Environmental Assessment of
Buildings and Building Developments
- a logical methodology for the world.
5 APPLICATION OF THE METHODOLOGY
Discussion so far has concentrated on the logical basis for environmental assessment of buildings and building developments worldwide. Two central conclusions are that
• issues must be classified by the ultimate (environmental) consequences of ignoring them, and
• more work is required to produce a credible methodology for ranking building developments either relatively or against some absolute standard.
There are many obvious problems in applying even a logically based methodology to environmental assessment. Many central questions remain unresolved. For example,
• to what extent should air conditioning be penalised within an assessment if it used within an inner city project when the alternative might have been development of a rural site?
• what value should be placed on making buildings healthier places to work? One logical answer is a value commensurate with marginal health care costs in the country concerned.
• how should the last pockets of wilderness be valued? For the resources that can be extracted from them or as sources of diversity that might one day prove essential to man's survival?
• how should the transport implications of alternative sites be assessed?
For a methodology whose aim is to produce genuine assessments these types of questions are central and essential. That the questions cannot yet be answered with unique quantitative certainty need not preclude assessments of real buildings. Some answers must be admitted to be qualitative, indicative and uncertain. Yet in contrast to the results from the credit-scoring and arrogant approach of BREEAM they will at least have some chance of being honest.
Thus, much can be achieved already in applying the core methodology of this report to assessment of real developments. The Case Studies mentioned in Section 6 are examples. In the longer term, what is required is a set of rules for applying the core methodology. Some ideas are given that may form the basis of future work. However, there is as yet no way that one building development (or design for a development) may be ranked against another similar scheme in terms of
"A is 25% more environmentally friendly than B"
Central to the rules of application must be the idea that the assessment of primary environmental issues should be broadly the same in all countries. Assessment of secondary environmental issues may be very different even within a single country. Defining the parameters of the assessment, or setting its scope, should include exploring alternatives such as whether the development should proceed at all. This is especially the case for major assessments in developing countries where there may be inadequate local knowledge of the possible consequences of inappropriate development.
Only once the key parameters for the site (or for a single building) have been determined can the assessment proceed. It is not to be expected that each area of concern will have equal importance at each site.
For example, the environmental benefits of reusing contaminated land or a redundant city-centre site may be high in the UK where there is intense pressure on green field sites. Many people now feel that 'enough is enough' in respect of the amount of land taken for building and construction and that development density in the south-east of England has already exceeded a sensible level. Such arguments gain support from projected increases in traffic that may occur with even the current population density. Any suggestion that there should be no more building in the south-east except for sensible reuse of existing sites would rank as a strategic decision within the remit of mainstream EIA.
In other countries, or even within the same country, there may be quite different local pressures and a similar building development could be assessed quite differently.
There are essentially two steps:
• deciding whether the development in any form should proceed and
• deciding what is the least harmful design given site constraints and functional requirements.
Similar problems apply in the area of building materials - what is a suitable and benign material in one country may have a locally preferred alternative elsewhere. Different climates dictate different requirements for building materials and it is therefore to be expected that no single material or group of materials will emerge as preferred in environmental terms.
Probably the best way to proceed to a set of rules for application of the core methodology is to recognise that many different disciplines may have an input into deciding how a particular building or development should be assessed. Amongst the many factors to be considered are architecture, ecology, buildings and materials science, landscape architecture, town planning, local amenity, architectural quality, wildlife and countryside conservation, energy, and health of building occupants.
It is proposed therefore that assessment modules be developed for all of the key areas and that an overall assessment would result from applying the criteria and tests within each relevant module yet within a unifying framework derived from classification of issues. The role of the scoping exercise would be to decide which of the modules were the most important to be applied to the particular development, including the extent of relevance to any country.
Primary modules would be substantially the same in all countries. The relevant secondary modules would be chosen according to local conditions. Some modules, for example for the total energy implication of using the site, would be numeric and buildings or developments could be ranked. Most would be qualitative but with the building or development tested primarily against those criteria judged most relevant. The modules might develop broadly as follows:
PRIMARY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Energy (including transport energy and acid rain)
Ozone
Species diversity (endangered species and uses of some materials)
Sensitivity of site (rural heritage, SSSI and similar designations)
**************************************************************
SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
Architectural quality
Landscape
Town planning (including transport implications of the site)
Local wildlife (not endangered species)
Materials (all recycling, and primary materials not linked to species loss)
Flexibility of fabric and plant (change of use of building)
Water conservation
*************************************************************
HEALTH ISSUES
Internal air and water quality
Lighting
Internal layout
Noise
**************************************************************
OPERATIONAL PHASE
Management of energy systems (HVAC systems)
Management of waste streams (emissions)
Management of site (wildlife)
Management of transport policy for the Company and the site