan being given a different environmental quality assessment throughout the process.
The several environmental aspects that were recognized in the stock-taking of environmental aspects
in Dutch models on sustainable building have been studied more thoroughly and have been rearranged
according to possibilities for quantifying and objectifying.
If all these findings are pooled together, the following breakdown into categories of environmental
aspects emerges:
1 environmental pollution from the flow of substances
2 location-specific environmental aspects
3 qualitative aspects of design of the plan
What this classification boils down to is that in the first instance the environmental aspects which are
objectively quantifiable in absolute terms are reviewed. This means that the results from one plan are
directly comparable with the results from another (for example: energy consumption, raw material
consumption, and drinking water consumption).
Then objectively quantifiable aspects follow, which can be standardised but which are affected by
local conditions (for example noise, odour, water management).
And finally, the category of environmental aspects that are important but are difficult to standardise.
These are non-quantifiable qualities of a plan (for example usage value, cultural value).
All three of these categories require a different approach as to content, and yet all three are
indispensable in arriving at a well-considered verdict on environmental quality. Virtually all the
aspects listed from the Dutch models on sustainable building can be accommodated in these
categories.
In the following the three categories of aspects are described in general and the aspects mentioned in
the Dutch models are grouped according to these three categories.
Flow of substances
This category relates to quantifiable flows of substances that can be ascribed to environmental aspects
with supra-local environmental effects. Supra-local means that the environmental impact transcends
the scale of the plan. The flows from various plans can be added together and compared. Examples
are the use of materials/raw materials, water and energy and the release of emissions and waste.
These events would appear to figure primarily at the building plan phase. Decisions are also taken at
the urban development plan phase that have some consequences for the scale of effects of these flows
of substances. The environmental impact of all these "flows" can in principle be captured using an
LCA approach. It would appear worthwhile to study the scale on which part of the "traffic" aspect ie
energy-specific emissions can be operationalised.
Examples of “flows of substances” in five models used in The Netherlands

- waste
- waste heat
- biodiversity
- maintaining ecological functions and stock
- ecotoxicity
- emissions
- energy
- raw material
- limiting air pollution
- materials
- ozone layer
- eutrophication
- acidification
- water
Location-specific environmental aspects

There are two types of location-specific aspects. The first is the relationship to space. We are dealing
here with both the quantity (in simple terms, in m2) and the quality of space. This then includes
concepts as biodiversity, green amenities, landscape elements, compact construction, water
management.

The second type relates to the people in the area and environmental aspects such as odour and noise.
The second category requires objectives and standards tailored to the situation. This can be done using
the Distance-To-Target method. Evaluation methods are again necessary to weigh the aspects.
Examples of “location-specific environmental aspects” in five models used in The

Netherlands
- indoor climate
- soil
- ecosystems/countryside
- photochemical formation of oxidants
- noise
- health
- nuisance
- human toxicity
- microclimate
- surface water
- risks
- space
- victims
- odour
- protecting peace
- transport
- water
Qualitative aspects of design

If we confine our review to the two previous categories alone, we are missing a vital link in assessing
environmental quality, namely the quality of the plan as a whole. This quality can prove to be more
than the sum of the parts and may, for example, significantly extend the lifespan. We are dealing here
with such matters as usage value (for example a green area and/or water in the surrounding area,
social safety, accessibility of employment in the environment), cultural value (symbolic value,
perceived value) and future value (tying in with a sound long-term vision, adaptability, usability in the
future).
The quality of plan in this sense cannot readily be quantified or standardised, but by analogy with the
environmental impact report requirements may be laid down for the supporting argumentation. For
example, by means of drawing up a matrix and using evaluation methods, with multi-criteria analysis
seeming to be the most usable.
Examples of “qualitative aspects of design” in five models used in The Netherlands

- geographical
- accessibility
- cultural-historical assets
- ecological assets
- mixing functions
- usage value
- identity and oriëntation
- countryside
- nature
- space
- social safety
Tools on sustainable building
The findings in the paragraphs on the processes of design and decision-making and on the
environmental aspects produced various aspects and factors which are relevant to gaining a tangible
picture of the development of sustainable building instruments. These aspects and factors relate to the
goal and the target group of the instrument, to the design and to the content. In this chapter these more
or less freestanding findings are merged into a theoretical framework, a typology of tools. This
framework can then be used to typify existing sustainable building instruments or compare them,
identify where gaps still exist, what level of coordination is still required and how scientific options
can be exploited to best effect. This is examined in further detail in the following chapter, conclusions
and recommendations. This chapter sets forth the typology of tools and indicates how a number of
existing instruments relate to the typology of tools.
Relevant aspects for the typology of tools
Phases in the planning process

An analysis of the building planning process indicated that although the overall planning process
comprises a very large number of phases and a large number of players are involved, a repetitive
pattern can be identified in the activities. The heart of this pattern has the following three phases:
1. programme
2. concept development
3. elaboration
At the programme phase there are more analytical activities than simply analyzing the parameters and
formulating objectives and requirements for the result.
'Concept development' comprises the somewhat intangible cyclical process to arrive at a coherent
system of solutions which does full justice to the goal.
At the elaboration phase, sub-problems are resolved and reviewed against the parameters and the
programme.

These three phases set different requirements for the sustainable building instruments which can be
used as tools.
If the total planning process from the very first initiative to development up to and including
completion is reviewed, one can identify that three phases repeatedly follow one another (at least)
three times, i.e.:
1. spatial planning phase,
2. urban development planning phase,
3. building plan phase.
Diagrammatically, this looks as shown in figure 3.8.
DECISION-
MAKING
DESIGNING
Figure 3.8: The Planning Process (W/E consultants, 1996)
Parties involved in the planning process

Those directly involved in planning processes may differ by background but when one looks at the
activity that they are undertaking two major categories emerge: decision-makers or designers. In brief,
the difference between these two categories boils down to the following.
Decision makers
Decision-makers define the process and are more involved stage by stage in the planning process and
their activities may be described as rational. The focal point of their activities lies in setting
objectives, drawing up the programme and verifying against it.
Designers
The emphasis with designers is on concept development, a more cyclical process which also contains
an irrational component. Both 'roles' need to be served by sustainable building instruments in such a
way that they are used as a matter of course.
Assessment instruments and informative instruments

To this end, a distinction is made between an instrument which evaluates, i.e. assesses the
environmental quality or the environmental impact of the particular plan, and an instrument which
confines itself to providing relevant information.
Both types are needed, preferably interrelated, with the informative instruments being particularly
required at the start of a phase, i.e. prior to concept development, and the appraising instruments
mainly figuring at the end of a phase. In the field of energy for example, the Dutch Energy
Performance Standard is an evaluation instrument and there are books of variants as associated
informative instruments, which can be used to make preliminary choices.
Explicit and implicit design tools

However, this distinction is insufficient in itself. In order to avoid goals being set, but people finding
out too late that these have not been achieved, it is important to attempt to introduce the consequences
of options for environmental quality into the planning process as a whole.
This is the case for example if the designer has a great deal of sustainable building experience or if the
consultant is closely involved in the planning process. They have a wide range of complex
information in their heads in a straightforward manner based on practical experience. To make this
information accessible to those lacking experience, there must also be a focus on 'implicit' sustainable
building instruments.
In this context, arithmetical models and manuals with their detailed information may be termed
explicit instruments. The tenor (the salient points and any basic laws) of these explicit instruments
should then be transferred in a highly simplified form so that the information can be readily
internalised. As regards the form of these instruments, one can consider rules of thumb or (a
'maximum') of single A4 sheet.
Typology of tools of design tools

A combination of this typology of tools of instruments by form and classification of the planning
process is shown in figure 3.9. There is not necessarily a single design tool per symbol. A capital
letter 'A' has been adopted as a symbol for explicit assessment instruments and a lower case 'a' for
implicit assessment. The letters 'I' and lower case 'i' have been selected for informative tools.

I I I
i a i a i a
DECISION-
MAKING
I A I A I A
DESIGNING
i a i a i a
I I I
I = informative instruments
i = implicit, informative instruments
A = explicit assesment
a = implicit, indicative assesment
Figure 3.9: Instruments in the Planning Process (W/E consultants, 1996)
Substantive environmental aspects
The descriptions of environmental aspects in a few already existing Dutch instruments showed that a
great many differing aspects come into play for defining environmental quality or environmental
impact. The environmental aspects of the Dutch models were analyzed according to possibilities for
objectifying and quantifying and this resulted in three categories of aspects for sustainable buidling
that have to be treated each in their own way.
The following breakdown into categories of environmental aspects emerged:

1 environmental pollution from the flow of substances
2 location-specific environmental aspects
3 quality of the plan
In the first instance environmental aspects that are objectively quantifiable in absolute terms are
reviewed. Results from one plan should be directly comparable with the results from another (for
example: energy consumption, raw material consumption, and drinking water consumption).
The second categorie exists out of objectively quantifiable aspects that can be standardised but are
affected by local conditions (for example noise, odour, water management).
The third category of environmental aspects are important but difficult to standardise. These are non-
quantifiable qualities of a plan (for example usage value, cultural value).
All three of these categories require a different approach as to content, and yet all three are
indispensable in arriving at a well-considered verdict on environmental quality.
The typology of tools on sustainable building
Combining the findings with regard to the environmental aspects and the diagrams relating to the
planning process and relating to the instruments in the planning proces, an initial overall picture of a
typology of tools of sustainable building instruments can be created as shown in figure 3.11.
The instruments are now given a specific position within the planning process. What is important is
the division of the building process into three main phases, with a similar series in principle being
given a place in each phase. The three main axes in the diagram represent the environmental aspects
that are attributable to, respectively, "flows" (such as energy, raw materials, etc.) "location-specific
environmental aspects" (such as noise, water management and odour) and "quality of plan" such as
usage value and future value). The explicit information instruments (I) at the start of each phase and
explicit assessment instruments (A) at the end of each phase are essential to each main axis. The
explicit information instrument places the designer and notably the decision-maker in a good position
to define solid parameters and objectives. The explicit information must not be in conflict with the
explicit assessment.
The relative importance of the explicit assessment instruments varies according to phase. In the first
instance, the emphasis is on the location-specific environmental aspect, whilst at the construction-plan
phase the flows would appear to be more important. However, this is merely a difference in emphasis.
The scale of the flows of substances, for example, has already been largely fixed in the urban
development plan.
Implicit as well as explicit instruments are required in order to arrive at solutions in the construction
assignment, which allows the plans to satisfy the objectives that have been set. Whilst the implicit
instruments may well be difficult to pin down, they do have a key role to play in terms of
effectiveness at the concept-development phases.
There are numerous environmental aspects and it is therefore by no means automatic that for each
main axis in the diagram a single instrument or a single instrument on each main axis at each phase
will suffice. A box containing the letter A or I may comprise several instruments. At the heart of this
typology of tools is the notion that the parties must be enabled as far as possible to optimise
environmental quality throughout the entire process. This can only be achieved using performance
agreements and a whole range of informative instruments on the various topics.

I I I
i a i a i a
DECISION-
'Flows' I A I A I A MAKING
'Location specific' I A I A I A
Plan Quality(ies) I A I A I A
DESIGNING
i a i a i a
I I I
I = informative instruments
i = implicit, informative instruments
A = explicit assesment
a = implicit, indicative assesment
Figure 3.11: Typology of tools of Sustainable Building Instruments (W/E consultants, 1996)
Conclusions from the inquiry into a typology of tools on sustainable building

On the basis of this inquiry it is suggested to distinguish three categories of environmental aspects and
to make an assessment in every category.
These assessments will occur in every phase of the building process. In this inquiry a subdivision of
the building process in three phases is proposed. Ambitions can be formulated in performance
standards. Also informative and implicit instruments should exist because performance standards
alone are not sufficient to guarantee a good result. As most important roles in the building process a
distinction is suggested in designing and decision-making.
Existing instruments should be adapted to the structure of this typology of tools and coordination
between the tools for different phases, different environmental aspects and different roles is required.
INPUT PARAMETERS
A distinction between the following three categories of input parameters is of importance in this
project.
A. input needed for the detailed model in order to make an assessment

B. input for the detailed model in order to make (several) assessments on basis of which
design tools can be made
C. input for design tool provided by the user of the tool
In order to give advice to building designers one would prefer to use environmental analysis tools at
every project step (site selection, owner's brief, sketch, first project and detailed project). This
complex process can be seen as a succession of input - evaluation - output phases. The parameters
taken into account in the input step vary from a very simple description at early stages towards the
most detailed model at the end.
The subject of this chapter is the evaluation of the importance of each parameter and its availability at
the relevant design step.
For convenience reasons the detailed product model (see Task 2) has been used as the basis in order to
be sure that all the input parameters will be considered. But simplified tools can be structured in a
different manner. The input parameters are listed with their units, the estimated importance on the
result and the supposed data availability for a professional user of the tools.
The description of the detailed product model is based on an object oriented approach (the parameters
describing an element or process are put together in one structure, called an object). Objects
associated with elements or processes are referenced by a pointer, which is the corresponding
parameter unit (e.g. the wall composition, containing the material of a wall layer and the layer
thickness, is referenced in the wall description).
The estimated importance of parameters (non-pointers) is indicated by three levels: high, middle, low.
The supposed data availability (for a tool user) is indicated by four levels: good, possible, rare and no.
Due to the small amount of information available at the site selection step, only a few parameters can
be given there. Others will become clearer during the design process. As all parameters are needed for
an environmental analysis, default values are proposed for the unknown parameters of each design
step. This approach allows one to perform sensitivity analysis at every project step.
The design step will be indicated where we suppose that parameters values are known due to progress
of the design process. For a few parameters data collection is considered as being too difficult for a
user to determine and therefore default values are proposed for all design steps (e.g. urban waste,
daily transportation). This will be the case for a "rare" data availability. Fixed default values will also
be proposed, if possible, in the case of a "low" importance parameter in order to limit the number of
input parameters.
Default values are at the moment only defined within the French context. They may be different for
other countries, especially concerning daily transport and urban waste. The possibility should be
given to a user to change a few default values for sensitivity analysis.
Two possibilities exist to define building elements or processes: either their parameters will be input
(with possibly a few default values) or they will be selected from a library (having default values for
all parameters). For example a wooden frame glazing can be input with its U-value (2.5 W/m2/K), its
solar transmission (tau=0.8) and a default value of 2 glazings or a defined double glazing with an
aluminium frame can be taken from the library having the U-value 3.0 W/m2/K and tau=0.8.
We consider that it would be unrealistic to ask users to provide inventories themselves. Therefore,
inventories should be placed in a library and they are only mentioned in this chapter without further
specifications.
The utilisation phase has nowadays a preponderant influence on the environmental impact of a
building due to the associated fluxes (e.g. energy, water) during its long duration. Therefore, special
attention has to be put at the collection of data describing these fluxes; thus the importance of the
corresponding parameters is high. But the appreciation of the importance of data might change in the
future, especially after diminution of the utilisation phase impact leading to a higher contribution of
the other phases to the overall environmental impact. This might also lead to a review of the input
parameters for simplified tools, as they are chosen with regard to their importance on the final result.
The data has been structures in 3 categories : the site, the building technical description and the
building functional description.
Site
First, the general data of the site will be presented, then the data concerning daily transport, urban
waste and water management.
General data :
parameter unit importance design data default value

step availability
meteorological high site good none
station
longitude degree high site selection good of the chosen
meteorological station

latitude degree high site selection good of the chosen
meteorological station
altitude metre high site selection good none
type of site; choice high site selection good none
between four types :
- urban
- suburban
- rural
- remote
The climatic data of the meteorological station (temperatures, solar radiation, humidity, precipitation,
etc.) is needed in order to perform thermal calculations (to determine heating and cooling loads) and
for evaluation of the collected rain-water impact. These data is also needed to assess the feasability of
alternate energy usage such as solar heating or solar/wind power conversion.
The longitude and latitude of the chosen station are applied to the building site if the values for the
site are not known. But the actual site altitude has to be indicated so that the outside temperature can
be adjusted.
The importance of the parameter "type of site" is considered as "high" as it influences the parameter
values for daily transportation (e.g. distances) and eventually for urban waste management.
Daily transport :
The inventories for the public transport of the site (bus, underground, etc.) and private transport (car)
will be fixed in the models and not asked from the users.

