This article was downloaded by: [University College Dublin]

On: 07 November 2013, At: 07:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Using an integrated performance approach in building

assessment tools
a a
Thomas Lützkendorf & David P. Lorenz
a
Department of Economics and Business Engineering , Institute of Sustainable Management
of Housing and Real Estate, University of Karlsruhe (TH) , Kaiserstrasse 12, D-76218,
Karlsruhe, Germany E-mail:
Published online: 03 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Thomas Lützkendorf & David P. Lorenz (2006) Using an integrated performance approach in building
assessment tools, Building Research & Information, 34:4, 334-356, DOI: 10.1080/09613210600672914

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613210600672914

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (2006) 34(4), 334– 356

Using an integrated performance approach

in building assessment tools

Thomas Lu«tzkendorf and David P. Lorenz

Department of Economics and Business Engineering, Institute of Sustainable Management of Housing

Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013

and Real Estate, University of Karlsruhe (TH), Kaiserstrasse 12, D-76218 Karlsruhe,Germany
E-mails: thomas.luetzkendorf@wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de and david.lorenz@wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de

The shift from ‘green building’ to ‘sustainable building’ entails a number of great challenges and opportunities for the
developers and users of planning and building assessment tools. The current assumption is that a new generation of
building assessment tools is required to meet the current and forthcoming requirements associated with the
description and assessment of each building’s contribution to sustainable development. Existing design and
assessment tools do not address the many economic, social and performance facets over the life span of a building,
and do not provide building assessment results for all dimensions of sustainable development. Different assessment
tasks within the design process are analysed, and approaches for the further development of building assessment tools
are considered. The integration into a ‘job-sharing approach’ with other instruments and measures of the design,
construction and management phase are proposed. A proposal for a comprehensive system for the description and
assessment of ‘integrated building performance’ is offered. Recommendations are given for its implementation within
the next generation of building assessment tools.

Keywords: assessment tools, green building, integrated building performance, life cycle, performance-based building,
sustainable building, sustainable development

Le passage du ‘bâtiment écologique’ au ‘bâtiment durable’ implique un certain nombre de défis majeurs et offre aux
promoteurs et aux utilisateurs l’opportunité de planifier et de développer des outils d’évaluation. Dans l’hypothèse
actuelle, il faut mettre au point une nouvelle génération d’outils d’évaluation des bâtiments pour répondre aux
exigences actuelles et futures relatives à la description et à l’évaluation de la contribution de chaque bâtiment au
développement durable. Les outils de conception et d’évaluation actuels négligent de nombreux aspects économiques,
sociaux et fonctionnels qui jalonnent la durée de vie d’un bâtiment et ne fournissent pas les résultats de l’évaluation
des bâtiments pour toutes les dimensions du développement durable. Dans cet article, l’auteur analyse différentes
opérations d’évaluation dans le cadre du processus de conception et envisage des méthodologies permettant
d’améliorer le développement des outils d’évaluation des bâtiments. Il propose l’intégration dans une approche
‘partage des travaux’ avec d’autres instruments et mesures de la phase de conception, construction et gestion.
L’auteur propose un système global de description et d’évaluation des ‘performances de bâtiments intégrés’. Il fait
également des recommandations relatives à la mise en œuvre dans le contexte de la nouvelle génération d’outils
d’évaluation des bâtiments.

Mots clés: outils d’évaluation, bâtiment écologique, performance des bâtiments intégrés, durée de vie, bâtiment basé sur
les performances, bâtiment durable, développement durable

Introduction range of issues (functionality, urban and design qual-

For more than 20 years, there has been a debate on the ities, energy demand, resource depletion, environ-
possibilities, necessity and extent of integrating a wide mental impacts, environmental and health protection)
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2006 Taylor & Francis
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/09613210600672914