step availability
distance to next metre high for all steps rare depending on site
public transport type:
station - urban : 250 m
- suburban : 500 m
- rural : 5000 m
- remote : 20000 m
distance to metre high for all steps rare depending on site
workplace type:
- urban : 3000 m
- suburban : 10000 m
- rural : 10000 m
- remote : 20000 m
distance to metre middle for all steps rare depending on site
supermarket type:
- urban : 250 m
- suburban : 500 m
- rural : 5000 m
- remote : 20000 m
existence of cycle- boolean middle site selection good none
paths
The importance for the parameter "distance to next public transport station" is considered as "high" as
it determines if the daily transport is done by car (if it's too far) or by public transport. The "distance
to the workplace" is estimated as having a "high" importance as the occupants will in general go to
work every workday. Opposite to that, shopping is supposed to be done once a week and therefore the
importance of the "distance to supermarket" is estimated as "middle".
The distribution of the daily transport on private transport, public transport and bicycle (including
walking) is a function of the above defined distances and the existence of cycle-paths. The according
calculation algorithms will be implemented in the tools.
Urban waste management :

For each urban waste type a corresponding process is defined (see § 3.2.3.7).

step availability
number of urban integer little for all steps rare 8 types are proposed :
waste types - fine (< 10 mm)
- glass
- metal
- organic
- paper
- plastic
- textile
- others
existence of urban booleans middle site selection rare depending on waste
waste sorting type: (France 1995)
facilities - fine : no
- glass : yes
- metal : no
- organic : no
- paper : yes
- plastic : no
owner's brief possible - textile : no
- others : no

percentage dumped of % middle for all steps rare depending on waste
unsorted part type for year:
1995 (from 2000)
- fine : 50 (0)
- glass : 50 (0)
- metal : 50 (0)
- organic : 50 (0)
- paper : 50 (0)
- plastic : 50 (0)
- textile : 50 (0)
- others : 50 (0)
percentage % middle for all steps rare depending on waste
incinerated of type for year:
unsorted part 1995 ( from 2000)
- fine : 50 (100)
- glass : 50 (100)
- metal : 50 (100)
- organic : 50 (100)
- paper : 50 (100)
- plastic : 50 (100)
- textile : 50 (100)
- others : 50 (100)
The "existence of urban waste sorting facilities" and the percentages of dumped and incinerated urban
waste might depend on the site type, which remains to be studied.
For the transport of urban waste a distance of 20 km (one way, with empty return journey) is defined
as default value for the dumped part and a distance of 40 km is defined for the incinerated part, both
done with a 16ton lorry. If, for an urban waste type, sorting exists at a local level we propose a
distance of 200 km for the associated transport of the sorted urban waste to its treatment facility (e.g.
papermill, glassworks).
Water supply and sewage :

Inventories are specified for the production of tap-water and for sewage treatment.

step availability
monthly cold water °C middle for all steps rare depending on site
temperatures location
water hardness °f little site selection good none
efficiency of water % middle for all steps rare 90
distribution net
percentage of % middle for all steps rare 100
treated sewage
The "monthly cold water temperatures" can be determined as a function of site latitude and longitude.
The unit of parameter "water hardness" is country dependant as there exist French, English and
German definitions (at least!). It influences the quantity of washing powder used and therefore the
water pollution during the utilisation phase.
Technical building description
The input parameters are presented for the three main classes of the detailed product model: product,
component and subsystem (see § 2.2.4 for their definition) and their subclasses. The elements of the
Swiss norm SN 506 502 (concerning cost classification by elements), for which data collection is
done, constitute objects either of the subsystem class type (when produced on the building site) or of
the component class type (when produced in a factory). Subclasses allowing data transfer with
thermal calculation tools are presented.
We estimate that the elements constituting a building will become clear between the sketch step and
the detailed project step. Hence, defined buildings have to be used for environmental analysis
performed at the site selection step or the owner's brief step. Common building projects (depending
on building type, number of storeys, etc.) could for example be provided via a projects library. The
real project has then to be described from the sketch step on beginning with the wall surfaces and
orientations and defining the other parameters gradually until the detailed project step.
Product class
This class corresponds to elementary elements which can not be decomposed (e.g. for masonry,
coatings, etc.) and also to packaging materials. We suppose that it is too difficult for a user to obtain
the data for a product. Therefore, defined products should be placed in a library so that they can be
used directly in simplified tools.
Materials and building finishes are considered as subclasses of the product class. The former contains
as additional parameters a material's thermal conductivity (W/m/K), density (kg/m3) and specific heat
(Wh/kg/K). As no default values can be defined for them, materials will also be part of the library.

step availability
conductivity W/m/K high sketch and good none
first project

density kg/m3 high sketch and good none
first project
specific heat Wh/kg/K high sketch and good none
or J/kg/K first project
The additional parameters of building finishes are the solar absorptance and emittance, presented in
detail in the following table.

step availability
solar absorptance 0..1 low sketch and rare 0.6 (middle and
first project northern Europe)
detailed good 0.2 (Mediterranean
project area)
solar emittance 0..1 low sketch and rare 0.9
first project
detailed good
project
Objects of this class might also be defined in the library (e.g. from the Handbook of passive solar
design, edited by the E.U.)
Element class
This class corresponds to components manufactured in factories by combination of products (or other
components). Defined components will be placed in the library as we consider that it is to difficult for
a user to collect the data of component parameters.
Subclasses are defined for wall compositions, glazings, near shadings, shading devices and equipment
which will also be part of the library.
The additional parameters of a wall composition are presented in the following table.

step availability
number of materials integer low first project good none
in a wall
composition
used materials pointers first project
thickness of cm middle first project good none
materials
No default values are proposed for a wall composition as we estimate that either a wall composition
can be completely specified, which may be possible at the first project design step, or it will be taken
from the library. Default compositions could be defined according to regional conditions for walls,
roofs and slabs. For example, the following wall composition will be part of the library. It contains 4
materials, with from the outside to the inside 1cm of gypsum plastering, 4cm of polystyrene, 16cm of
gravel concrete and 1.5cm of sand cement plaster.
The additional parameters of a glazing are presented in the following table.

step availability
number of glazings 1..3 middle detailed good none
project
U-value W/m2/K high detailed possible none
project
transmission factor 0..1 high detailed possible none
project
width metre low detailed good none
project
height metre low detailed good none
project
No default values are proposed for a glazing as we suppose it can either be completely specified,
which may be possible only at the detailed project design step, or it will be taken from the library.
Default glazings could be defined according to the regional conditions. For example the following
glazing with a wooden frame will be part of the library. It contains 2 glazings, has an U-value of 2.5
W/m2/K and a transmission factor of 0.85 at normal incidence. Its width is 0.8 metre and its height is
1.4 metre.
Defined nearby shadings and shading devices will be taken from the library until the first project
design step. We suppose it will be possible to specify their parameters (e.g. geometrical for nearby
shadings) only at the detailed project design step. The importance of these parameters is supposed
being "middle" and their data availability is estimated as "possible" (detailed project design step).
Equipment (heating, cooling, water heating and distribution) will in general be described in the same
way than an element. They may contain as additional parameters their energy consumption and
efficiency. But energy consumption should rather be attributed to an occupied space, for example a
thermal zone, in order to allow the constitution of libraries containing only generic equipment data.
As this approach should be favoured, data on equipment utilisation (energy or water utilisation) and
processes are presented rather in the functional description of the building (§3.2.3).

Subsystem class
This class represents complex objects, constructed at the builder's yard, formed of products and/or
components, like walls and foundations. Defined subsystems will be placed in a library. They may for
example correspond to the elements of the Swiss norm for cost classification (SN 506 502). As this
element catalogue is very exhaustive (a few hundred elements), we will not indicate at which project
step the values of each element may be specified.
Subclasses are defined for walls, zones, foundations and external parking. Their additional
parameters, serving in the environmental analysis, are described hereafter.
Wall
Building walls always contain a composition and inside and outside building finishes. The libraries of
the design tools should contain defined walls, where only the slope and orientation have to be
adjusted (for thermal calculations).

step availability
wall surface m2 middle sketch good none
slope degree high sketch good none
orientation degree high sketch good none
composition pointer sketch rare default wall, e.g. for
first project possible roof, slab
inside and outside pointers up to first cf. default values
building finishes project § 3.2.2.1
detailed
project
quantities of either kg low detailed good none
building finishes or m3 project only
surplus of building % low detailed rare 10 %
finishes project only
nearby shadings pointer up to first possible no nearby shading
project
detailed good
project
glazing types pointers sketch double glazing,
first project wooden frame ?
glazing areas m2 middle site selection no percentages of
overall wall surface:
40 % south
sketch good 10 % east, west and
north
shading device on pointer up to first rare according to climate
openings project
detailed good
project
quantity of m2 low up to first rare equal to glazing area
shading device on project
openings detailed possible
project
The importance of the slope, the orientation and the composition used is estimated as "high" as these
parameters have an important influence on the result of the thermal analysis of a building.
Due to the influence of the wall on the thermal analysis, the importance of the wall surface is
estimated as "middle".
Foundations
The foundations of a building can either be described as object of the subsystem class, or as a thermal
zone with walls.
External parking
As a parking can be integrated in a building (underground car park) external parking has to be taken
into account also in order to allow comparison. The additional parameters of an external car parking
area allow one to model the rain water collected during building utilisation, inducing impacts if
treated in a sewage plant. These parameters are the following:

step availability
covered surface m2 low up to first rare equivalent of one car
project parking place for two
detailed good occupants
project
impermeability of % low for all steps rare 100 %
surface

collected water in % low for all steps rare 100 %
sewer
As the modelling of an external parking is not yet finished, the above listed parameters may be
completed by others.
Builder's yard
No model exists at the moment describing the processes taking place at the builder's yard, nor the
amount of waste created there and its different treatments. The inventories of installation and
construction processes can be attached to the different elements. But some processes concern the
building site as a whole (e.g. heating the offices and sanitary installations). Default values could be
proposed by e.g. square meter of useful built area. A commonly used default value for the amount of
waste created during this phase is around 10% of the material use.
Functionnal building description
Beside the technical description presented in the last paragraph, a building can also be described
according to its functions. It can thus be divided into « zones », e.g. living room, bedroom etc. for a
dwelling, offices, conference room etc. for a tertiary building. The processes taking place can also be
divided into « operation » (e.g. heating and cooling, lighting) and « use » (e.g. electricity consumption
for computers or machines). Operation processes are necessitated by the building itself and depend
more on its technical design whereas use processes depend on the activities of the occupants. As this
section concerns design, operation processes are only considered.
Functional concepts may refer to technical objects, e.g. the spaces (zones, rooms) are defined by their
surrounding walls.
Zone
A zone is a certain volume of the building, with homogenous thermal behaviour. It can correspond to
a single room, or include several rooms having a similar function and thermal behaviour (e.g.
classrooms with a similar orientation in a school). In an LCA, zones are more relevant than rooms
because of thermal analysis. On the other hand, rooms are considered in daylighting or acoustic
calculations. They are also available as CAD objects. Zones can be derived by gathering rooms. A
zone has the following additional parameters besides those inherited from the subsystem description :
though a zone is a functional concept, an inventory can be attached to it including all materials of the
surrounding walls and processes taking place, thus it can be considered as a subclass of the subsystem
class in a computer structure (in the case of an object oriented programming). Hereafter the
parameters describing occupant's behaviour and attributed to a zone are not listed as they will be
treated in the section concerning the occupants (§ 3.2.3.9).
step availability
volume m3 high sketch good none
number of integer middle site possible according to building
occupants type
occupancy schedule high according to building
type, cf. § 3.2.4
zone walls pointers for all steps
equipment pointers sketch rare
first project good
The following default values will be proposed for the parameter "number of occupants", for the
building types:
· dwelling 2 persons/100m3
· office 5 persons/100m3
· school 20 persons/100m3
The metabolism of occupants, and hence the internal heat gains, is depending on their activity (very
different for sleeping and physical work). Therefore, an equivalent number of occupants will be
defined.
Energy utilisation
A few parameters describing the different energy utilisations of a building are influenced by building
occupants. In this case they are treated in the section concerning the occupants (§ 3.2.4), whereas the
others are shown in the following table:

step availability
heating load kWh/year high sketch possible none
cooling load kWh/year high sketch possible none
energy type for pointer sketch gas ?
heating
energy type for pointer sketch electricity
cooling
domestic hot water °C middle for all steps rare 55 °C
temperature
domestic hot water

cooking
The energy consumption for heating and air conditioning depend on the building envelope, the
heating or air conditioning system and the comfort wished by the occupant. These consumptions (in
kWh/year) have to be determined by thermal calculation methods and they are input parameters for
the environmental analysis. The energy types for heating and domestic hot water have to be selected
from the library (e.g. gas depending on the effective power), whereas for air conditioning electricity is
considered as energy resource. For electricity consumption (lighting, etc.) the national mix (% fossil,
hydropower, nuclear, etc.) of each country has to be taken into consideration.
Water utilisation
Selected water utilisations inducing a specific water pollution (e.g. for cleaning) could be described.
The inventory of the specific water pollution is indicated and the origin of the used water is specified
by giving the percentages of tap-water, rain water and grey water. A standard profile including
quantities and emissions (e.g. quantity of washing powder according to water hardness or water for air
conditioning systems) can be defined in a library.
Maintenance
The use of parameters describing maintenance of building elements seems not necessary for
simplified tools as the impact of maintenance on the overall environmental impact is estimated as
negligible. On the other hand, cleaning processes necessitate a certain amount of water and cleaning
products and should be taken into account. They can be attached to the corresponding building
elements (e.g. cleaning of a facade, of glazings, of a building finish, a carpet etc.).
Building element transport
Transportation can either be integrated into elements inventories or may be described by a few objects
where one might be used for all building elements and the others for urban waste. More objects may
be used to describe the different transports of urban waste (dumping, incineration, recycling) as this
aspect is considered more important than the transport of building elements. The class will then
contain the following parameters.

step availability
transport unit tkm or none possible
km
number of transport integer low for all steps rare 1 (building elements)
means
inventories for pointer for all steps 16 t lorry
transport means
distances for km low for all steps rare 100 km (building
transport means elements)
As a building element can be transported by different means (e.g. ship and lorry or train and lorry)
before arriving at the builder's yard the number of the used transport means could eventually be
indicated. The proposed distances for urban waste transport have already been presented at the site
level (§ 3.2.1).
Assembling and Dismantling
The assembling and dismantling processes will only be modelled in detailed tools in order to
calculate, if needed, the element inventories whereas for simplified tools these data has to be
integrated in the element inventories.
Treatment after use
The parameters of this class (describing the treatment after use of a building element) will in general
not be input by a user but will be implemented in the model (or in a library). The class may only be
used in the very rare cases when the treatment after use inventory of a building element can not be
established. The class contains the following parameters:
step availability
reuse % low for all steps rare (0 %)
reuse inventory pointer for all steps no
recycling % low for all steps rare (0 %)
recycling inventory pointer for all steps no
dumping % low for all steps rare (50 %)
dumping inventory pointer for all steps no
incineration % low for all steps rare (50 %)
incineration inventory pointer for all steps no
downcycling boolean low for all steps no (true)
lower calorific value kJ/(unit) low for all steps rare
efficiency of heat 0..1 low for all steps no (0)
recovery

inventory of pointer middle for all steps no
avoided impact due
to energy recovery
The supposed present situation for the treatment after use of building materials is indicated by the
default values in parentheses.
The parameter "downcycling" indicates if recycling is done in a closed loop or in an open loop
process. The parameters "lower calorific value" and "efficiency of heat recovery" are used in the case
of incineration with heat recovery.
Urban waste
As for the treatment after use class, the parameters of this class will in general not be input by a user
but will be implemented in the model (or library). This class contains, for a defined urban waste type,
the information about its treatment processes. No default values are specified as the values are
different for each urban waste type (glass, paper, ...). The class contains the following parameters :

step availability
recycling inventory pointer for all steps no
dumping inventory pointer for all steps no
incineration inventory pointer for all steps no
downcycling boolean low for all steps rare
lower calorific value kJ/(unit) middle for all steps rare
efficiency of heat 0..1 low for all steps rare
recovery
inventory of pointer middle for all steps no
avoided impact due
to energy recovery
The parameters "downcycling", "lower calorific value" and "efficiency of heat recovery" are used in
the same way as for treatment after use processes (see § 3.2.3.6).
The percentages of urban waste dumped and incinerated (not sorted part) are indicated at the site level
for each urban waste type as well as the existence of sorting facilities for the building location.
Occupants
The behaviour of occupants has a large influence over the impacts during the utilisation phase. Some
parameters determine the comfort (see definition of the functional unit § 2.2.1) and therefore attention
has to be paid when defining their values in order to have the same functional unit for comparisons.
A building occupant defines the desired thermal comfort by the set point temperatures for heating and
possibly cooling. These values influence the environmental impact of a building by the calculated
heating or/and cooling load. Their input depends on the chosen thermal calculation method.
The electric consumption (lighting for visual comfort, etc.) of a zone also influence the thermal
analysis as they constitute internal heat gains. The parameters describing occupants behaviour are
shown in the following table:

step availability
set point °C high for all steps possible see definition of
temperatures functional unit
(§ 2.2.1)
max. differential for K high for all steps possible see definition of
cooling functional unit
(§2.2.1)
ventilation rates ACH high sketch possible according to building
type
electric consumption kWh/day/ high for all steps rare 7 kWh/day/person
person
cold water litre/day/ middle for all steps rare 100 litres/day/person
consumption person
hot water litre/day/ high for all steps rare 40 litres/day/person
consumption person
total urban kg/day/ high for all steps rare 1 kg /day/person
waste quantity person
distribution on % middle for all steps rare - fine : 10 %
urban waste - glass : 12 %
types - metal : 6%
- organic : 25 %
- paper : 30 %
- plastic : 10 %
- textile : 2 %
- others : 5 %
sorting of urban % middle for all steps rare - fine : 0%
waste types - glass : 40 %
- metal : 0%
- organic : 0 %
- paper : 20 %
- plastic : 0 %
- textile : 0 %
- others : 0 %

weekly journeys integer high for all steps rare 5
to work
weekly journeys integer middle for all steps rare 1
to supermarket
electric consumption Wh/day/ middle for all steps rare 700 Wh/day/person
for person
cooking
gas consumption Wh/day/ middle for all steps rare 700 Wh/day/person
for cooking person
The mentioned default values for urban waste management are different for each country (the here
used values present the French situation).
The following ventilation rates will be proposed as default values for the building types:
· dwelling 0.6 ACH
· office 0.7 ACH
· school 2 ACH
Building
This object contains the references to zones, foundations, building site, subsystems and external
parking. The builder's yard and demolition yard will also be referenced when their description is
finished. Beside these references, the building class contains the following parameters :

step availability
references to zones,
site, subsystems,
external parkings
roof surface m2 middle sketch good none
(horizontal)
existence of boolean middle first project good none
gutter
collected water % middle up to first rare 100 %
in sewer project
detailed possible
project
number of integer high ? sketch good none
floors
number of lifts integer high ? first project good none
The rain water collected by the roof is taken into account in the same way than that collected by a
external parking (§ 3.2.2.3.5).
The electricity consumption due to the use of lifts might be important and therefore the importance of
the parameters "number of floors" and "number of lifts" is estimated being "high". This has to be
confirmed by more detailed studies.

OUTPUT AND VISUALIZATION
In paragraph 3.1 a typology of tools on sustainable building is proposed, derived from an analysis of
the relevant aspects of the processes, roles and phasing of the building process on the one hand and
an analysis of the relevant environmental aspects derived from experiences with already existing tools
on the other hand.
In paragraph 3.2 input parameters for the detailed model in order to make an assessment have been
discussed.
Following on the typology and the input parameters, this paragraph will deal with the issues of the
output of sustainable building tools. The typology of tools isn’t meant to develop an complete new
inventory of tools on sustainable building. Already existing tools that fit in the typology can be used to
come to possible output for tools that still have to be developed.
Therefore, it deserves attention to first examine the links of existing tools with the proposed typology
of tools in order to use the experience in already existing possible output.
Comparison of assessment methods
In today’s building and design process several instruments are being used. Instruments like the Life
Cycle Analysis, the Distance-to Target method and the Environmental Impact Assessment will be
examined on their possible use in the typology of tools on sustainable building.
Life cycle analysis (LCA)
The scientific method for environmentally focused life cycle analysis, the LCA method for short, was
developed to paint a picture of the environmental effects of products or production processes during
their entire life cycle. At present, applications of the life cycle method at building level are under
development. On the basis of life cycle methods a reasonable picture in terms of the environmental
impact and scope for innovation can be provided, although data cannot yet be clearly measured.
LCA at product level

The LCA method was developed to paint a picture of the environmental effects of products or
production processes during the entire life cycle. The method comprises five stages (Draft ISO 14040,
1996):
- Goal and scope definition
- Inventory analysis
- Impact assessment
Goal and scope definition
The goal of an LCA study shall unambiguously state the intended application, including the reasons
for carrying out the study and the intended audience, i.e. to whom the results of the study are intended
to be communicated. In defininf the scope of an LCA study, items like the functions of the system, the
functional unit, the system to be studied and system boundaries shall be considered and clearly
described.
Inventory analysis
Inventory analysis involves data collection and calculation procedures to quantify relevant inputs and
outputs of a product system. These inputs and outputs include the use of resources and releases to air,
water and land associated with the system.
The quantitative and qualitative data for inclusion in the inventory shall be collected for each unit
process that is included within the system boundaries. The procedures used for data collection may
vary depending on the scope, unit process or intended application of the study.
Impact assessment
The impact assessment phase of LCA is aimed at evaluating the significance of potential
environmental impacts using the results of the life cycle inventory analysis. In general, this process
involves associating inventory data with specific environmental impacts and attempting to understand
those impacts. The level of detail, choice of impacts evaluated and methodologies used will depend on
the goal and scope of the study.
An example of LCA at building level: Eco-Quantum

One application of life cycle analysis in the construction industry is in the form of a method of
calculation, Eco-Quantum, which clearly depicts the environmental impact associated with energy and
material flows for a building at all the phases of its life (W/E, 1995-II and W/E, 1996). The
environmental impact is therefore quantified in energy and material flows. The detailed LCA method
is used in Eco-Quantum; this is based on the CML Guide "Environmentally oriented life cycle
analyses of products" (Novem, The Netherlands Energy and Environment Company 1992). In figure
3.12 Eco-Quantum is explained on the basis of a diagram showing the structure of the methodology.
The main structure of the Eco-Quantum method comprises three parts. The left-hand side of the
diagram shows input by the user, who enters the data on the building (modules 1 to 3). The right-hand
side of the diagram shows the output from the method (modules 15 to 21).
The intervening part of the diagram is the method proper. First of all, the architectural input from the
user is translated in modules 4 to 6 into materials in kilograms and energy in MJ. This is done using a
components database containing incoming and outgoing material and energy flows by individual
component.

Figure 3.12: Diagrammatic representation of Eco-Quantum
Modules 7 and 8 list the intervention associated with the energy in material flows. This is determined
by the link to data from the 'environmental data base (8)' to the 'output quantities (6)'. The
environmental database incorporates the interventions per kilogram for major materials and other
relevant processes. Modules 4 to 8 tally with the inventory from the previous description of the LCA
method.
Modules 9 and 10 incorporate the impact of the recycling of materials at the phase of demolishing a
building or part thereof on the environment. By contrast with the LCA method from the CML, the
environmental gain from less waste and production saving is calculated at this stage. The basic
principle here is that the re-use of materials from the building at the second cycle mitigate the
environmental effects of the 'first' building. This procedure uses a recycling database (10) which
contains information on individual material regarding the recycling facilities (R) and the deduction
factors (A). Module 11, finally, draws up the total interventions table. This is obtained by deducting
the environmental gain from recycling from the results of module 7.
Modules 12 to 14 convert the interventions, using what are termed classification factors, to
environmental effect scores (environmental profile). This is done in two stages. First of all, the
interventions are sorted by the effects they cause. Then the contribution from the various interventions
to the environmental impact is established using classification factors. The classification factors are
incorporated into the classification and evaluation database.
At present, experiments are in progress to arrive at an evaluation within Eco-Quantum. This

evaluation entails the environmental profile of a building or component being aggregated into several
aggregation scores or a single environmental indicator.
It follows from the above that Eco-Quantum material and energy flows and the associated pollution of
the environment can be calculated for a building throughout its life. The current method will be
developed in two directions. The calculation method can be used to develop an instrument for
environmental experts to assess, for example, the impact of projects on the environment. On the one
hand, user-friendly instruments are being developed which can be used in a simple manner by
participants in the construction process.
Limitations of Life Cycle Analysis

Using the LCA method, the problem one has to cope with is that LCA data cannot yet be clearly
measured. Therefore it is difficult to make a value-free pronouncement on the environmental impact
of products. To some extent this is because the method has not yet been fully developed. A number of
specific observations can be made regarding the LCA method (Mak and Van Twillert, 1996).
The availability and quality of data can often cause a problem. In some cases, data come only from a
single company and are then used as if they have general validity in the absence of anything better.
This information may also be derived from countries in western Europe which are relatively clean in
their production methods, while production in other countries takes place where labour is cheap and/or
there are no environmental requirements.
What emerges in the description of the life cycle analysis method is that measurable interventions can
be calculated in physical terms at the inventory phase. This raises another restriction of the LCA

method. Non-physically measurable units are thus undervalued - or even entirely ignored. A number
of environmental characteristics such as the encroachment upon ecosystems and the countryside are
difficult to express in physical units and therefore can be calculated only to a limited degree with the
LCA method.
Another point is that the norms used for classification are less complete and objective than is often
claimed. The norms used for classification have generally not been specifically drawn up for this
purpose, but have been derived from systems of standards drawn up for other purposes. As a result,
these norms are often determined very much by political thinking: in many cases norms are less
stringent because there are too many objections from the economic perspective, because a more
rigorous norm is not yet technically feasible, or because there are objections in the international
context.
It is important when interpreting the classified results to be aware that one is dealing with potential
effects. Substances are released into the environment, which means that an effect could occur. A
significantly larger volume of information is needed to describe the actual effects, concerning what
happens between emission and effect, the time scale and the area.
One important limitation of the LCA method is that as yet there is no accepted method of mutually
weighting environmental aspects. If policy objectives are used to enable scores to be added, a further
subjective factor is added. Policy objectives are determined politically, and politics happens to be
subjective.
A further shortcoming of the LCA method is that the scope for assumptions very much determines the
result. This is the major practical limitation of the LCA. An example of an assumption is the life of a
product.
These observations mean that the LCA method is not suitable as a basis for arriving at an
environmental preference. Other drawbacks are that the calculation is very time consuming and that a
database of information has to be created before a calculation can be started. The methods overcome
these drawbacks as databases have already been created and it is therefore a very simple matter to
carry out the calculations.
Usefulness of Life Cycle Analysis in the typology of tools on sustainable building

Life cycle analysis enables the physically measurable interventions for a product to be determined. An
LCA which has been effectively carried out provides some understanding of these raw materials,
energy consumption and emissions (primarily related to energy). This enables an environmental
profile to be drawn up. Life cycle analysis is an ideal tool for recognising the weak environmental
scores of a product and then improving the product's scores. Life cycle analysis can therefore be used
for initiating innovation in a product. The method can be used dynamically for this purpose by
running through it several times in succession until the desired result has been achieved.
Products or buildings, can also be compared with one another after LCAs have been carried out. A
point to note here is that it is difficult to prioritise products by environmental score as in that case a
value would have to be attached to the various environmental interventions.
If these norms applied for the classification are well supported, the method for weighing the
environmental aspect is clearly explained and the effects of the assumptions are indicated by a
sensitivity analysis, an environmental index can be given to a product using the LCA method.
The Distance-To-Target (DTT) Method and environmental zoning
At present, most European national governments have laid down few mandatory environmental
measures in the field of sustainable building. In the Netherlands there are regulations in the field of
energy savings in the form of the Energy Performance Standard and in the field of restricting noise
nuisance, odour and hazardous substances. The use of space is also influenced by spatial planning
policy. Local authorities often have a need to give greater direction to the defining of environmental
qualities at a specific location and to make them clear.
As the objectives may be achieved to varying degrees, the need arises to measure how far the
objectives have been met. One method of measuring environmental aspects against objectives is the
Distance-To-Target method (Netherlands Energy and Environment Company, 1995), and the concept
of 'environmental zoning' is very much in vogue (De Roo, 1996).
The Distance-To-Target method

The very name of the Distance-To-Target method reveals how it works. First of all, objectives are
assigned to the various local environmental aspects. This is a simple matter where there are
quantitatively measurable objectives. An objective for the noise nuisance aspect can be expressed in a
maximum number of people affected. An environmental aspect which can only be expressed in
qualitative terms can be expressed in objectives which are described in qualitative terms. The
environmental qualities achieved by the project can then be determined. In the case of quantitative
environmental qualities, again they must be measurable. The results of qualitative environmental
aspects can be determined using a panel. The next step is to measure the environmental qualities
achieved against environmental policy objectives. Success in achieving the objective laid down is set
for each environmental aspect. Scores may even be given for the environmental quality achieved in
relation to the environmental objectives.
One important point when using the Distance-To-Target method is to assign objectives to the
environmental aspects and to determine the results achieved in relation to the objectives.
One essential factor here is to use equal units and to determine the right unit for expressing the
environmental aspect.