into building assessments. One of the key questions
within this debate is how to provide designers, planners
and decision-makers with the information required so
that they can address these issues appropriately. Due
to the increased implementation of the principles of
sustainable development within the construction,
property, finance and banking sectors, and the result-
ing informational demands of the actors involved, the
debate on appropriate building assessment tools and
their further development deserves further attention.
This paper details the development of building plan-
ning and assessment tools, considers current questions
that are likely to set the agenda for the further develop-
ment of these tools, and provides recommendations to
respond to forthcoming challenges and problems. It is a
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
position statement written from a subjective viewpoint
in order to contribute to the structuring and clarifica-
tion of this long-running debate.
The focus is on building assessment tools that evaluate
a single building’s contribution to sustainable develop-
ment; thus, the assessment object is the single building
and the associated plot of land. It is assumed that the
investment decision(s) regarding the building’s location
has already been made when assessment and planning
tools come into play.1
These preliminary remarks need to be kept in mind in
order to understand both the purpose of this paper as
well as its restrictions with regard to an extremely
wide scope of the subject-matter ‘building assessment
and sustainable construction’.
A proposal is put forward for next-generation design
and building assessment tools that are capable of
assessing a single building’s contribution to sustainable
development. Integrated assessment tools have the
potential to capture all dimensions of sustainable devel-
opment that are linked with databases and calculation
algorithms and which can be applied at the design stage
as well as throughout the whole building’s life cycle.
A brief classification and typology of assessment tools
and instruments that can be used to support sustainable
design and construction is provided. The likely conse-
quences of a range of developments on existing tools
are considered for the impacts on the next generation
of tools and the implications for researchers and tool
developers. This is followed by a discussion of new
and some existing (but still highly topical) problems
regarding building design and assessment tools in
general. Possible solutions are provided to address
forthcoming challenges and introduce the authors’
own approach of integrated design and assessment
tools that emphasize assessment and optimization
tasks that occur during different decision-making pro-
cesses along a building’s life cycle. The resulting conse-
quences for the further development of the concept of
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
the building life cycle as well as with regard to relevant
assessment categories are identified. How assessment
tools can be integrated into a ‘job-sharing approach’
with other supportive measures and instruments (e.g.
checklists, building passports, information systems,
etc.) is also considered. It is argued that the application
of integrated design and assessment tools can greatly
assist in consolidating and improving property pro-
fessionals’ knowledge and active services provided
over the life of buildings.
Classi¢cation and typology of assessment
tools and supporting instruments
Existing design and assessment tools have been fre-
quently described, evaluated and comparatively ana-
lysed (e.g. IEA, 2001; Todd et al., 2001; Kats et al.,
2003; Cole, 2005; Peuportier and Putzeys, 2005)
and existing assessment tools are under continuous
review by the European Thematic Network on Practi-
cal Recommendations for Sustainable Construction
(PRESCO).2 Given their variety, it seems, however,
reasonable to provide a classification and typology of
assessment tools and supporting instruments.
Classi¢cation of instruments
A number of supporting instruments are available and
frequently applied in practice:
. positive and negative/plus and minus lists of build-
ing products and construction materials
. recommendations and exclusion criteria for tender-
ing purposes
. element catalogues including assessment results for
building components
. labels for building products and construction
works
. checklists to support the design and planning
process
. guidelines, case studies and examples of best
practice
. codes, regulations and standards
. energy certificates, building passports and
documentation3
Typology of assessment tools
Design and assessment tools can be classified according
to the following aspects:
335
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
. Dimensions of sustainable development (i.e. does
the tool solely focus on environmental aspects or
does it additionally assess economic, social, techni-
cal and functional aspects?
. Phases of the building life cycle (i.e. does the tool
cover all phases of the building life cycle or is it
focused on single parts or time frames,
respectively?)
. Integration of design and assessment issues (i.e.
does the tool focus on the assessment process
only, or is it linked to computer-aided design
(CAD) software and therefore capable of calculat-
ing assessment inputs internally?)
Nature of the assessment (i.e. does the tool
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
.
predominantly use qualitative or quantitative
information, or a balanced combination of the
two?)
. Level of detail or the extent of aggregation, respect-
ively (i.e. to what extent does the tool summarize
or aggregate assessment results?)
. Nature and breadth of assessment results (i.e. does
the tool deliver an energy certificate, building pass-
port and/or an assessment report, and does it
additionally provide any label for building pro-
ducts or construction works?)
. Applicability for the assessment of existing build-
ings (i.e. is it possible to use the tool to assess an
already existing building and/or does it even
allow for the application of the accompanying
entire building life cycle?)
For a more detailed description and explanation of
assessment tools’ typologies, see IEA (2004).
Existing building assessment tools and
current requirements
From science to practice
The demand for building assessment results no longer
stems from a predominantly scientific interest, nor is
it focused solely on environmental aspects. The shift
from green to sustainable building approaches and
the linkage of assessment results with far-reaching
financial aspects (e.g. taxation, lending and insur-
ance, valuation and reporting) will impose stricter
requirements in terms of the traceability, liability,
comparability, certainty and extent of building
assessments.
Within the scope of implementing and propagating
initially a ‘green’ and later sustainable design, con-
struction and management of buildings, part of the
336
scientific community was strongly focused on the
development, application, and analysis of environ-
mental and/or energy-related design and assessment
tools. This development took place within relative
autonomy – independently from typical design and
assessment procedures – without taking into
account other (non-environmental) planning tasks
and existing design tools. Existing environmental
and energy-related tools have been predominantly
developed at universities and by research establish-
ments and, thus, do not necessarily serve today’s
decision-makers’ information demand. Although
architects, construction industry representatives and
marketing experts did participate in the development
and testing of these assessment tools, the tools’ appli-
cation leads to a mismatch of information supply and
demand. This is because the end users of information
(e.g. investors, property valuation professionals,
banks or insurance agencies) have neither fully recog-
nized nor appropriately formulated their particular
requirements for assessment results associated with
investment decisions, property valuations or risk
assessments. However, this situation is currently
changing. For example:
. property valuation professionals, rating agencies
and banks are now beginning to integrate aspects
of a building’s sustainability into property valua-
tion and risk assessment processes
. increasing number of companies and corporations
aim to demonstrate their contribution to sustain-
able development by using self-occupied property
assets as an example of best practice and leadership
. suppliers and auditors of socially responsible
investment products increasingly require proof of
the economic, environmental and social advan-
tages of these products (e.g. sustainable property
funds or real estate investment trusts)
At the same time, the European Commission
encourages Member States to take a leading role in
the area of implementing principles of sustainable
development in the property and construction
sector. Member States will introduce sustainability
requirements in their own tendering procedures,
and when public funds are designated for build-
ings and other construction works. Furthermore,
Member States are encouraged to introduce respect-
ive tax credit schemes and regulatory mechanisms
as well as to assist the implementation of other econ-
omic instruments (e.g. favourable banking and insur-
ance products, advantageous interest and insurance
rates) that support sustainable development in prop-
erty and construction (European Commission,
2004a). Furthermore, the European Commission
plans to widen the scope of energy performance

certification by incorporating further building-related
information:
[The European Union directive on the energy
performance of buildings] should be extended
to include other key environmental and sustain-
ability elements, such as indoor air quality, acces-
sibility, noise levels, comfort, environmental
quality of the materials and the life-cycle cost
of the building. It should also include the
ability of the building to resist environmental
risks, such as flooding, storms or earthquakes,
depending on their location.
(European Commission, 2004a, p. 22)
As a consequence of these developments, there is an
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
increased demand for comprehensible assessment
results and applicable tools that can be used to validate
a single building’s contribution to sustainable develop-
ment or their economic, environmental and social
advantages. The linkage of assessment results with
far-reaching financial aspects (e.g. taxation, lending
and insurance conditions, valuation and reporting)
will change the role of assessment tools and impose
stricter requirements in terms of the traceability, liab-
ility, comparability and certainty of assessment
results. In addition, assessing a building’s contribution
to sustainable development requires an integrated
building performance approach that allows one to
describe and assess buildings with respect to all dimen-
sions of sustainable development including aspects
of functionality and serviceability as well as the
quality of planning, construction and management
Figure 1 Integrating sustainability aspects into an overall framework
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
processes. Figure 1 illustrates the authors’ proposed
framework.
From appraisal to design tool
Existing assessment tools have been and still are
applied in addition to conventional planning and
design tools used by practitioners. This causes an infor-
mation delay that hampers the optimization of design
sketches and solutions during the whole design and
planning process. A closer integration of assessment
tools and design tools can be expected.
Typically, assessment tools are not well integrated into
the design and decision-making processes because they
cannot be easily applied during the design phase. Nor-
mally, assessment tools are used by external specialists
towards the end of the design in order to evaluate the
results. (Consequently, an information delay arises
that hampers the optimization of design solutions.)
To enable assessment tools to influence the design of
buildings, further development is required to allow
architects and engineers to use them to compare differ-
ent solutions or optimizing sketches and designs during
the whole design process including the very early
phases of conception or pre-design. Figure 2 portrays
how assessment tools can be integrated into the
design and procurement process.
Feelings or figures?
The application of many existing assessment tools does
not provide (in an integrated and quantitative manner)
building owners, tenants or decision-makers with
337
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
Figure 2 Towards an integrated construction and assessment approach
appropriate information on the impacts of their actions
and decisions on the environment, on building users’
health and well-being as well as on construction
costs. This restricts the possibility of increasing the
actors’ motivation as well as their willingness and
ability to take individual responsibility.
The market prefers tools that are predominantly based
on qualitative information because of their ease of use
(which saves cost and time) and because their assess-
ment results can be easily applied for marketing pur-
poses. In addition, these tools can be applied to
assess existing buildings with only minor adjustments
of their check-list-type compiled requirements.
However, their main disadvantage is that they do not
provide building owners or tenants with appropriate
information on the impacts of their actions on the
environment. Statements describing impacts are
missing, e.g. ‘tons of CO2 emission per capita, per
m2, per m3 and for housing purposes per annum’. In
addition, it is not possible subsequently to use qualitat-
ive assessment results for aggregation purposes at
another level (e.g. community or national building
stock). In contrast, life cycle analysis (LCA)-based
tools are capable of demonstrating the impacts of
actors’ actions on the environment by using appropri-
ate reference values.
By demonstrating how energy and mass flows or
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are caused through
individual actors’ decisions and actions, LCA-based
tools will potentially increase actors’ motivation as
338
well as their willingness and ability to take self-
responsibility. Furthermore, assessment results of
LCA-based tools can be used for aggregation purposes
at the community or building stock level. However,
existing LCA-based tools have been solely focused on
the assessment of new buildings at the design and plan-
ning phase or shortly after completion. Methodical
problems exist in connection with the assessment of
existing buildings (e.g. the treatment of embodied
energy). Another problem regarding LCA-based tools
is that although approaches such as the ‘Ecoindicator’
or ‘environmental impact scores’ exist, there is a lack of
a commonly accepted method for summarizing or
aggregating assessment results. In sum, there is a con-
flict between researchers’ claims and marketing
demands that hampers the use of LCA-based results
for marketing purposes.
A number of other instruments and tools for calculating
building construction costs – on a national building
cost data basis – have existed for a long time. In
many cases, these instruments and tools have now
been extended to allow for a calculation and assessment
of life cycle (LCC) or whole-life costs (WLC). However,
due to the complexity of integrating the LCA and
LCC/WLC methodology, only a few tools exist that
allow for a combined determination and assessment
of environmental and economic issues within the
design and planning phase, e.g. OGIP from Switzerland
and LEGEP (previously named LEGOE) from
Germany.4 Kats et al. (2003, p. 8) consider LEGOE
as one of the ‘most rigorous science-based LCA tools’.