Determining the indicators
The environmental aspects have to be expressed in quantitatively measurable values in order to be

able to read off an environmental aspect score against a target value using the Distance-To-Target
method.
In the case of the environmental aspects of noise, odour, risks and pollution of water, air and soil,
already wide experience exists in translating these aspects into quantitative values. The 'numbers
affected' indicator has been adopted for the aspects of noise and odour. The reference value and limit
value for noise are 0 severely affected and 2.4% severely affected respectively. When it comes to
odour, the reference value and the limit value are 2.5% affected and 6% affected. One particular
polluting substance has been adopted as the indicator for the aspects of pollution of air and soil.
Pollution of water is expressed as a percentage of water of swimming quality.
In other cases it is more difficult to express the aspects quantitatively. The aspect of water usage is
expressed in minimising the use of deep groundwater. The reference value is then that all the drinking
water abstracted within the planning area is supplemented and the limit value is the one under which
all the drinking water required is abstracted from the second aquifer, with current usage continuing.
The energy aspect is expressed in a number of vehicle kilometres on roads with 2000 or more vehicles
per 24 hours per annum per inhabitant. A point to note here is that we are dealing with energy at
supra-local level and that energy consumption needed for space heating is on a different level.
When it comes to aspects that are highly qualitative in nature, it is difficult to put the system into
operation in a suitable manner. The ecological value of the plan is indicated by using a method which
expresses the natural assets of an area in values based on expert judgement. The cautionary note must
be made here that this method is selected in the absence of other methods (which are better and/or
better underpinned). The target value adopted is to retain the natural assets previously present. The
limit value is set at 200 ha of 100% natural assets.
The most difficult aspects to operationalise are those that relate to the residential environment. Such
aspects as the usage value of green amenities and water locally, the usage value of green amenities
and water in the surrounding area, the usage value of local amenities and the usage value of amenities
in the surrounding area are generally expressed in areas or distances. An immediate point to note is
that it is important to look more closely at the relationship between the surface area and quality. A
high quality need not necessarily be associated with a large area. In the Netherlands, for example,
there are areas that have a large green area (Bijlmer) with a low rating as well as cases of areas with
little green but which enjoy a high rating (old urban areas such as the Berlage district in Amsterdam).
The point is made in the project that quality cannot be forced. Another way of saying this is that
quality cannot be quantified.
Limitations of the DTT method

The final point made in the last section was that quality cannot be quantified. This immediately
clarifies one of the bottlenecks in the DTT method. If one tries to use the method to operationalise all
the environmental, in certain cases it has to be recognised that the aspect cannot be operationalised in
quantitative terms or that it is better to use a different method for expressing the environmental aspects
(for example the LCA method in the case of flows of substances).
A further bottleneck with the DTT method is that in some cases a particular environmental aspect
contains a range of sub-aspects. Expressing the aspect in a single quantitatively measurable value then
creates problems. In this case can be chosen for one particular indicator to depict the picture for the
whole. This solution can be regarded as problematical as it fails to fully reflect the actual total
appraisal on that aspect. The aspect is then assessed on a sub-aspect of the general environmental
aspect. In assessing the pollution of air and soil, a single substances is designated as the indicator for
both cases whilst it is clear that it is actually several polluting substances that determine the pollution.
Usefulness of DTT for the typology of tools on sustainable building

It is clear that the DTT method offers possiblities for the judgement of location specific environmental
qualities. The method allows to evaluate these qualities in quantitative terms and has proved its
usefulness in already exisiting instruments for the location specific environmental qualities.
The Distance-To-Target method is also used to determine the weighting factors for the evaluation
phase of life cycle analysis. A relative importance is attached to the environmental effects at the
evaluation phase in order to arrive at a single environmental profile. The idea behind assigning
weighting factors using the Distance-To-Target method is that the severity of an environmental impact
is connected with the distance between the current level and the target level. For example, if
acidification has to be reduced by a factor of ten in order to achieve a sustainable society, and smog a
factor of five, acidification is deemed twice as serious.
Environmental zoning
Environmental zoning is based on a standardising system (note the difference between statutory,
binding norms and policy based norms that set a direction). It is based on looking at the surrounding
area from the angle of the pollution. Example: a zone is set around a source of noise nuisance that is
lower than set forth in the standard.
A system of standards is quantitative. It can also be linked to licensing; the state of health and the
noise perception of local inhabitants can be indicated. Local environmental quality can be read off
directly on the basis of environmental contours. Standards are used to set a framework and thus are
seen by many as being too rigid, entailing that environmental zones allow little scope for weighing the
diverse aspects.
Not all the full options for standard systems have been developed and used.
For example, little use is made of the scope for introducing a zone in phases. This means allowing a
zone to be extended in phases to the boundary of an environmentally polluting area, enabling

environmentally sensitive functions to go on being developed. In addition, anticipation (for example:
an area within an environmental zone will be tackled, whereby the area in future will fall outside the
zone, enabling this area in future to be used for a different purpose than is currently possible with the
prevailing zones) and perception surveys (not the norm but rather the experience of local residents
determines the limit of environmental zones) offer additional scope.
The balance approach

The balance approach means basing policy on broadly formulated objectives. It is focused from the
outer inwards. Example: 'The numbers affected in a city must fall by 20% in 5 years'. The balance
approach has no direct link with the source of environmental pollution.
It is a less exact, more qualitative method. It requires a well considered set of variables which are
readily measurable. The variables are used in an absolute sense, but more in a relative sense (y%
reduction in x years). The measurability is required to enable objectives to be formulated
unambiguously and to be monitored.
As the balance approach works at a high level of scale, with average values playing a part, protection
of the individual is not the starting point. The system of standards offers many more opportunities for
this. This system creates problems if opposing standards apply to particular places. Negotiation is then
the key to a solution. The balance approach provides more scope for negotiation. It is therefore not the
case that the balance approach and the standard system are mutually exclusive. One question is
whether a standard cannot be deployed as an instrument under a balance approach (see CO2 reduction
as a result of energy savings on heating and the Energy Performance standard).
Another interesting aspect of the balance approach is the scope for offsetting. Offsetting would appear
to be an important concept when it comes to local environmental objectives, with which little
experience has yet been gained.
Multi Criteria Analysis
One generally accepted environmental assessment method is the Environmental Impact Report,
abbreviated to EIR, which is mandatory in the Netherlands for large-scale interventions.
Under an EIR, alternatives are drawn up for an intervention and the consequences for the environment
of the various alternatives is worked out. Ultimately, the alternatives are prioritised by environmental
preference. This is also done if the information on the environmental effects of various variants are not
the same, even if they can only be stated in qualitative terms or there is a mix of qualitative and
quantitative data available.
Impact table
The most important element in the EIR is therefore the impact table. This is used to weigh the criteria.
The weighting factors may be set by the user, provided there are solid supporting reasons. An EIR is
an example of a procedure which results in an impact table. Life cycle analysis can also result in an
impact table.
There are different evaluation methods for comparing the alternatives in such an impact table (Jansen,
1995). One common and much-quoted method is the multi-criteria method. But other methods such as
presentation methods and monitoring methods may be used to compare an alternative.
Presentation methods
Presentation methods make the amount of information available manageable by structuring it and
presenting it in an easy-to- understand manner. The structure may be introduced for example by
classifying the scores in different score categories. Information can be made more readily
comprehensible by using pluses and minuses, grey tints, colours or graphic images. The assessment
table and graphic presentation are examples of presentation methods.
Monetary methods
Monetary methods can also be used to prioritise alternatives. Examples are cost benefit analysis and
cost effectiveness analysis. One drawback with these methods is that only effects to which a price can
be attached by some means or other play some part in the assessment. The problem with many
environmental criteria is precisely that they cannot be expressed in monetary terms. This makes the
methods less suitable for assessing alternatives with major environmental consequences.
Multi-criteria methods
Multi-criteria methods translate an impact table in combination with weighting factors into
alternatives in order of priority. A multi-criteria analysis contains at least three elements:
- the common denominator for the scores
- establishing the relative importance of the assessment criteria: assigning weights
- combining scores and weights to prioritise alternatives
Examples of multi-criteria methods are as follows:

- Weighted summation
- Concordance analysis
- Regime method
- Expected value method
- Evamix method
With weighted summation, the prioritisation of alternatives is determined on the basis of the weighted
sum of the (quantitative) criteria scores.
Under concordance analysis, the alternatives are compared in pairs from two angles. Firstly, the extent
to which an alternative is preferred to another on the basis of the weighting factors is established, and
secondly, the extent to which an alternative is dominated by another being investigated on the basis of
(quantitative) criteria scores.

The regime method is based on comparing the alternatives in pairs.
What is characteristic of this method is that drawing a large number of samples from the values
permitted by the qualitative scores allows the qualitative scores and weights to be processed into
quantitative scores.
The expected value method is a combination of a transformation method and weighted summation.
The transformation method converts qualitative scores into quantitative scores to which weighted
summation is applied to produce a prioritised list of the alternatives.
In the Evamix method, qualitative and quantitative methods are handled separately in the first
instance. Separate dominance indices are calculated for both types of scores.
After standardisation, the indices are combined into one dominance index, which then determines the
priority.
BOSDA programme
One tool which combines several of these evaluation methods into a single method is the Decision-
support System for Discrete Alternatives (BOSDA from the Dutch abbreviation). The BOSDA
programme comprises five elements (Janssen, 1995):
- Problem definition
- Problem presentation
- Problem evaluation
- Sensitivity analysis
- Reporting
The problem definition results in a impact table which shows quantitative or a combination of
quantitative and qualitative scores. Different evaluation methods may be used.
In the problem presentation, the impact-table scores may be presented as a diagram or as a cost-benefit
balance sheet. During the problem evaluation procedure, the alternatives may be prioritised using
monetary methods or multi-criteria methods. The following multicriteria methods are available in
BOSDA: Weighted summation, Concordance Analysis, Regime method, Expected value method and
the Evamix method.
Limitations of multicriteria analysis

Multicriteria analysis is a suitable evaluation method for comparing alternatives with quantitative or
qualitative environmental scores. The purpose of multicriteria analysis is thus to take subjective
assessments as a basis for making a pronouncement on the environmental quality of the activity. This
also immediately implies the weakness of multicriteria analysis. As the weighting factors are
determined subjectively, the result of the analysis is not a value-free judgement.
Another restriction of EIR is that, in contrast to life cycle analysis, all possible data may be used. This
makes it clear that in principle the EIR is a 'hollow' instrument. A pronouncement can only be arrived
at by comparison. At the same time, drawing up an EIR is a very time-consuming business. This is
particularly the case if there are several weighing iterations and comprehensive sensitivity analyses.
Usefulness of multicriteria analysis for the typology of tools on sustainable building
The description of the various multicriteria methods revealed that qualitative scores can also be
compared with certain methods. This offers scope for involving qualitative environmental scores in an
environmental assessment instrument. Environmental impacts in particular cannot be expressed in
quantitative terms in certain cases. The effects of the total quality of a design in particular are
therefore difficult to quantify.
Multicriteria methods probably provide a basis for appraising the total environmental quality of a
plan.
The integration of environmental impact assessment methods in the design of buildings
The objective of the environmental optimization of a building during its lifecycle cannot for the
present be met because of a lack of specific knowledge as well as appropriate planning and decision
structures. The generally admitted need for a comprehensive approach implies that the interest of the
concerned professionals converge, which is not necessarily so. They generally have different points of
view and different objectives, even within the common objective of ecologically sound planning.
A first group is mainly interested in energy related problems. Knowing the consumption of operation
energy, the (grey) energy embodied in materials, processes and the preparation of final energy itself,
has been estimated with different methods. This approach has been enlarged by the extension to
pollutants through emission coefficients of typical energy transformations and transport processes.
The representatives of this group generally assume that the total primary energy consumption is a
possible (and already existing) indicator for the environmental impact. The main objective lies in a
rational utilization of natural resources and in an enhanced economical approach (through external
costs).
A second group is mainly interested in human toxicological problems. The German "Baubiologie" is
one of the tendencies, the international research community around Indoor Air Quality and Sick
Building Syndrome another. The main objective is the creation of a healthy indoor climate, a largely
anthropocentric point of view.
A third group is mainly interested in the (in our case destructive) consequences of human activities on
the environment. Its objective is to (re)create natural cycles and to integrate the building process into
these cyles. The range of preoccupation extends from simple recycling problems of building materials
to the global Gaia approach [LOV].
These different approaches will probably continue for some time; there is no general unified theory in
view [DEL]. All the approaches have produced methodologies and decision tools which have been
applied or could be applied to the building processes with the aim of optimizing a building during its
lifetime. Most approaches and tools share the following assumptions:

- The building has to be considered as a whole.
- The building has to be considered during its lifetime.
- The energy and material flows have to be known.
The current situation in planning
Architects, engineers and other construction professionals have been exposed in recent years to a
number of often contradictory demands:
Buildings should be airtight to save energy (to avoid the greenhouse effect), but airtight buildings
might lead to high concentrations of toxic substances which in turn could be dangerous for the users
(who have been saved from the greenhouse effect). The situation of the construction material market
becomes more confused each year by the disappearance of traditional materials, the interdiction of
new materials, the generalization of composites, etc. In this context, the great number of different
assessment tools provokes a supplementary rise in confusion. [KOH92].
All the proposed tools establish a more or less explicit relation between causes and effects. The levels
differ however: in the human-toxicological approach the choice of a building material is related to its
effect on the user (e.g. allergies); in the eco-toxicological approach the production of building
elements from the tropical forest, for example, is related to climatic changes.
There are three categories of tools which will be analyzed and compared in more detail:
a) restrictions
In the form of the choices of production processes with an implicit evaluation.
- Laws, prescriptions
- Labels
- Negative lists
b) product declarations
The establishment of the inventory of a product or process within the chosen system limits. There is
no evaluation other than the choice of the system limit and the choice of the indicated component.
- Product labeling
- Life cycle analysis
c) impact assessments
On the basis of an inventory, causes and effects are identified and evaluated. The evaluation models
can differ very much in width and depth.
- Life cycle impact assessment
- Prototypes
- External costs
Restrictions
Laws, prescriptions
Politically determined prohibitions, limits or goals in the use of materials or classes of materials.
Form: Rules, values, decision tables
Advantages: The protection of humans or animals (their life and wellbeing) is
regulated in a categoric way.
Disadvantages: The establishment and the introduction often take a long time. There is a risk of
side effects. The limit-values become objectives through the economical cost
minimization. There are no incentives to go below the limit values.
Examples: Interdiction of asbestos, classes of toxicology
Labels
Certain materials or products are analyzed in a standardized way and can obtain a label. The
evaluation model is generally known, but implicit for the user. Labels constitute a positive list.
[BUS91].
Form: Label
Advantage: Easy to use, facilitates the choice between known products. No
problems with the producing industry.
Disadvantage: No transparency for the user. The evaluation model generally favours one type
of impact (e.g. air pollution). It is rather difficult to change the labels.
Examples: "Blue Angel" in Germany, "Environmental choice" in Canada. A
common European eco-label is planned.
Negative lists
Certain materials with a leading function (their negative effects on humans or on the environment are
considered established) are identified and their use is discouraged.
Form: Lists.
Advantage: Easy to use, not very difficult to establish.
Disadvantage: They give only a limited security to the user, because they are not specific to
the project considered. The conflicts with the industry are inevitable, because their precision is
questionnable .
Examples: Several publications [SCH]
Product declaration
Product labeling
This tool is extensively used for medicaments, food and other consumer goods. The content of the
product in its last production stage is indicated. The only evaluation is the choice of components.
Form: Standardized declaration of the components of a product.