Existing LCA-based tools do not typically account for
the risks to occupants’ and human health. The inte-
gration of social issues usually is limited by the lack
of algorithms available (except for predicted mean
vote and predicted percentage of dissatisfied), which
allow for an assessment of thermal comfort).
Exchange of information between stakeholders
The wide array of different demands for assessment
results during the building life cycle will require
extending assessment tools’ features to include, for
example, data storage facilities or provisioning of
assessment results within different communication
formats and in different levels of aggregation.
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
The demand for building-related information and
assessment results differs between the various groups
of actors in the property and construction sector. In par-
ticular within buyers’ and tenants’ markets, marketing
divisions and estate agents will have an increased inter-
est in highly aggregated and easily communicable
assessment results (i.e. labels) in order to demonstrate
building quality or to gain a competitive advantage,
respectively. Simultaneously, designers need detailed
assessment results and powerful analytical facilities in
order to optimize design solutions. Detailed environ-
mental and health-related building information is
needed during the design and decision-making
process. Information on investment and subsequent
operating costs is usually requested during the planning
phases. Facility mangers and building operators need
up-to-date information during the life cycle of the build-
ing to observe current trends and to conduct compari-
sons of targeted and actual building performance.
Consequently, there is a demand for assessment tools
with combined data storage facilities to meet an array
of different demands: the updating and enhancing of
relevant information, as well as the production of up-
to-date assessment results during all stages of the build-
ing’s life cycle. Furthermore, assessment tools will need
to be capable of producing results in different communi-
cation formats and in different levels of aggregation.
Need for comparability and standardization
Due to an inconsistent use of assessment criteria and
indicators within existing tools, there is a need for
the standardization and transparent description of
assessment tools and methods. This will substantially
increase the tools’ comparability and allow for more
robust benchmarking of assessment results.
Within the scope of international and European stan-
dardization activities at the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO) and the European Commit-
tee for Standardization (CEN), intense efforts are
currently being undertaken to standardize the descrip-
tion and assessment of the environmental performance
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
of buildings. These standardization activities are a
response to an extremely inconsistent use of assessment
criteria and indicators within existing tools and
methods. As a result of the work of ISO TC 59/SC
17, Sustainability in Building Construction, a standard
will soon be available (ISO, 2005a) that offers a
methodology for the further development and harmo-
nization of environmental design and assessment
tools. In addition to the information concerning
energy and mass flows and environmental impacts,
particular risks (for the environment and for occu-
pants/users) will need to be described and assessed in
the future. The operational processes necessary to
maintain and improve these characteristics (e.g. pro-
cesses of continuous improvement and environmental
management systems) will also need to be included in
the assessment process.
Furthermore, in order to improve the quality of infor-
mation within building assessments, current efforts
(e.g. within the scope of ISO TC 59/SC 17, but also
at national levels) are undertaken to harmonize data
requirements for construction products and materials
with the forms of provision and preparation of infor-
mation on these products and materials. This allows
for the adjustment and fine-tuning of assessment indi-
cators. A trend can be observed towards the develop-
ment of national databases for building product
information. In turn, design and assessment tools will
need to adjust or modify data structures and allow
for the transfer of data from these national databases.
Issues for next-generation building
assessments
The international discussion process concerning the
course of the further development of design and assess-
ment tools is currently being readdressed (e.g. Cole,
2005). The discussion is influenced by the current
state of development of existing assessment tools and
by the increasing demand for assessment results that
describe the contribution of single buildings to sustain-
able development. Several important questions are
considered below.
Mandatory or voluntary assessment
The question whether assessing the contribution of
buildings to sustainable development remains a volun-
tary activity or becomes a mandatory exercise required
by legislators or other powerful parties (such as banks
or insurance agencies) will significantly impact on the
further development of assessment tools. At first, the
answer to this question depends on different ‘cultures
of decision-making’ within various social and economic
systems that rely on governmental influence or market
forces. However, a more detailed analysis reveals that
both models currently tend into very similar directions.
339
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
Today, countries that exhibited a traditionally high
degree of state involvement are now facing pressure
to deregulate markets by reducing the number and
scope of laws and regulations. However, deregulation
implies the need to strengthen actors’ and market par-
ticipants’ capacity for responsibility. This in return
requires that actors and market participants are
vested with appropriate information and decision
support. For this reason, a trends towards strengthen-
ing consumer rights can be observed in Europe. The
aim of recent legislation is to safeguard consumers by
providing them with information and thereby allow
more responsible and informed decisions. This is to
overcome information asymmetries and the intercon-
nected problems of adverse selection. An example of
this is the introduction of energy performance certifi-
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
cates. These certificates characterize a building’s
energy quality based on its primary energy demand
and/or consumption. From 2006 onwards, these certi-
ficates will be required for each building constructed,
sold or rented (European Commission, 2002).
At the same time, many governments understand they
have a leading role in their capacity as a client with
regard to the implementation of the principles of sus-
tainable development. Consequently, they are making
positive efforts to demonstrate and communicate that
the construction and/or modernization of federal or
state-owned buildings follows these principles. A
number of countries (e.g. Japan, Germany, the UK,
the Netherlands, etc.) already possess guidelines on
the design and assessment of new buildings as well as
of the existing building stock. These guidelines are
usually supported by appropriate assessment tools.
Normally, the application of these guidelines and
tools as well as the publication of respective assessment
results is then mandatory for state-owned buildings
and construction projects. Subsequently, guidelines
and tools are partially adopted and applied by the con-
struction and property industry.
Within countries that traditionally relied more on
market forces (e.g. the US and the UK), the description
and assessment of buildings’ environmental qualities
has been introduced on a voluntary basis in order to
gain a competitive advantage by signalling the advan-
tageous characteristics of the buildings offered in the
market place. As knowledge about the financial
benefits of sustainable buildings becomes more wide-
spread within the commercial property industry,
coupled with a growing number of corporations, finan-
cial institutions (UNEP FI, 2005) and private investors
involved with corporate social responsibility (CSR)
and socially responsible investment (SRI), sustainable
buildings will become more desirable property assets
in future years. Thus, a link will emerge between the
market value of a building and its sustainability fea-
tures and related performance (McNamara, 2005a;
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, 2005).
340
A recent survey of fund managers from around the
world conducted by Mercer Investment Consulting
revealed that the use of positive screening for environ-
mental, social and ethical factors is entering main-
stream investment analysis, particularly where such
screening may potentially yield superior financial per-
formance by targeting companies that adopt socially
responsible practices, and thereby avoid future liabil-
ities and losses (Ambachtsheer, 2005).
Closely connected with the trend to adopt SRI and CSR
is the development of ethical and social reporting
guidelines. Respective guidelines have been developed
and published by the Global Reporting Initiative and
by the Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility.5
In addition, a number of stock indices now track the
financial performance of ‘sustainability driven’ compa-
nies (e.g. the ‘Dow Jones Sustainability Index’ and the
‘FTSE4Good Index series’). Due to the trend in SRI and
CSR, inclusion in one of these indexes is perceived to be
highly beneficial for company stock performance and
thus for company shareholders. For example, to
become included in the FTSE4Good Index, companies
are assigned a high, medium or low impact weighting
according to their industry sector (e.g. construction
companies are ranked among the high, property
developers among the medium-impact sectors). The
higher the environmental impact of the company’s
operations, the more stringent are the inclusion cri-
teria. Companies must meet certain environmental
and social/stakeholder requirements (e.g. strategic
moves towards sustainability, the identification of sig-
nificant environmental impacts, environmental per-
formance measured against targets) from three core
areas: corporate policy, management and reporting.
Thus, construction companies, property firms or real
estate funds that want to be included within the
index must identify, describe and assess the impacts
of their actions and business processes (e.g. the
environmental and social performance of the buildings
they develop and construct).
As a consequence of these developments, it is clear
that – regardless whether the eco-model is based on
governmental influence or market forces – an increas-
ing demand is being created for sustainability assess-
ment and products. In a market-led society without
legislative demands, market participants want valid
information and an assessment of a building’s con-
tribution to sustainable development, as this is per-
ceived to add value.
Building assessment for risk analyses and property
valuation
The application of new banking capital adequacy rules
called Basel II requires banks to take a much more
sophisticated approach with regard to the risks in
lending (BCBS, 2004). As a consequence, so-called

property ratings will increasingly be conducted for
lending purposes.6
The European Group of Valuers Association
(TEGoVA) recently developed a property and market
rating system that is likely to become influential
for European property lending practice (e.g. the
German Association of Public Banks (VÖB) has
already adopted and further developed TEGoVA’s
rating system (Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken
Deutschlands, 2005). The mortgage bank HypoVer-
einsbank has also implemented a rating system that is
in accordance with TEGoVA’s proposal). TEGoVA’s
rating system contains four different criteria classes
(market, location, property and quality of the property
cash flow), up to four levels of subcriteria classes and it
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
employs a rating scale that ranges from one (excellent)
to ten (disastrous). Table 1 shows that the criteria class
3 ‘Property’ contains the rating criterion ‘ecological
sustainability’.
Unfortunately, what is meant by ecological sustainabil-
ity and the issue of how to assess it is neither defined nor
explained within TEGoVA’s publications. However,
the rating proposal of VÖB, which is currently being
implemented by public banks across Germany, defines
three subcriteria of ecological sustainability that will
have to be assessed: building materials, energy perform-
ance and emissions. Critics may argue that 10% out of
20% is a very modest start. However, both rating
approaches contain (slightly different) so-called
‘dynamic risk weight functions’, i.e. the basic weighting
assigned to each indicator or subcriteria class is flexible;
the more the rating score deviates from the average, the
more significantly it impacts on the overall rating
results. This is done to reflect the circumstance that a
high level of exposure to one particular hazard is
usually perceived to have a greater impact on the
outcome of a property investment or on the property’s
selling or letting prospects respectively (e.g. a property
with very good overall structural condition and fitout,
etc., would achieve a good rating for the criteria class
‘Property’; however, if the property’s location is ‘disas-
trous’ then this circumstance deserves more attention).
As a result of applying dynamic risk weights, a particu-
lar indicator that is originally assigned secondary
importance can have a great impact on the overall
Table 1 The European Group of Valuers Association’s (TEGoVA) property and market rating, criteria class 3 ‘property’ (TEGoVA, 2003)
Subcriteria
3.1 Architecture
3.2 Fitout
3.3 Structural condition
3.4 Plot situation
3.5 Ecological sustainability
3.6 Pro¢tability of the building concept
Result for the property rating
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
rating result. For example, a ‘disastrous’ or ‘excellent’
rating of the criterion ecological sustainability can
change the overall result by several points. Given that
the rating scale ranges from one to ten, sustainability
issues can, indeed, have a strong impact on the banks’
assessment of the risks associated with property
lending and, thus, on lending decisions as well as
conditions.
Similarly, property ratings (that partially rely on build-
ing assessment results) can be used by property valua-
tion professionals in order to identify risks and to
transform these risks into risk premiums when
calculating yields – particularly when there is insuffi-
cient comparable transaction evidence available – for
the capitalization or discounting of the rental income
generated by the building under investigation (Lorenz
et al., 2006). This approach to property valuation is
hampered by the difficulty of exploring the functional
relationship between a building’s market value and its
environmental and social characteristics. These
difficulties are primarily due to data limitations, i.e.
transaction data associated with detailed information
on the building’s different performance aspects simply
do not yet exist (Lützkendorf and Lorenz, 2005). None-
theless, the importance of addressing sustainability
issues within property valuations has been identified
by one of the leading organizations for property pro-
fessionals, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
(RICS) and by a number of researchers and prac-
titioners (for more information on sustainability in
property investment and valuation, see Jayne and Sker-
ratt, 2003; Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
2004, 2005; Sayce et al., 2004; Pivo and McNamara,
2005; McNamara, 2005b; and Parnell, 2005).
Thus, there are now several groups of actors (banks,
rating agencies, advisors and valuers) that will soon
fully detect their need for robust building assessment
results.
Complex versus simple assessment tools
Two different approaches are currently postulated for
the further development of assessment tools. On the
one hand, there is a desire for more complex and
robust assessment tools. On the other hand, there is a
Weighting (subcriterion) (%) Weighting (criteria class) (%)
20
10
15 Criteria class 3
25 20
10
20
100
341
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
need for a more simple assessment process and presen-
tation of assessment results.
However, these two (at first glance, contradictory)
approaches do not necessarily conflict with each
other. A manageable assessment tool that can be
applied during the planning and design stage, and
which delivers results that are easy to interpret and
market, does not automatically have to rely on qualitat-
ive indicators alone. In contrast, integrated design and
assessment tools can contribute to the simplification of
the assessment process, and will reduce time and costs.
Integrated design and assessment tools may be applied
to the whole planning and design stage, and are capable
of providing a concluding assessment of the finished
design concept or of new/existing buildings, res-
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
pectively. In addition, these tools take into account
economic, environmental, and social aspects simul-
taneously and equally. Furthermore, they are linked
to databases (e.g. on building product information)
and calculation algorithms (e.g. concerning construc-
tion and operating costs or energy demand, etc.).
Figure 3 shows a simplified concept of this notion of
integrated design and assessment tools.
The questions/problems regarding the manner of por-
traying assessment results can be solved through the
use of different communication formats. For planners
and designers, the appropriate communication format
would contain detailed partial results and analytical
options that allow for an optimization of design
sketches. For other third parties, the appropriate com-
munication format would portray assessment results in
different levels of detail.
Issue of standardization
Since building assessment results increasingly
provide input for lending and insurance processes,
Figure 3 Simpli¢ed concept of integrated design and assessment tools
342
for valuation and reporting purposes, or for govern-
mental tendering and subsidy programmes, the need
for comprehensible, transparent and comparable
assessment procedures and results is obvious. One
possible approach is standardization. Currently,
what is being standardized are the methodological
frameworks that are required for the tools’ develop-
ment, rather than the tools themselves. Amongst
others, the main objects of standardization are as
follows:
. calculation algorithms (e.g. primary energy
demand)
. assessment algorithms (e.g. the global warming
potential)
. basic assessment procedures (e.g. for conducting
LCA)
At the moment, an issue of intense discussion is the
development of ‘minimal-lists’ of core sets of indicators
that have to be applied within building assessment pro-
cedures. The existence of ‘minimal-lists’ of indicators
would allow comparing assessment results produced
by different assessment tools. In this regard, standard-
ization appears to be necessary and meaningful. At the
same time, while implementing the principles of sus-
tainable development, assessment procedures must be
adjusted to regional, cultural and climatic particulari-
ties (Lorch, 2005). This can be realized through the
use of specific weighting factors and of limit and
target values. These factors and values should not be
internationally standardized, in contrast to the prin-
ciples of describing and publishing their selection and
justification in a transparent manner.
In sum, there is a demand for a system of (manda-
tory) indicators to allow for the adjustment of both
weighting factors and benchmarks to reflect specific