Advantages: Creates a certain transparency for the user. As a specialized tool it stresses the
importance of relevant components. The system works well in the medical and
food sector for people with allergies. It could certainly be generalized for
building materials in relation to allergy risks.
Disadvantages: There is no explicit relation between causes and effects; the user is rather
helpless in the interpretation. The fact that the processes preceding the final state of the
product are not taken into account can lead to wrong decisions concerning the
eco-toxicology of a product.
Examples: Standardized product labeling for building products [SIA]
Life Cycle Analysis

The whole production-use-disposal process of a product is analyzed. The flows are attributed to
products. The input-output equality (balance) assures that nothing gets lost. A product is charged with
- the materials physically present in the product
- the materials physically produced during the whole process (including emissions, waste,
byproducts etc.)
The total primary energy content is a very rough environmental impact indicator. There are several
names in use: eco-balance, material and
energy flow balance, life cycle inventory. [KOH86 and 91a].
Form: Quantitative balances, Inventories

Advantages: The only method to allow -- through clear distinction of flows -- a
controlled application in the design process.
Disadvantages: Complicated to establish. No international agreement on how to situate the
system limits. Without evaluation there is no immediate application in the
design process.
Examples: Methods for life cycle inventory and life cycle analysis [BEW]
Environmental impact assessment
Life cycle impact assessment

To date, the incorporation of environmental quality aspects into management decisions faces two
issues. Firstly, very little factual, quantitative information about environmental quality is available in a
systematic way. Secondly, within the uncertainty which then arises, environmental discussions often
become emotional and disregard important aspects while specific issues are highlighted. "Chemical of
the month" initiatives and fast upcoming environmental waves, issues and fashions prevent long-term
planning of sustainable solutions. LCA has the potential to handle these issues and to achieve
authority in environmental quality assessment. (Quotation from page 3 [SETAC]).
There are different names in use: eco-profiles, environmental profiles.
Form: Quantitative aggregated balances

Advantages: Certain standardized methods allow judgment of the impact of a
building on different parts of the environment, giving a certain
transparency.
Disadvantages: Few methods are sufficiently documented: Some are very specific (e.g. for the
food industry). The results of the evaluation of the different methods are often
fundamentally different. The condition of succes of the system is a large library
of reliable and up-to-date processes and materials, which does not exist yet.
Examples: Life cycle impact assessment method for packaging materials [BUS]
[BRA] [BfK]
The product line analysis (Produktlinienanalyse) developed in [GRIE] is an extension of the life cycle
impact assessment to economic and social aspects.
Impact assessment
The environmental impact assessment methods are rather rigidly standardized methods to analyze the
impact of a process in a specific situation. The method has mainly been used to estimate the impact of
adequate energy transformation technologies and large power plants on a particular site. Similar
techniques are used in transport and road construction.
Form: Different forms from checklists to detailed reporting formats.

Advantages: Correctly used, the method gives the best indications concerning the effects
(impacts) on the environment of a building or a plant.
Disadvantages: The method does not generally consider the use of resources and other upstream
processes (the life cycle aspect).
Example: In the field of the buildings, the British environment assessment for new office
design methods [BRE].
Prototypes
This method derives from the "case based" reasoning techniques developed in artificial intelligence
[RIE]. Most problems have been found to be too complex for decomposition into single units and
traditional optimization techniques have proven incapable of finding solutions. The case based
reasoning technique tries to link the solution of a new problem to the well known solution of a similar
problem.
Form: A data base with analyzed cases.

Advantages: Traditional techniqes being of little use, this technique, which is a
rationalization of the traditional planning by types, is very
promising.
Disadvantage: Still in research.

External costs
On the bases of life cycle inventories and life cycle analyses, the external (social) costs produced by
certain technologies (costs for sickness, destruction of buildings and nature etc.) can be estimated.
These costs can be integrated in the price of energy or they can take other forms (ecobonus etc.). The
proceeds can be applied to encourage other, less harmful technologies or protective measures [HOH]
[WIE].
Form: Price supplements, taxes, ecobonus.

Advantage: The method is market compatible; is gives large possibilities of political action
to avoid or to favor certain technologies.
Disadvantage: The basic data to calculate external costs are so far not sufficiently
complete to overcome political obstacles.
The different tools can be situated in relation to the three mentioned approaches (points of view).
Energy - Economy
9 1 Lists
2 Product labeling
3 Labels
8 4 Environm.Impact ass.
5 5 Life cycle analysis
6 6 Life cycle impact ass.
7 7 Prototypes
8 External Costs
3 9 Global Energy Balances
1
2 4
Human - toxicology Eco - toxicology
Figure 3.13: Tools and points of view.
Consequences for the building process
The different evaluation methods and tools which were described and which are used today generally
concern products with a rather short lifetime (e.g. packaging ). Buildings have particular
characteristics compared to usual consumer products:
- A much longer lifetime: 50-100 years
- A demand for operation during lifetime which is often much larger than the initial
construction demand of materials and energy
- A specific need for energy and materials which is comparatively high
- A large quantity of different techniques used to produce objects for the same
function
- An impossibility to predict the future use, refurbishment and disposal of the
buildings.
short residence time long residence time

quantity (days - week) (years)
quantity
consumer goods (sales)
waste
goods building - stock
buildings
(new ) building waste
stock
1985 1995 2005 1985 1995 2005

Figure 3.14: Residence time of consumer goods and building materials [BAC]
These caracteristics illustrate the need for new, original methods of evaluation and tools in the
building sector. Additional demands are:
- The methods must cover the complexity of actual and future building materials
(composites)
- The methods must rely on rational analysis, be transparent and reproducible.
- The methods must permit integration of specific views and preferences of users.
- The methods must be adapted to the design process.
None of the current tools respond to these demands. The professionals are obliged to use several tools
and to choose the safest (least criticized) solution. Today there are three main approaches to this
problem:
a) The expert approach:

The qualification of a new category of specialists who make decisions on the basis of their
professional knowledge (whatever this means).
b) The comprehensive planning approach:

The development of procedural models in the design process to integrate actual (and future)
knowledge
c) The building product model approach:

The development of new, integrated, computer assisted planning tools (so-called intelligent CAD
sytems).

The author believes that further specialization inside the planning team is not an appropriate solution.
The development of procedural planning models (comprehensive planning) is by now the only
possible solution. This way of planning is relatively complex and can only be used for rather
complicated and large buildings. The case of the common simple building and above all of its
refurbishment is not taken into consideration at all.
The development of intelligent CAD systems (based on building product models) is still in research
[INC].
Proposition for a procedural model
There is a need for planning tools which are adapted to the different phases of the design process,
making accessible to the architect at the earliest possible moment the necessary adapted information.
We are looking for a genuine, generally applicable model which allows integration of quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The model distinguishes 3 levels:
LEVEL 1: construction/transformation/refurbishment
(principle decision)
On this level, the request is analyzed to determine how it can best be satisfied (the need may be
fulfilled by a building or by other means. It is an extension of the actual feasibility study. The
objective is to compare the environmental impact of new construction, transformation or
refurbishment processes. In the case of a demolition, the recycling has to be taken into account; in the
case of a new construction, the additional sealing of natural surfaces has to be considered. In the case
of transformation or refurbishment, the order and frequency of the different measures and their
environmental impact has to be evaluated.
The general questions at this level are: yes/no - when
Phase: before preliminary work

Responsible: owner
Specialist: architect or engineer
Instruments:
The evaluation can be based on the estimation of the specific primary energy consumption for
operation and on the specific primary energy embodied in materials and the construction process.
These data, related to the effective functional surface, can be transformed into energy transformation
related emissions and aggregated in several ways. The emissions related to the process are neglected
at this level. The tools would be indexes in the form of MJ/m2 year of primary energy [KOH87].
LEVEL 2: Building design
At this level, the decisions concerning the functional and constructive solutions as well as certain
general material choices have to be made. From a very general point of view of energy and resource
conscious building, the decision hierarchy could be the following:
1. Reduce the operation energy needs (u-value of walls and of glass; boiler efficiency,
airtightness etc.).
2. Reduce the material quantities in general (e.g. by reducing building mass to the
thermally necessary quantity) and the quantities of energy intensive materials in
particular.
3. Avoid materials and construction techniques implying the use of materials which harm
the environment directly (CFC's in solvents etc.).
The final choice of building components and materials as well as of construction techniques will
depend more and more not only on financial considerations, but also on envrionmental criteria. It is
important to specify the type of evaluation which is going to be used to allow the production industry
to improve or eventually replace their products. In the design process, the most convenient way to
situate these decisions is to add the energetical and environmental data to the financial data on
building elements . By using the element classification for cost planning [CRB] these data can easily
be integrated into the common general building cost planning software. Which energetical and
ecological data will be specifically used is not yet clear. The ongoing research in Switzerland should
produce a catalogue of elements within a year.
Phase: scheme design / detail design

Responsible: the planning team
Specialist: different partners in the planning team
Instruments:
The ideal instrument would be a complete database with existing materials and components and the
necessary energy and environmental data.
Until this database exists, the first estimation could be made according to emission risks (and not
quantities emitted) during the different stages:
- production of materials
- production of components
- construction of home
- use
- refurbishment
- disposal and recycling

This evaluation will rely on the existing material declaration, product list and recommendation
(labels).
LEVEL 3: Production planning
At this level, the local impacts are considered. The performance defined in level 2 has to be achieved
with the most appropiate technology (process and materials). The same element classification as at
level 2 can be used.
The analysis will concern the impacts on the working conditions on site and on the user environment
during operation. Questions about the use of prefabricated elements to reduce local impact (but taking
into account transport) can be answered. In the case of refurbishment with tenants occupying the flats,
these questions will become even more important.
Phase: production planning

Responsible: building direction (architect, engineers, entrepreneurs)
Specialists: constructors, technical coordinator
Instruments:
A distinction has to be made between the tender and the planning of the operations on site. The tender
needs a precise definition of the construction process. The following aspects have to be considered:
- dust
- solvents
- noise
- sealing of ground
- pollution of ground water on site
- impact on fauna and flora on site
Elements (level 2) are composed of materials and operations. The operations can be evaluated at this
level (catalogues). Particularly interesting processes (producing little noise and dirt) could be
documented in the form of Gant diagrams.
economy energy ecology
LINKS BETWEEN DATA
Element BEK Fr / m2 MJ / m2
Refurbishment
Refurbishment D BEK Fr / m2 MJ / m2
Element
Refurbishment D
Refurbishment D
Element
Refurbishment
Element D
Refurbishment D BEK
Element Fr / m2 MJ / m2
Embodied Impact
D = Costs Energy assessmt.
Diagnosis
Figure 3.15: Links between financial, energy and ecological data [LUZ]
Level: Problem: Question: Functional unit: Standart : Evaluation:
New Constr. wether ? m2 surface SIA 416 Costs, external

1 refurbishment when ? (alternative per user, costs, primary
other use ? per bed, per meal) energy, mass flow
detail desig Where ? m2 element CRB-EKG Medium- and

2 What ?
surface effect oriented
evaluation
How much ?
production How ? CRB-NPK Risk-evaluation

building
human- and eco-
3 planning process
toxicological
unit
Figure 3.16. Overview planning levels
Building product models
The integration of new knowledge in the design process is limited by the planning structures as well
as by the planning tools [IWC]. The actual computer aided design systems, being in fact rather
computer aided drawing systems, proved to be inadequate to integrate nongeometrical data. The
different specialized functions like energy simulation, cost planning, scheduling a.s.o. are executed by
specialists with their particular software. Attempts to interface large amounts of specialized software
have not been successful until now. The development of real CAD systems will need the development
of building product models [GIEH].

The basic principles of product modeling come from manufacturing industries, mainly from the
international STEP (Standard Exchange Procedure) efforts.
building
2-room
house
D: sub- E: super- I: mech'l M: finish-

structure structure services ing work
0th floor above electricity, int fittings,
& below 0th floor climate etc.
D2: E1: E4: E5: I2: M1: room

foundation roof ext wall ext access heating division
ground flat roof solid windows, hot water partitions,
floor wall ext doors system int doors
D2.0: E1.4: E4.1: E5.1: E5.2: I2.2: I2.3: I2.4: M1.1: M1.2:
floor slab roof slab wall slab window ext door boiler pipe radiator int wall int door
concrete concrete concrete w/ alum aluminum steel copper cast iron wooden wooden
slab slab slab frame door boiler pipe radiator wall door
reinforce- concrete glass aluminum copper lumber

ment
prestressed mix product'n smelting smelting sawmill
rods
steel cement
water sand bauxite cuprite, timber
Portland etc.
product'n
cement
iron explosive electricity human freight

diesel transport transport
stone coal labor
fuel PW CH LKW CH
smelting dynamite Swiss
(auto) (truck)
iron hydro nuclear fossil,

ore etc.
Figure 3.17 : Example Building product model using a STEP-GARM formalism and the CRB
classification [SN91]
These models have to be useful in a top down process of progressive specialization (design process) as
well as in an bottom up process by composition (production process). The point of departure is
therefore the building in its final state ("as built"). All other states are derived from this state [BJO].
The development of a building product model for a building during its life cycle by using the STEP
GARM approach is discussed in [BED]. Another model, linked to a thermal simulation code, is
presented in the second volume of the Regener final report.
The advantage of these models is that the relations between different parts of the building, between
different phases of its life cycle, between different design levels and between different approaches
(points of view) can be modeled in the same way. Design becomes an activity with a possibility of
anticipation by using default values and scenarios as well as specialization from the whole product to
its basic components (taken out of nature or given back to nature).
Reference
1 values
Level 1:
Programme - Design
brief. Simulation of
use alternatives on
m2 fonction surface
Building
Database of simulation values

Targetspace
2 Level 2 :
Design alter-
natives. Eva-
luation of target
feedback
satisfaction
3 Level 3 :
Production planning.
Evaluation of risks
on process-use
level for users/
workers feedback
Building
process
Optimisation of building costs, energy consumption and environmental impact
A design tool for comprehensive planning - ifib University of Karlsruhe (TH)
Figure 3.18 Overview of the design tool
These tools will not give the "definitive solution" which will never exist in the complex relations
between a building, its use and the environment. They will allow a multitude of different points of
view giving a possibility to judge which solutions fit best into a domain defined by a multitude of
constants.