particularities as well as including further (voluntary)
indicators.7 The fundamental research of Cole (1998,
1999) concerning the development of the GB-Tool
had anticipated this development. The GB-Tool
aspired to uniform assessment criteria and indicators,
but it allowed for an adjustment to national/regional
particularities through the use of specific benchmarks
and weighting factors. The GB-Tool did provide the
preconditions for a voluntary harmonization from
within the research community (bottom-up standard-
ization). However, the development of a variety of
tools with significant differences in terms of basic
assessment procedures, indicators and communication
formats have instead required the imposition of har-
monization by standardization bodies (top-down
standardization).
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
For the further development of building assessment
tools, ongoing standardization activities will lead to
results that provide the basics for a number of issues
of interest: they cover functional, economic, environ-
mental and social aspects. Relevant standardization
activities include the following:
. ISO Technical Committee (TC) 59/Sub-Committee
(SC) 14, Design Life; amongst others, with:
. WG 1: Service life prediction procedures
. WG 4: Maintenance and life cycle costing
. WG 6: Life cycle assessment
. WG 10: Functionality requirements/
serviceability
. ISO TC 59/SC 17, Sustainability in Building
Construction; amongst others, with:
. WG 2: Sustainability indicators (Part 1: Frame-
work for the development of indicators for
buildings)
. WG 3: Environmental declaration of products
. WG 4: Framework for methods of assessment
for environmental performance of construction
works
. ISO TC 207, Environmental Management;
amongst others, with:
. WG 4: Environmental communication
. SC 3: Environmental labelling
. SC 4: Environmental performance evaluation
. SC 5: Life cycle assessment
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
With regard to the accomplishment of LCAs, ISOs
14040, 14041, 14042 and 14043 may be applied
(ISO, 1997, 1998, 2000a, 2000b). Within the
European Union, the ongoing standardization activity
at CEN, which was mandated by the European Com-
mission to develop methods for an ‘assessment of the
integrated environmental performance of buildings’
(European Commission, 2004b), will be relevant:
. CEN/TC 350, Sustainability of Construction
Works,8 amongst others, with:
. WG 1: Environmental performance of buildings
. WG 2: Building life cycle description
. WG 3: Product level
As a result, it will be possible to distinguish between
ISO- (or CEN-) compliant assessment procedures and
results and those that are non-ISO-/CEN-compliant.
This will significantly increase the comparability of
assessment results.
The discussion on the pros and cons of standardization
can be exemplified by referring to the debate on the
‘minimal list of indicators’ for assessing buildings’
environmental performance. On the one hand,
experts involved in standardization activities empha-
size the necessity of a minimal list for benchmarking
purposes. On the other hand, some fear that a
minimal list may reduce the assessment indicators
leading to the neglect of particular aspects of the build-
ing under investigation, the region, climate and culture,
etc. An obligatory minimal list of assessment indicators
must be agreed. The authors, however, explicitly argue
for an obligatory minimal list of assessment indicators
that can be extended (if necessary) to include other
aspects at any point in time.
Social dimensions of single building assessment
In order to create integrated assessment tools capable
of capturing all dimensions of sustainable develop-
ment, existing problems concerning the social dimen-
sion of sustainable development need to be solved.
With regard to the LCA and LCC approaches,
standardized procedures that can form the basis for
the further development of assessment tools are
already available. In contrast, uncertainties and sub-
stantial gaps still prevail for the assessment of social
aspects. Although a variety of studies deal with indi-
cators for the description and assessment of social
aspects, a consensus on appropriate indicators that
are directly applicable for single buildings has not
been reached (e.g. Bentivegna et al., 2002; Brindley,
2003; World Health Organization, 2004; Baines and
Morgan, 2005). The following issues require consider-
ation in more detail: the assessment object, the purpose
343
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
and the extent of the assessment, and the interests and
duties of the assessors. It is recommended that a clear
distinction is made between the following:
. attributes of the building (e.g. the appropriateness
of available space and rooms, thermal and acoustic
comfort, the appearance of building-related illness,
cultural value)
. quality of design, operating and management pro-
cesses (e.g. stakeholder participation during the
planning stage, the quality and appropriateness of
the available services)
. a building’s location (e.g. the characteristics and
conditions of inclusive environments, access and/
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
or distance to other facilities)
. regional circumstances (e.g. biodiversity and eco-
logical integrity, settlement efficiency, urban
sprawl, heritage protection, etc.)
. wider social circumstances (e.g. equal opportunities,
justice, human rights, safety, social segregation, etc.)
Another distinction must be made between tools that
address sustainable patterns of living at the building
or community levels. Such a distinction between
social aspects at the building and community levels
can be found within an actual result of standardization
activities at ISO (2005c).
The description and assessment of a single building’s
contribution to sustainable development must focus
on social aspects of the characteristics and attributes
of the building. Within the scope of standardization
activities at ISO and CEN, aspects of health, comfort,
safety and user satisfaction are assigned to the social
dimension of sustainable development for single build-
ings. For example, CEN/TC 350 is focused on the
impacts on health, comfort, and well-being of building
users and occupants.
The following indicators seem appropriate for
assessing the social aspects of single buildings and
this concurs with discussions within standardization
committees:
. thermal comfort during winter and summer (e.g.
predicted percentage of dissatisfied and predicted
mean vote)
. visual comfort (e.g. daylight ingress, quality of
artificial light, glare)
. acoustic comfort (e.g. reverberation time)
. indoor air quality (e.g. total volatile organic com-
pound, olfactory freshness, CO2)
344
. accessibility (e.g. barrier-free access)
. accidents within the building
. building-related illnesses
. cultural value (of existing buildings)
In addition, the following indicators are currently
under discussion within standardization activities:
. appearance of black mould
. concentration of radon
. intensity of electromagnetic fields
. quality of drinking water
Regarding existing buildings, it is desirable to assess
occupants’ satisfaction through post-occupancy evalu-
ations. The indicator ‘occupant satisfaction’ represents
a key performance indicator that may replace some
other partial indicators mentioned above (Leaman
and Bordass, 1999; Bordass et al., 2001). This indi-
cator reveals a very close relationship between the
social aspects of sustainable development (in terms of
health, comfort and well-being) and economic or finan-
cial considerations. There is a close correlation
between occupant satisfaction and occupant pro-
ductivity (Heerwagen et al., 2004; Kampschroer and
Heerwagen, 2005). Occupant satisfaction has an
impact on the risk of losing the tenants, on the cash
flow generated by the building and thus on the build-
ing’s market value. Furthermore, aspects of occu-
pational health and safety feed into the ‘labour
practice’ and ‘decent work’ criteria, which are appli-
cable within the framework of the Global Reporting
Guidelines.
To develop design and assessment tools further, the fol-
lowing question arises. To what extent will future tools
be able to assess the social dimensions of sustainable
development? In contrast to the assessment of energy
and mass flows, environmental impacts and construc-
tion costs that can be calculated at the building level,
the assessment of social aspects such as health,
comfort and (potential or actual) occupant satisfaction
may need to be calculated for single rooms with respect
to predicted mean vote and predicted percentage of dis-
satisfied during summer or winter; reverberation time
as an indicator for acoustic quality and daylight ratio
as an indicator for visual comfort. The other indicators
could be interpreted as design requirements or can only
be assessed through actual measurement during the
occupation phase.
In addition to the difficulties of calculating social indi-
cators for single buildings, a substantial overlap exists