Conclusion for the the integration of Environmental Impact Assessments Methods in the Design
process of Buildings
There will always be different points of view in the design, the construction, the use and the disposal
of a building. The search for one universal aggregated coefficient covering all aspects makes no sense.
Only design strategies using the existing knowledge in an optimal way (i.e. adapted to the design
process) will be successful.
Today, a comprehensive planning procedure will use different tools in different forms implying much
adaptation between different planning levels and users. Tomorrow intelligent CAD systems, based on
building product models, will allow a much higher degree of integration of knowledge and of
cooperation between actors with different points of view.
Output and visualization
We suggest to distinguish between several kinds of output:

A. output of the detailed model, assumably in profiles
B. evaluation/aggregation of output detailed model and visualization
C. evaluation of several series of output detailed models in order to use as input for design
tools
D. output and visualization of output of design tools
Two features of the possible output in either cases seem to be most important: the values and the
visualization.
Before trying to attractively visualize ecoprofiles it is even more important to try and find values
which represent something 'comprehensible'. Examples as 'use of resources', 'use of energy', 'transport
km's' or perhaps even 'total flow of materials' are probably easier to handle than 'eutrification' or
'greenhouse-effect' because it has a relation with the type of decisions that are made. For example
designers and sometimes even clients are usually almost continuously aware of the total amount of
material their building requires (although not in figures but they have a general picture).
Environmental information which relates to that is far more likely to be 'absorbed' in the design
process and therefore to influence decisions because it requires a minimum of extra effort once the
information is internalized.
Besides the chosen values the visualization of the output is extremely important. Visualization
techniques concerning the output of the detailed model, the ecoprofiles, are limited. A rather complete
inventory will be done and possible advantages and disadvantages will be analyzed.
Evaluation methods are required to simplify the output in an acceptable way. Examples of evaluation
methods are Weight sum, Eramix, Electre and Definite. The latter two are useful non-quantitative data
as well. Some of these evaluation methods have already been described and analyzed.
Methods for visualization
In this section three types of possible visualization of output will be presented and discussed. For
every possible visualization an example of results of three variants of houses A, B and C with their
results on four environmental themes is used (see figure 3.19).
Figure 3.19 results on four environmental problems for three variants of houses
Figure 3.19 shows clearly that the problem rises of how to express in a scientific way differences in
importance of the different environmental problems. In order to show the results of output on one and the
same scale, it is therefore necessary to normalize these results. A reference value for each environmental
problem is then needed. With this, not an absolute value is presented, but for every product a normalized
result with regard to its reference is shown. One way of normalizing is to attribute 100% to the highest value
on an environmental problem and to expres the values of the other variants in percentages of this highest
value. Results of this normalization are shown in figure 3.20.
Figure 3.20: Normalized results of classification
A first way of presenting the normalized result is in ways of histograms. This visualization is presented in
figure 3.21.

With the three variants being shown on four kinds of environmental problems it is already hard to evaluate
which one of the variants shows the best environmental result. If even more then three, for example twelve,
kinds of environmental problems would be considered it is easy to see that an evaluation with this
visualization method is impossible. An environmental evaluation with a presentation based on histograms is
therefore discouraged.
Figure 3.21: Visualization of output in histograms
A second type of visualization is presenting results in a spiderweb which is shown in figure 3.22. With this
kind of visualization every axis represents one of the four environmental problems with 100% being the end
of every axe. The 100% values of the four environmental problems can be connected with a circle as is
shown in figure 3.22.
The point of intersection of the axes corresponds with the 0% value of the environmental problems. For
every variant of houses the values on the environmental problems can be located on the corresponding axes.
Next, the results for every variant can be connected.
Figure 3.22: Visualization of output with the spiderweb method
When looking at figure 3.22 one is declined to prefer variant A and to exclude variant B. However, the
surface covered depends on the order of the themes. This only one of the negative comments on this way of
presentation. Other criticism is heard because of connecting the intersections on the axes. Only the values at
the axes form the environmental performance and not the surface covered by linking these values.
On the other side, it is possible to represent twelve environmental problems with the spiderweb method and
it is fairly easy to compare different variants and to make a decision about them.
A third way of visualization is by means of curves. This visualization can be compared with the spiderweb
but then with parallel axes instead of crossing axes. An example of this presentation is shown in figure 3.23.
Like already was said for the spiderweb method, also in the “vertical curve” method environmental values
consist out of their point at the corresponding axe, while connecting these values is just to make a visual
attractive presentation. This presentation also shows variant B as the worse solution for the environment.
However, making a judgement will be less easy when twelve environmental aspects appear in the figure.
Twelve axes will make the “vertical curve” presentation very difficult to survey. Therefore, a presentation
with this method results in a more difficult evaluation then the earlier mentioned spiderweb presentation.

Figure 3.23: Visualization of output with the vertical curves method
Although the spiderweb method also knows some weak points in its presentation, from the earlier described
three methods of visualization it appears to be rather suitable for presenting the results of an environmental
classification of buildings. In the ECOPRO and EQUER method therefore this spiderweb method is used for
visualizing the output of their environmental calculations on buildings.
Output of ECO-OPT
This tool, developed by IFIB, addresses to architects and engineers during the design phase. A first
design for buildings exists. It assists in making decisions concerning the functional and constructive
solutions as well as certain general material choices. At that moment the first cost estimates have to be
made. ECO-OPT uses the same data as for cost planning.
Output
Output of ECO-OPT is expressed in 8 criteria per m2 and time horizon:
• Resources
- mass flow
- primary energy
• Emissions
- global warming potential
- acidification
• Costs
- direct financial costs
- external costs
• Other impact
- human toxicology
- sealing of ground
• For 3 life cycle phases with an indication of the desired time horizon (from 1to 100)
- operation of the building
- construction and refurbishment of the building
- use of the building
The profile of the criteria can be visualized in different ways, the referent alternative for relative
values be chosen. In the figure 3.24 output of ECO-OPT is shown.
Figure 3.24 Output of ECO-OPT

Figure 3.24 Output of ECO-OPT
Output of EQUER
The model EQUER is developed by Ecole des Mines de Paris, INERIS, DUMEZ, S’PACE and Pierre
Diaz-Pedregal. It applies the LCA method to the building sector because it is adapted to the
determination of the environmental impact of a system and standardisation is in progress (ISO TC 207
SC 5). The project consists in developing a simulation tool which will allow the comparison of
alternative designs. The different phases considered for a buildings life cycle are:
- the fabrication of components
- the construction
- the utilisation
- the renovation and the renewal of components
- the final dismantling
- the treatment after use of components
The possible reuse and recycling of components is also taken into account. A link with the energy
analysis has been established. Domestic waste, heating and lighting, hot and cold water consumption
and transportation of people can be included in the analysis.
Output
The environmental impact of building components or processes can be evaluated on the basis of
comparative ecoprofiles. These ecoprofiles contain the following environmental themes:
- the used resources (e.g. rare materials, energy, water)
- the emissions into air, water, ground (e.g. global warming, acidification, eutrophication potentials,
summer smog indicator)
- the created waste (radioactive and others)
In figure 3.25 output of EQUER is shown. The first image gives the distribution of the global impact
over the different phases of the life cycle (construction, utilisation/renovation and demolition). The
second part is a comparison of several design alternatives. The example given corresponds to the
ecological house « EcoLogis » presented in an exhibition at La Villette Museum, compared to a
reference standard construction in France.
Figure 3.25 a) Output of EQUER, life cycle phases

Figure 3.25 b)Output of EQUER, comparison of alternatives
Output of ECOQUANTUM
ECOQUANTUM is a model developed by W/E and IVAM for calculating the environmental impact
associated with energy and material flows for a building at all phases of its life. The environmental
impact of a building is therefore quantified in energy and material flows. The detailed LCA method is
used in Eco-Quantum, based on the CML guide “Environmentally oriented life cycle analysis of
products”. The ECO-QUANTUM method describes the environmental effects of the currents of
energy and material in a building (other aspects like indoor climate and local environmental aspects
like scent or noise are not taken into consideration). For this calculation a database and quantified data
of environmental data have been set up by W/E consultants sustainable building and IVAM
environmental research.
The input consists of information of building phase (quantified building data, sizes, occupancy, life
time), use and maintenance (maintenance cycle, replacement factor, energy consumption during use)
and demolition phase (separation of waste, type of recycling). The calculation model first generates
quantified data (kg/functional unit; MJ/functional unit).
The second step is to evaluate the environmental impact of the quantified data ( a database of
aggregated data is referred to). A special model is developed for recycling.
The third step is the classification, normalisation and evaluation. In each step default values are given,
but they can be adapted.
Output
In the first step of the ECO-QUANTUM model input of the several variants of houses is being
caluculated to come to the necessary “Output quantities”. In these “Output quantities” the composition
of materials per component, waste, use, energy use and the surface of houses is given.
Ouput of ECO-QUANTUM is given by ways of an environmental profile. This profile is based on the
method of SIMAPRO 3.0 except for two criteria. Criteria from SIMAPRO are:
- Exhaustion of materials
- Exhaustion of energy
- Energy use
- Toxic Waste
- Non-toxic waste
- Radio-active waste
- Greenhouse-effect
- Acidification
- Eutrophication
- Ozone depletion
- Ecotoxicity
- Summersmog
- Human toxicity
The two added criteria in the ECO-QUANTUM environmental profile are:
- Land minimum
- Land maximum
The figure 1 of ECOQUANTUM output shows the amount of outgoing flows for the nine variants of
houses. The outgoing flows are divided in four fractions: dumped waste, burned waste, low-qualified
recycled and high-qualified recycled.
Fstort Fverbranding Frecycling laag Frecycling hoog

200.000
180.000
in kg per woning gedurende de levensduur
160.000
140.000
120.000
100.000
80.000
60.000
40.000
20.000
0
4.HSB/stan
8.HSB/dubo
5.CB/stan
3.KZS/stan
2.Beton/stan
9.CB/dubo
6.Beton/dubo
7.KZS/dubo
1.Referentie

Figure 3.26 Output of ECO-QUANTUM, figure 1
Explanation:
KZS/stan: standard sandlime brick house
Beton/stan: standard concrete house
Referentie: reference house
Beton/dubo: sustainable concrete house
KZS/dubo: sustainable sandlime brick house
CB/stan: standard cement concrete house
CB/dubo: sustainable cement concrete house
HSB/stan: standard wooden frame construction house
HSB/dubo: sustainable wooden frame construction house
Fstort: flows of disposal of waste
Fverbranding: flows of burned waste
Frecycling laag: flows of recylced materials, low level
Frecycling hoog: flows of recycled materials, high level
By linking the Output quantities with environmental data next environmental profiles of the nine
variants are being assessed. The environmental profile consists out of five environmental impacts and
nine environmental aspects. When interpreting the environmental profiles it has to be taken into
consideration that classification methods and data within the LCA systematics are still in
development. This is especially the case for local environmental aspects.
In figure 2 of ECOQUANTUM environmental profiles of four variants of houses are compared. For
every aspect the score of the reference house is fixed on 100%, scores of other variants are related to
this. In figure 2 only the most relevant aspects are shown.
2.Beton/stan 3.KZS/stan 4.HSB/stan 5.CB/stan
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
grondstof- energie- gevaarlijk ongevaar- broeikas- ecotoxi- smog- humane
uitputting gebruik afval lijk afval effect citeit vorming toxiciteit
Figure 3.26 Output of ECOQUANTUM, figure 2
The aspects of this profile are, from left to right:

- Exhaustion of materials
- Energy use
- DangerousWaste
- Non-dangerous waste
- Greenhouse-effect
- Ecotoxicity
- Summersmog
- Human toxicity
These aspects are considered for four types of houses that were already explained in figure 1.
Within ECOQUANTUM it is also possible to look at the influence of processes of materials to the
scores of the reference house. For example, the material-related energy use makes up 15% of the total
energy use of the reference house. In figure 3 materials are shown that contribute mostly to the
material -related energy use.

beton cementmortel kalkzandsteen vurehout overige materialen
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
aandeel in aandeel in gewicht
energieverbruik
Explanation of the figure:

Beton: concrete
Cementmortel: cement mortar
Kalkzandsteen: sandlime brick
Vurehout: deal
Aandeel in energieverbruik: contribution in energy use
Aandeel
Figure 4 of ECOQUANTUM output shows the contribution of different causes to the environmental
profile of the reference house. Causes taken into consideration are material-production, occupating
space, energy during use phase, waste, leaching out during use phase and recycling. The aspect of
leaching out during use phase is especially very interesting in the case of the conrete house , presented
in figure 4.
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
grondstofuitput.
brandstofuitput.
energiegebruik
gevaarlijk afval
REGENER, Design tools

materiaalproduktie
ongevaarlijk afval
ruimtebeslag woning
radioactief afval
broeikaseffect

verzuring
vermesting
afvalverwerking
energie beheerfase
ozonlaagaantast.
ecotoxiciteit
smogvorming
recycling
huname toxiciteit
landgebruik min.
landgebruik max.
uitloging beheerfase
page 89
INTERCODE COMPARISON
Presentation of the exercise
The LCA methodology has been applied in three tools, and it is very useful to compare these three methods
in order to identify possible differences concerning hypotheses, calculations and indicators. Such intercode
comparison exercises help to harmonize methods and progress towards a more precise definition of LCA for
buildings.
A building has been proposed by IFIB because calculations had already been done and data was available. Its
a collective dwelling built in 1950, including 12 appartments and situated in Switzerland. There are three
floors, a cellar and a loft, 36 rooms and a total useful area of 969 m2 (the total floor area is 1128 m2, the
ground surface of the building is 327 m2). The number of occupants is 30.
The indoor temperature is assumed to be constant (20°C). The average temperature is 4.4 °C (3348 degree
days).
The lifetime considered in the studies is 100 years.
The Dutch calculation
W/E consultants has calculated the (potential) environmental load caused by the use of materials and energy
during the whole lifecycle of a building (lifetime is 100 years).
taken into account not taken into account

- construction/demolition waste - domestic waste
- transport of (raw) materials - transport during utilisation
- thermal heating of hot water - waterconsumption
- electricity (installations) - electricity (light)
- thermal heating (space), cooking - construction/demolition activities
- waste-handling - indoor climate
Thermal calculations are performed using a Dutch energy-calculation model (NEN 2917).The building has
been modelled by two zones; the dwelling zone and the cellar. The cellar zone is unheated and not occupied,
but their effect on the heating load of the dwelling are taken into account.
Use of energy Unit one year 100 year

electricity (lighting) kWh 3.616 361.566
electricity (installation) kWh 5.790 579.021
thermal heating (space) m3 gas 13.177 1.317.700
thermal heating (water) m3 gas 4.611 461.100
cooking m3 gas 816 81.600
The assumption for the amount of construction waste is 5% for prefab components, 10% for in situ build
components, and 15% for products like paint and glue. Demolition waste occurs in the utilisation/renovation
stage (replacement) and in the demolition stage. During the whole lifespan the total mass flow of materials
going in is exactly the same as the flow going out.
There is a different scenario for the waste-handling of each combination of materials and components. The
total amount of waste is divided in landfill, incineration, recycling low and recycling high. The gain bij
recycling is the reduced amount of material going to landfill or incineration.
Materialflow Unit Construction Utilisation/renovation Demolition Total

Going in kg / FU 1.911.336 549.862 0 2.461.198
Going out kg / FU 200.861 544.868 1.715.470 2.461.198
* to landfill kg / FU 34.223 101.698 259.586 395.507
* to incineration kg / FU 5.712 47.337 48.520 101.569
* to recycling low kg / FU 142.882 321.145 1.238.327 1.702.353
* to recycling high kg / FU 18.044 74.687 169.037 261.769
FU: Functional Unit (building, 100 years)
The resulting ecoprofile is given for 13 environmental themes and 4 phases of the life cycle.
Ecoprofile Unit Construction Utilisation Renovation Demolition Total

materials energy materials materials
exhaustion of raw mat 672,72 0,00 1.829,69 -0,14 2.502,27
exhaustion of fuel 701,72 8.511,01 402,67 -18,01 9.597,38
use of energy MJ 6.643.903 72.994.855 4.075.998 -145.712 83.569.044
toxic waste kg 4.421,71 82,37 6.103,45 -42,48 10.565,04
non toxic waste kg 199.338 20.854 305.680 256.199 782.072
radioactiv waste kg 36,11 165,30 16,73 -0,02 218,12
GWP100 eq.CO2 1.021.356 4.166.064 477.719 3.505 5.668.644
acidification eq.SO2 3.662,77 6.060,55 2.162,94 -12,54 11.873,72
eutrophication eq.PO4 474,86 527,45 245,81 -0,69 1.247,43
ozondepletion eq.cfc-11 0,0183 0,0000 0,0109 0,0013 0,0305
ecotoxicity m3 9.340.366 0 16.359.759 3.436.118 29.136.243
O3-smog kg 1.408,64 17.255,93 1.446,84 -19,15 20.092,26
human toxicity kg 4.736,83 8.013,47 3.641,97 1,51 16.393,78
Use of EQUER
The building has been modeled by three zones : the dwelling zone, the cellar and the loft. The two last
zones are unheated and not occupied, but their effect on the heating load of the dwelling and their
contribution concerning building materials are taken into account.
Thermal calculations are performed using COMFIE [PEU90]. This multizone thermal simulation tool
calculates the heating consumption of the dwelling (constant 20°C temperature), accounting for heat
exchange with the cellar (and thus the ground) and with the loft. The complete description of the
model is given in annex 1.
The thermal model is complemented in order to account for other environmental impacts (fabrication
of materials, water consumption, waste management). The software EQUALITY allows input of this
data, and provides an input file for EQUER [POL96]. The geometry given in COMFIE for the thermal
calculations is automatically forwarded to EQUER so that the quantities of building materials can be

calculated. A surplus of 10% is considered to account for losses or damage during construction. An
average distance of 100 kms between the factories and the building site is considered.
During the utilisation phase (100 years), EQUER takes into account the impacts related to the use of
the building : consumption of fuel for space and water heating, electricity, cold water, incineration of
domestic waste. The following assumptions are considered :
hot water consumption 40 l / person / day (at 55°C)

cold water consumption 100 l / person / day
efficiency of water distribution 80%
domestic waste production 1 kg / person / day
sorting of paper 20 %
sorting of glass 40 %
sorting of other waste 0%
The number of persons considered in the whole dwelling zone is 30, with a 36% presence each day of
the week and each hour of the day (daily and hourly variation would have been possible in the
method).
No transport has been considered in the study (from home to work or supermarket).
Demolition waste are considered dumped as inert waste.
The resulting ecoprofile is given for 12 environmental themes and 4 phases of the life cycle (cf
following table).
Theme unit construction uilisation renovation demolition total
primary energy GJ 3048 115583 301 91 119023

water m3 2182 206178 3 40 208403
exhaust of natural E-9 0 831 0 0 831
resources
radioactive waste dm3 2 360 0 0 362
other waste t eq. 147 767 37 1204 2155
GWP 100 t eq. CO2 229 5525 16 6 5776
acidification kg eq. SO2 1274 22063 787 62 24186
eutrophication kg eq. PO4 158 2284 138 10 2590
ecotoxicity m3 2578976 49382666 4725 74700 52041067
human toxicity kg 1245 33014 132 89 34480
O3-smog kg 82 823 13 0 918
odour Mm3 36 211994 0 6 212036
The utilisation phase plays an essential role in the global environmental impact of buildings due to
energy, water and domestic waste fluxes. Demolition has an important contribution on waste
production (in this case it is larger than domestic waste production).
Use of ECOPRO
ECOPRO calculations are based upon the elements data base from IFIB (cf annex 2). The heating
load has been calculated using the SIA 380/1 swiss standard method. The results are the following.
They are expressed per m2 used surface.
For the global warming potential the low values in construction phase are due to the use of wood
which has a negative GWP value for wood growing. After demolition the GWP is high because the
CO2 of wood goes back into the C cycle of nature by combustion or by decomposition.
criteria unit construction use maintenance demolition total
costs DM 2270 2580 8256 0 13106
primary GJ 7,53 124 13,42 0,12 22,3
energy
massflow kg 1548 0 1754 0 3302
(input)
GWP100 kg CO2 eq 103 6450 36 491 7080
nutrification kg PO4 eq 0,95 1,44 6,09 0 8,48
acidification kg SO2 eq 6,19 26,8 34 0,02 67
ODP kg R11 eq 0 0 0 0 0
POcP kg ethylen 2,79 5,26 10,3 0,01 18,5
eq
human kg human 13,42 56,8 60 0,03 130
toxicity weight
ecotoxicity kg water 3,92 20,6 13,4 0,03 38
Comparison of results
The indicators considered differ sometimes, e.g. only special waste is considered in ECOPRO,
radioactive and other waste are separated in EQUER, whereas the Dutch calculation gives three
values (toxic, non toxic and radioactive). The synthetic table hereunder considers only indicators for
which at least two methods provide estimations.
Concerning exhaust of natural resources, ECOPRO considers a total flow of materials, the Dutch
model only raw materials and EQUER the indicator defined by CML (i.e. the flow divided by the
planetary resource).
EQUER accounts for impacts related to domestic waste, so that the utilisation phase includes actually
more impacts than the two other methods.

Synthetic presentation of intercode comparison
criteria unit construction utilisation renovation/maintenance demolition total

NL EQUER ECOPRO NL EQUER ECOPRO NL EQUER ECOPRO NL EQUER ECOPRO NL EQUER ECOPRO
primary energy GJ 6,644 3,048 7,297 72,995 115,583 120,001 4,076 301 13,004 -146 91 116 83,569 119,023 140,418
exhaust of nat. t 673 0 1500 0 831 E-9 0 1,830 0 1,700 -0.14 0 0 2,502 831 E-9 3,200
resources
non toxic waste t 199 147 incl - 21 767 - 306 37 - 256 1,204 - 782 2,155 -
toxic
toxic waste kg 4,422 cf above - 82 incl ab. - 6,103 incl. ab. - -42 incl. ab. - 10,565 incl. ab. -
radioactive kg or 36 kg 2 dm3 - 165 kg 360 dm3 - 17 kg 0 - -0,02 0 - 218 kg 362 dm3 -
waste dm3 kg
GWP100 t CO2 eq 1,021 229 0,102 4,166 5,525 6,450 478 16 0,035 4 6 0,491 5,669 5,776 7,08
acidification kg SO2 3,663 1,274 5,998 6,061 22,063 25,998 2,163 787 33,004 -13 62 19 11,873 24,186 65,019
eq
eutrophication kg PO4 475 158 921 527 2,284 1,395 246 138 5,901 -0.7 10 0 1,247 2,590 8,217
eq
ODP kg R11 0,02 - 0 0 - 0 0,01 - 0 0 - 0 0,03 - 0
eq
ecotoxicity 103 m3 9,340 2,579 3,798 0 49,383 20,000 16,360 4,725 13,004 3,436 74,700 29 29,136 52,041 36,831
water
human toxicity kg 4,737 1,245 13,004 8,013 33,014 55,000 3,642 132 58,101 1.5 89 29 16,394 34,480 126,134
human
weight
O3 smog kg eq 1,409 82 2,704 17,256 823 5,097 1,447 13 10,000 -19 0 10 20,092 918 17,811
ethylene
This first intercode comparison exercise of LCA methods applied in the building sector shows large
discrepancies between the methods. Further analysis would be needed in order to analyse the causes of
these discrepancies. Starting from a very simple case and progressively adding elements/processes
seems a relevant approach.
A first step would be to check the different data bases used, and then the calculation of the elements
inventories before checking more global results.

REFERENCES :
[BAC91]Baccini P., Brunner P.H. (1991): “Metabolism of the Anthroposphere“; Springer-Verlag,

Berlin, D, 157 S.
[BED]BEDELL, John; Kohler N.: A Hierarchical Model for Life Cycle Costs of Buildings. CIB
Symposium, Montreal 1992.
[BEW92a] Handbuch:Methodische Grundlagen für Energie- und Stofflussanalysen. Bundesamt für
Energiewirtschaft. 1992.
[BEW92b] Leitfaden: Regeln zur Datenerfassung für Energie- und Stofflussanalysen. Bundesamt für
Energiewirtschaft. 1992.
[BfK]Bundesamt für Konjunkturfragen: Oekoprofil von Holz. Impulsprogr.Holz, Bern, 1989
[BJO] BJOERK, B.C.. A Unified Approach for Modelling Construction Information. to be published
in Building and Environment 1991/92
[BRA]BRAUNSCHWEIG, A : Oekologische Buchhaltung als Instrument der städtischen
Umweltpolitik. CH - Chur, 1988
[BRE] BREAM, British Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method. BRE, Garston,
1990.
[BUS91a] Bundesamt für Umweltschutz: Oekobilanz von Packstoffen.Stand 1990. . Heft 132 . Bern
1991
[BUS91b] Bundesamt für Umweltschutz: Umweltzeichen. Heft 144. Bern 1991
[CRB] Zentralstelle für Baurationalisierung, CRB : Elementkostengliederung. Norm SN 506 502.
Zürich.1990
[GIEH] GIEHLING, W.F.: General reference model (GARM). TNO Report BI-88-150. 1988.
[HOH]HOHMEYER, O: Social costs of energy consumption, , Berlin, 1988
[IWC]International Workshop on Computer Building Representation for Integration . Aix les Bains .
1991.EPFL-LESO Lausanne 1991.
[KOH86]KOHLER N. Analyse énergétique de la construction, utilisation et démolition de bâtiments.
EPFL. Thèse no. 623; Lausanne, 1986
[KOH87] KOHLER,Niklaus: Energy Consumption and Pollution of Building Construction. Third
International Congress on Building Energy Management. EPFL-Lausanne, 1987.
[KOH91]KOHLER N.; Lützkendorf, Th.: Energie und Schadstoffbilanzen von Gebäuden
Schlussbericht Forschungsprojekt BEW. EPFL. Lausanne .1991
[KOH92] KOHLER, N: Oekologische Optimierung im Lebenszyklus eines Gebäudes. Symposium
Baukultur-Wohnkultur-Oekologie. Universität Zürich März 1992.
[KOH94]KOHLER N et al : Energie und Stoffbilanzen von Gebäuden während ihrer Lebensdauer
.Schlussbericht Forschungsprojekt BEW. Ifib - Universität Karlsruhe 1994
[LOV]LOVELOCK, J.E.:Gaia. A new look at life on earth.Oxford 1979.
[LUZ] LUETZKENDORF,Thomas, KOHLER,Niklaus, HOLLIGER Markus : Oekobilanzen und
Elementkostengliederung. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt. 9./ 1992. S. 1701-72

[PEU90] Peuportier B. and Blanc-Sommereux I., Simulation tool with its expert interface for the
thermal design of multizone buildings , International Journal of Solar Energy, 1990, vol. 8
[POL96] Bernd Polster, Bruno Peuportier, Isabelle Blanc Sommereux, Pierre Diaz Pedregal,
Christophe Gobin and Eric Durand, Evaluation of the environmental quality of buildings - a step
towards a more environmentally conscious design, Solar Energy, dec. 1996
[SETAC]Heijungs R. et al (1992): “Environmental life cycle assessment of products; Guide and
Backgrounds (Vol. I +II)“; National Reuse of Waste Research Programme (NOH), CML, Leiden, The
Netherlands, 226 S.
[SN91] Schweizer Norm SN 506 502 (1991): “Elementkostengliederung“; Zürich, CH.
[WICK]WICKE, L. Die ökologischen Milliarden. München 1986
ANNEX 1 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION USING EQUER
****************************************************************
BUILDING
****************************************************************
regener ref
NAME OF THE SAVING FILE : regener
LOCATION : RFA
ALTITUDE : 50m LATITUDE : 48.7∞ LONGITUDE : -6.2∞
METEOROLOGICAL LOCATION : nan
*******************************************
WALLS
*******************************************
south
SLOPE 90∞ ORIENTATION 0∞
INTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : STANDARD ALPHA=0.60 EPSILON=0.90
EXTERNAL BUILDING FINISH : STANDARD ALPHA=0.60 EPSILON=0.90
COMPOSITION : external wall
1.20cm OF Mineral ext. render. K:0.70 W/m/K RO:1800.00 kg/m3 CP:0.25 Wh/kg/K
27.00cm OF Brick K:0.50 W/m/K RO:1600.00 kg/m3 CP:0.25 Wh/kg/K
15.00cm OF Mineral wool K:0.04 W/m/K RO:60.00 kg/m3 CP:0.22 Wh/kg/K
3.00cm OF Mineral int. render. K:0.40 W/m/K RO:900.00 kg/m3 CP:0.22 Wh/kg/K
west
east
SLOPE 90∞ ORIENTATION -90∞
north