with other building performance criteria (e.g. is the
indicator accessibility an indicator for the social
dimension or is it an indicator to assess functionality
and serviceability). Nonetheless, as long as these
aspects are taken into account and double-counting
does not occur, it is almost irrelevant to which sub-
group of criteria they are assigned.
In sum, the adoption of the social dimension to the
assessment of single buildings is one of the most con-
troversially discussed issues and the issue still far
from being satisfactorily solved. There exists an
urgent need for further research and debate. Nonethe-
less, it is necessary to focus more clearly on those social
indicators that are directly applicable for single
buildings.
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
Architect versus assessment expert
Traditionally, building assessment tools are applied
by external assessment or rating specialists, which
typically occurs after the design/planning and/or
construction stage is completed. Consequently, assess-
ment results cannot significantly impact on the
design of the building. If assessments are to opti-
mize different possible options during the early
design stage, this presupposes that the tools are as
follows:
. readily available
. well-documented and explained
. user-friendly and deliver interpretable results
. supported with education and training courses
. able to optimize design sketches by providing case
study facilities
. capable of generating documents and reports (e.g.
energy passports, etc.)
. adjustable to the designer’s/planner’s working
methods
. capable of processing information available within
different design stages
In the medium-term, a differentiation will take place
between those tools that can accompany the design
stage and those that can be used within the scope
of external ratings for already completed designs or
buildings, respectively. This development will be
influenced by the competition among different
professional guilds (architects, assessment and
rating experts, property valuation professionals,
consultants, etc.).
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
Performance-based or sustainable building?
Research activities concerning the areas of ‘green
building’ and ‘sustainable building’ on the one hand
and ‘performance based building’ on the other have
developed relatively independently from each other in
the past. Developments in the area of ‘performance-
based building’ can be retraced within the literature
(e.g. Lee and Barrett, 2003; Bakens et al., 2005;
Meacham et al., 2005). For a recent overview and
summary, see Lützkendorf et al. (2005).
The performance-based building approach has its roots
in describing and assessing a building’s functionality,
serviceability, and the compliance of user/owner
requirements with corresponding building character-
istics and attributes. However, the updating of
performance assessment criteria is likely to extend
user demands into the realm of societal requirements
(particularly environmental protection). The issue of
describing and assessing a building’s environmental
performance as well as other sustainability aspects is
currently being discussed within the scope of the
‘performance-based building’ approach.
In contrast, research in the area of ‘green building’
focused on the assessment of environmental and (to
some extent) health-related attributes of buildings. The
further development towards the ‘sustainable building’
approach led to the inclusion of economic and social
aspects that resulted in a substantially widened scope
of assessment criteria. It is increasingly recognized that
a building’s functionality and serviceability represent
major components to be considered in building assess-
ments. This is because functionality and serviceability
are categories required to describe a building’s benefits
or ‘outputs’, while costs, energy and mass flows, and
environmental impacts represent building-related
expenses or ‘inputs’. Concerning ‘sustainable buildings’,
the description of functional building performance is
therefore a precondition for safeguarding the compar-
ability of building concepts, and for validating the fulfil-
ment of building users’ needs.
Consequently, this can be achieved by merging both
approaches (Figure 4) and by the development of an
overall system for the description and assessment of a
building’s characteristics and attributes. A proposal for
this has already been made in the third section (Figure 1).
Methodological questions with regard to existing
buildings
The importance of maintaining and developing the
existing building stock and already existing buildings,
respectively, is commonly recognized (e.g. European
Ministers Conference on Sustainable Housing, 2002).
Within this context, the requirement to develop new
(or to adjust and extend existing) tools for the descrip-
tion and assessment of existing buildings is being
345
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
Figure 4 Merging a ‘sustainable building’ and a ‘performance-
based building’
addressed. However, a number of methodological pro-
blems remain:
. embodied energy and materials in existing build-
ings (existing embodied energy and materials are
not taken adequately accounted for as ‘input’;
however, within end-of-life scenarios, embodied
energy and materials are normally considered as a
material output and as a recycling potential)
. determining an existing building’s useful life span
requires an appropriate assessment methodology
. potential hazardous substances within the building
require identification and assessment procedures
. potentially contaminated soils require identifi-
cation and assessment procedures
. a building’s cultural value
The authors recommend addressing these questions
within further research projects.
Possibilities and limitations of assessment tools
Assessment tools are and will remain instruments to
support decision-making processes. Tools cannot be
treated in isolation from those actors who use the
tools and/or from those who use the assessment
results within their decision-making processes. The
central questions are as follows:
. Who is willing and prepared to use these tools and
their results to optimize design and planning
solutions?
. Are there investors who require proof of the
environmental and social advantages of building
346
solutions? Will investors use this information for
marketing purposes?
. To what extent will buyers and tenants ask for
building assessment results?
For example, 92% of German citizens consider
environmental protection important (Bundesminister-
ium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicherheit,
2004). Recent research from the German Energy
Agency (dena)9 indicates that a large proportion
(72%) of residential property market participants con-
sider the building’s energy consumption as an import-
ant criteria when deciding to buy or rent a flat.
Furthermore, between 80 and 90% of building
owners (including owner-occupiers, landlords and
housing companies) take the view that an improvement
of their building’s energy rating will lead to an increase
in the building’s market value (Kraus, 2005).
To summarize, a large proportion of the German resi-
dential property market’s participants are interested in
questions related to housing health, energy perform-
ance, and environmentally friendly design and con-
struction. This trend is not yet evident within the
commercial property sector.
In the future development of the German guidelines for
sustainable building, an LCA-based assessment of fed-
erally owned (or planned) buildings’ environmental
advantages will be required. In Switzerland, the assess-
ment of buildings’ environmental qualities is also
increasingly required within design competitions (for
further information, see SNARC 2004).
Given the developments portrayed above, it can be
argued that there is a growing (market-, regulatory-
and industry-driven) interest for building assessments
and their results, even if conducting building assess-
ments is not yet seen as a mainstream activity. There-
fore, in order to develop assessment tools further,
action and research must be undertaken to pinpoint
the necessity and usefulness of building assessment
results. This may best be realized by demonstrating
and proofing the economic consequences of buildings’
environmental and social performance, i.e. the
impacts on the cash flow generated by the building
and finally, on its market value. In addition, education
and further training possibilities in the area of inter-
preting building assessment results should be for
offered for designers and decision-makers.
Integrated assessment tools: requirements
and proposed solutions
The idea of integrated assessment tools proposed in
this paper can be best considered with regard to the
previous and expected evolution of building