COMPOSITION : north external wall
30.00cm OF Aer. concrete block K:0.22 W/m/K RO:600.00 kg/m3 CP:0.29 Wh/kg/K
cellar wall
COMPOSITION : cellar wall
10.00cm OF Polystyrene K:0.04 W/m/K RO:22.50 kg/m3 CP:0.36 Wh/kg/K
0.50cm OF Asphalt sealing K:0.18 W/m/K RO:1005.00 kg/m3 CP:0.47 Wh/kg/K
20.00cm OF B25 concrete K:1.70 W/m/K RO:2355.00 kg/m3 CP:0.31 Wh/kg/K
slab
SLOPE 0∞
COMPOSITION : slab
0.50cm OF Lime sandstone K:0.56 W/m/K RO:1600.00 kg/m3 CP:0.25 Wh/kg/K
roof
SLOPE 0∞
COMPOSITION : roof
2.00cm OF Clay tiles K:0.60 W/m/K RO:1700.00 kg/m3 CP:0.24 Wh/kg/K
3.00cm OF Wood beams K:0.20 W/m/K RO:680.00 kg/m3 CP:0.64 Wh/kg/K
internal wall
COMPOSITION : internal wall
********************************************
ZONES
********************************************
*******************************
* ZONE OUTSIDE *
*******************************
*******************************
* ZONE GROUND *
*******************************
TEMPERATURE : 9∞C
*******************************
* ZONE cellar *
*******************************
OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE : empty

VOLUME OF cellar :780.00 m3
INERTIA OF THE FURNITURE : 0.0 Wh/K
INTERNAL CAPACITIVE WALL : 78.0 m2 OF internal wall
MAXIMAL EXTERNAL VENTILATION FLOW RATE :2.00 VOLUME/h
STANDARD WEEK -% of max FLOW RATE-
HOUR MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SATURDAY
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
STANDARD WEEK -Int HEAT GAINS (W)-

SUNDAY
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Max NUMBER OF PRESENT PEOPLE:0

STANDARD WEEK -% OF PRESENCE-
SUNDAY
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE ZONE cellar IS SURROUNDED BY 3 WALLS
186.0 m2 OF cellar wall BETWEEN cellar AND OUTSIDE
THE ZONE WALL n∞1 IS REACHED BY 0 DISTANT SHADING(S)
NAME OF THE ALBEDO : STANDARD
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
THERMAL BRIDGES : 0.0 W/K
THE WIND EXPOSURE IS NORMAL
1 GLAZING(s)
30.0 m2 OF Double PVC
U:3.00 W/(m2.K) TAU_N:0.85 2 GLAZING(S)
WIDTH : 1.00 m HEIGHT : 1.50 m
276.0 m2 OF slab BETWEEN cellar AND GROUND

K: 60.00 W/K, THERMAL BRIDGES: 80.00 W/K
276.0 m2 OF slab BETWEEN cellar AND dwelling

ORDER OF MATERIALS :
cellar
STANDARD
Mineral ext. render.
Mineral wool
B25 concrete
Lime sandstone
STANDARD
dwelling
THERMAL BRIDGES: 0.00 W/K

THIS ZONE WALL IS A CEILING
*******************************
* ZONE dwelling *
*******************************
OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE : DWELLING

VOLUME OF dwelling :2530.00 m3
INERTIA OF THE FURNITURE :2500.0 Wh/K
INTERNAL CAPACITIVE WALL :786.0 m2 OF slab
SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
HEATING DEVICE :
MAXIMAL HEATING POWER: 50000.0 W
THE THERMOSTAT IS IN ZONE dwelling
STANDARD WEEK -TEMPERATURE (∞C)-
SUNDAY
1 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
2 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
3 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
4 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
5 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
6 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
7 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
8 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
9 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
10 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
11 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
12 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
STANDARD WEEK -TEMPERATURE (∞C)-

SUNDAY
13 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
14 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
16 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
17 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
18 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
19 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
21 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
22 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
23 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
24 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

SUNDAY
1 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
2 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
3 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
4 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
5 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
6 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
7 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
8 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
9 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
10 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
11 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
12 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430

SUNDAY
13 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
14 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
15 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
16 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
17 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
18 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
19 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
20 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
21 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
22 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
23 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430
24 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430 1430

(Negative values if per 100 m3)
SUNDAY
1 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
2 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
3 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
4 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
5 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
6 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
7 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
8 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
9 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
10 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
11 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
12 36 36 36 36 36 36 36

SUNDAY
13 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
14 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
15 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
16 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
17 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
18 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
19 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
20 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
21 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
22 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
23 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
24 36 36 36 36 36 36 36
THE ZONE dwelling IS SURROUNDED BY 6 WALLS

276.0 m2 OF slab BETWEEN dwelling AND cellar
dwelling
STANDARD
Lime sandstone
B25 concrete
Mineral wool
STANDARD
cellar

THIS ZONE WALL IS A FLOOR
80.0 m2 OF south BETWEEN dwelling AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
200.0 m2 OF west BETWEEN dwelling AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
270.0 m2 OF east BETWEEN dwelling AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
80.0 m2 OF north BETWEEN dwelling AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
1 GLAZING(s)
276.0 m2 OF slab BETWEEN dwelling AND loft

dwelling
STANDARD
Mineral wool
B25 concrete
Lime sandstone
STANDARD
loft

*******************************
* ZONE loft *
*******************************
OCCUPANCY SCHEDULE : empty

VOLUME OF loft :330.00 m3
INERTIA OF THE FURNITURE : 0.0 Wh/K

SUNDAY
1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
2 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
7 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
8 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
9 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
10 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
11 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
12 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
13 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
14 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
15 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
16 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
17 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
18 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
19 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
20 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
21 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
22 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
23 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
24 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

SUNDAY
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

SUNDAY
13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
THE ZONE loft IS SURROUNDED BY 4 WALLS

276.0 m2 OF slab BETWEEN loft AND dwelling
loft
STANDARD
Lime sandstone
B25 concrete
Mineral wool
STANDARD

dwelling

THIS ZONE WALL IS A FLOOR
12.0 m2 OF south BETWEEN loft AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 GLAZING(s)
12.0 m2 OF north BETWEEN loft AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 GLAZING(s)
400.0 m2 OF roof BETWEEN loft AND OUTSIDE

ALBEDO: 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0 GLAZING(s)
SUMMARY OF THE SIMULATION RESULTS COMFIE 3.4

*********************************
heating load calculation, regener validation case
External temperature, mean : 7.89∞C , mini: -5.30∞C , maxi: 29.50∞C
total heating load during the period: 72827 kWh

or coefficient B = 0.34 W/(m3.K)
total cooling load during the period: 0 kWh
contribution of the internal gains (persons, lighting,...) : 15087 kWh
estimation of the energy cost for various fuels :
******************************************************************************
* ≥ gas (cond.) * gas * fuel oil * *
* efficiency * 1.00 * 0.80 * 0.80 * *
*price / kWh * 0.23 * 0.23 * 0.19 * *
* cost * 16750 * 20938 * 17296 * *
******************************************************************************
* ≥ coal * wood * electricity * air cond. *
* efficiency * 0.80 * 0.80 * 1.00 * 1.90 *
*price / kWh * 0.23 * 0.14 * 0.73 * 0.40 *
* cost * 20938 * 12745 * 53164 * 0 *
******************************************************************************
results for the different zones:
*******************************************************************************
* zone * heating load * cooling load * min Temp. * max Temp. * mean Temp. *
*******************************************************************************
* * * * * * *
* 1 * 0 kWh * 0 kWh * 7.54∞C * 21.94∞C * 12.21∞C *
* 2 * 72827 kWh * 0 kWh * 20.00∞C * 26.69∞C * 20.59∞C *
* 3 * 0 kWh * 0 kWh * 9.62∞C * 22.90∞C * 13.92∞C *
* * * * * * *
*******************************************************************************
************************************************************
* zone * maximum heating power * maximum cooling power *
************************************************************
* * * *
* 1 * 0 W * -0 W *
* 2 * 27327 W * -0 W *
* 3 * 0 W * -0 W *
* * * *
************************************************************
SUMMARY OF THE LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS EQUER 0.2
****************************************************************************
* IMPACTS FOR THE BUILDING PROJECT : regener ref *
****************************************************************************
¶ Impact ¶ Unit ¶ Construction ¶ Utilisation ¶ Renovation ¶ Demolition ¶

¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ ENERGY ¶ GJ ¶ 3047.5¶ 115582.6¶ 301.2¶ 91.4¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ WATER ¶ m3 ¶ 2182.4¶ 206178.3¶ 2.5¶ 40.4¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ RESOUR.¶ E-9 ¶ 0.1¶ 830.8¶ 0.0¶ 0.0¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ WASTE ¶ t eq ¶ 147.0¶ 766.5¶ 36.5¶ 1204.4¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶RADWASTE¶ dm3 ¶ 1.9¶ 359.7¶ 0.0¶ 0.3¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ GWP100 ¶t CO2 ¶ 229.1¶ 5525.4¶ 15.9¶ 5.7¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ ACIDIF.¶kg SO2¶ 1274.1¶ 22063.1¶ 786.7¶ 62.0¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶

¶EUTROPH.¶kg PO4¶ 158.0¶ 2283.5¶ 138.4¶ 9.6¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ECOTOX-W¶ m3 ¶ 2578976.1¶ 49382665.5¶ 4724.9¶ 74699.8¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ HUMTOX.¶ kg ¶ 1244.7¶ 33013.8¶ 132.0¶ 88.6¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ O3-SMOG¶ kg ¶ 81.9¶ 822.9¶ 12.7¶ 0.1¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
¶ ODOUR ¶ Mm3 ¶ 35.9¶ 211993.9¶ 0.4¶ 6.4¶
¶--------¶------¶--------------¶-------------¶ -------------¶ -------------¶
ANNEX 2 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION
CONSIDERED IN ECOPRO
REGENER
ECOPRO - LCA
Description of the ifib Reference Building
Type of Building : Appartments

Year of construction : 1950
Location : Basel - CH
Material 20 [km]
trans.distance :
Dist. to disposal site : 40 [km]
Number appartments 12 []
:
Number of rooms : 36 []
Number of floors : 3 []
Number of basements 1 []
:
Number of staircases: 2 []
Surface of land : 1040 [m2]

Ground surface of 327 [m2]
bld.
Total surface of 1128 [m2]
floors
Useful surface : 969 [m2]
Construction surface : 169 [m2]
Heated surface : 972 [m2]
Number of occupants 30 []
Average interior 20 [°]

temp.
Average ext. temp. 4,4 [°]
Degree days (12/20) 3348 [°]
Calculated ened energy needs (SIA 380/1) :

Heating energy 277 [MJ/m2 a]
Warm water energy 109 [MJ/m2 a]
Electricity 100 [MJ/m2 a]
Heating energy : gas
Electricty : UCPTE
Type of construction : dimension

Foundations : Concrete
Exterior walls : double wall 12 and 15 [cm]
brick
Insolation : glasswool 12 [cm]
Floors : Concrete 18 [cm]
Roof : wood pitched
Roof surface : tiles
Interior walls : Maconnery 12 [cm]
brick
Concrete 20 [cm]
Windows Plastic
Glass double insolated
Results ECOPRO: per m2 use surface (969 m2) values for 100 year lifetime
Phase : Construct. Mainten. Demolit. Use Constr. Use Total

Criteria : per year per year per year
Costs [DM] 2270,38 8255,93 0,00 2579,98 105,26 25,80 131,06
Primary energy [GJ] 7,53 13,42 0,12 123,84 0,21 1,24 1,45
Massflow (input) [kg] 1547,99 1754,39 0,00 0,00 33,02 0,00 33,02
GWP 100 [kg CO2 Eq] 102,62 35,88 491,01 6450,43 6,30 64,50 70,80
Nutrification [kg PO4 3 Eq] 0,95 6,09 0,00 1,44 0,07 0,01 0,08
Acidification [kg SO2 Eq] 6,19 34,06 0,02 26,83 0,40 0,27 0,67
ODP [kg Eq ] 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00 0,00
POcP [kg Ethylen Eq] 2,79 10,32 0,01 5,26 0,13 0,05 0,18
Humantox [kg human wgt] 13,42 59,86 0,03 56,76 0,73 0,57 1,30
Ecotox [kg Water] 3,92 13,42 0,03 20,64 0,17 0,21 0,38
Results ECOPRO: Percentage per criteria for 100 year lifetim
Phase : Constr. Mainten. Demoliti Use

on
Criteria : [%] [%] [%] [%]
Costs [DM] 17,3 63,0 19,7
Primary energy [GJ] 5,2 9,3 0,09 85,5
Massflow (input) [kg] 46,9 53,1 0,00 0,0
GWP 100 [kg CO2 Eq] 1,4 0,5 6,94 91,1
Nutrification [kg PO4 3 Eq] 11,2 71,8 0,03 17,0
Acidification [kg SO2 Eq] 9,2 50,8 0,03 40,0
ODP [kg Eq ] 5,3 9,1 0,18 85,4
POcP [kg Ethylen Eq] 15,2 56,2 0,04 28,6
Humantox [kg human 10,3 46,0 0,02 43,6
wegt]
Ecotox [kg Water] 10,3 35,3 0,08 54,3

European Methodology For The Evaluation of

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European Methodology For The Evaluation of

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

European methodology for the evaluation of

Environmental impact of buildings

REGENER PROJECT FINAL REPORT

THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

Development of a design tool box

REGENER, Design tools page 1

3. THE INTEGRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT IN THE BUILDING

3.1 TYPOLOGY OF TOOLS ON SUSTAINABLE BUILDING 7

3.2 INPUT PARAMETERS 34

3.3 OUTPUT AND VISUALIZATION 52

REGENER, Design tools page 3

3.4 INTERCODE COMPARISON 90

3.6 ANNEX 1 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION USING EQUER 99

3.7 ANNEX 2 : BUILDING DESCRIPTION CONSIDERED IN ECOPRO 114

The questions that will be met in this chapter are:

REGENER, Design tools page 5

Analysis of the process of design and decision making

REGENER, Design tools page 7

Roles in the building process

Burie (Priemus, 1978) distinguishes four roles:

The client and designer

Division of roles depends on the organisational form

Phasing of the building process

REGENER, Design tools page 9

initiative feasibility por sd pd fd specification price preparation construction completion

Analysis of the decision-making process

REGENER, Design tools page 11

Analysis of the design process

Figure 3.4: Diagram of the design process (W/E consultants, 1996)

Phasing in the design process

REGENER, Design tools page 13

elementary processing cycles

© 1996 W/E consultants sustainable building

initiative feasibility por sd pd fd specification price preparation construction completion

analysis development of materialisation

Formal verification points

Allocation of roles in the urban planning process

REGENER, Design tools page 15

Spatial planning Urban development plan Building plan

Anaysis of environmental aspects

1. Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

REGENER, Design tools page 17

building and material level

2. Environmental Council for the Construction Industry (MBB)

3. RBU project group (Leidsche Rijn 1995)

local environmental quality

4. Ministery of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

REGENER, Design tools page 19

5. Ministery of Housing, Spatial Planning and Environment

Qualitative aspects of design

REGENER, Design tools page 21

Urban development quality

Aspects of such perceived value are:

REGENER, Design tools page 23

A classification of environmental aspects

The stock-taking of environmental aspects in several Dutch instruments on sustainable building

Examples of “flows of substances” in five models used in The Netherlands

Location-specific environmental aspects

REGENER, Design tools page 25

Examples of “location-specific environmental aspects” in five models used in The

Qualitative aspects of design

Examples of “qualitative aspects of design” in five models used in The Netherlands

Tools on sustainable building