assessment scenarios. These can be subdivided into
four main stages of development (Figure 5):
. Stage 1
Initially, buildings and building concepts were
assessed and compared entirely based on construc-
tion costs.
. Stage 2
In the 1970s or 1980s, the approaches of the LCC
and LCA emerged. However, both approaches
have been applied for different purposes and
completely separated from each other.
. Stage 3
In recent years, there was a shift from ‘green build-
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
ing’ to ‘sustainable building’ approaches, which
increased information demand for combined build-
ing assessment results. Multidimensional optimiz-
ation and comparison of building concepts are
still not achievable since existing building assess-
ment tools do not take into account mutual inter-
dependencies and interrelations between different
building performance aspects (Figure 6).
. Stage 4
Integrated assessment tasks will require a multidi-
mensional optimization and comparison of build-
ing concepts. These will have to address integrated
considerations (such as those in Figure 6).
Figure 5 Evolution of building assessment scenarios
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
Building assessment tools are intended to support both
decision-making during the design stage and the scope
of property portfolio allocation decisions. For this
reason, assessment tools need to respond to those ques-
tions that typically occur within different stages of the
decision-making process. With regard to these ques-
tions’ degree of complexity, they can be subdivided
into the following:
. Questions and assessment tasks concerned with
describing and assessing a relevant building charac-
teristic that falls within a particular dimension of
sustainable development (type A).
. Assessment and optimization tasks that focus on a
particular dimension of sustainable development
and that relate the comparison of data from the
construction phase with information from the
operating phase (type B).
. Integrated assessment and optimization tasks that
require the gathering and processing of infor-
mation concerned with several dimensions of sus-
tainable development (type C).
Figure 6 shows several examples with varying degrees
of complexity.
Only assessment tasks A3 and B3 can be supported by
existing design and assessment tools. The majority of
questions and assessment tasks cannot be addressed
347
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
Figure 6 Examples for assessment tasks associated with the evaluation of different design/building solutions
by using the current environmental design and assess-
ment tools. By addressing these questions, a new and
desirable quality of support will be provided for
design, assessment, and decision-making processes
with appropriate instruments and tools. The future
development of design and assessment tools will
require a combination of quantifiable economic,
environmental and social issues. In theory, this chal-
lenge can be met in two different ways. Integrated
assessment tools could be developed that allow for a
combined assessment of economic, environmental
and social issues, or results from a number of different
single tools could be merged and aggregated sub-
sequently. However, the former approach would
avoid the risk of neglecting the overall context as
well as mutual interdependencies.
A commonly held myth is that sustainable buildings
have higher initial cost. In order to refute this myth
and respond to the debate, it is necessary to assess
resource depletion and environmental impacts by sim-
ultaneously providing information on initial invest-
ment and future running costs. The methodical basics
for an integrated life cycle analysis as well as a practical
348
example for the combination of economic and environ-
mental issues within one planning and assessment tool
are described by Kohler and Lützkendorf (2002). They
assume that the challenge of assessing the overall or
integrated building performance will be met by devel-
oping and applying integrated design and assessment
tools. According to the current state of discussion in
Europe, the integrated building performance comprises
(in minimum):
. environmental performance (including the energy
performance according to the European directive
on the energy performance of buildings)
. cost performance (calculated on the basis of LCC
or WLC, and possibly extended with issues of
worth and market value)
. health and comfort performance.
In addition, the authors suggest including and assessing
functional performance and technical performance.
Only by clearly defining these variables can double-
counting be avoided. For the current state of the

international building performance discussion, see
Lützkendorf et al. (2005).
With respect to the development of integrated design
and assessment tools, the following five considerations
should be taken into account:
(1) The description and assessment of the environ-
mental performance are formulated in ISO
(2005a), while the procedures for the calculation
of LCC or WLC are currently being standardized
(ISO, 2005b). In the social dimension, a method-
ology for the assessment of the thermal comfort is
also available (ISO, 1984). These three methodo-
logical basics can be integrated for the further
development of design and assessment tools.
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
(2) A clear distinction must be drawn between
assessment methods and assessment tools.
Many assessment tools are based on a particular
assessment method; however, this is not
always the case. For example, integrated tools
can support several methods (e.g. LCA- or
Figure 7 Relevance of life cycle phases for different assessment categories
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
LCC-based approaches), while it is also possible
that different tools draw upon identical methods.
(3) In most cases, existing assessment tools are based
on models of the building’s life cycle for those
phases that are relevant for energy and mass
flows. In addition, a large number of varying
models of the building’s life cycle exist within
different countries. It is therefore necessary to
agree on a commonly acceptable model of the
different life cycle phases that takes into
account all of a single building’s contribution
to sustainable development as an important pre-
condition for developing integrated building
assessment tools (for an initial approach, see
Figure 7). The differentiation of the occupancy
phase (O) is of particular interest. In order to
interpret Figure 7 appropriately, the application
of tools within different phases of the building
life cycle should be taken into account:
. During which phase of the building life cycle
is the tool applied? (e.g. early concept phase,
349
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
design stage; at the end of the design stage,
after the construction phase)
. Which life cycle phases are captured by the
tool and what is the extent of the assessment?
(e.g. solely environmental assessments or
combined assessments of economic, environ-
mental and social aspects. For the former,
the shaded area of Figure 7 applies; for the
latter, the complete content of Figure 7 is of
relevance)
Figure 7 shows in general which aspects and phases of
the building life cycle need to be captured by the tool in
order to provide robust assessment results, and it does
not indicate at which points in time these aspects need
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
to be assessed.
In addition, adapting and extending the visual model of
the building life cycle traditionally used within life
cycle analysis is also necessary to rectify a number of
limitations:
. the phases of project inception and design are
missing
. the model does not adequately account for
upstream inputs and downstream outputs (as a
consequence of production, construction, mainten-
ance, deconstruction and recycling processes that
occur during the whole building life cycle)
. certain phenomena such as ageing or deterioration
are not considered
Figure 8 Traditional and extended model of the building life cycle
350
. the model does not explicitly detail how the follow-
ing processes take place in parallel:
. operation in terms of heating, lighting, warm
water supply and air-conditioning
. ageing and deterioration of building products
. maintenance (including the replacement of
building components, partial deconstruction,
etc.)
. management and administration
. actual use of the building through its occupants
Figure 8 shows the authors’ proposal of an extended
life cycle model in comparison with the traditional
model.
(4) Experience and knowledge with a combined
environmental and economic assessment of plan-
ning and engineering solutions have been gained
during the development of OGIP for Switzerland
and LEGEP for Germany. These tools allow one
to conduct life cycle analyses and life cycle
costing simultaneously. Issues of comfort, health
and the assessment of risks are not yet integrated.
(5) Integrated design and assessment tools need to be
adjusted to the typical workflows and processes
of architects and engineers during the decision-
making process. Furthermore, tools need to
focus on the information demand of relevant
groups of actors. These circumstances differ

from country to country. For example, in
Germany and Switzerland there is a close con-
nection between the planning and design pro-
gress, the calculation of the construction cost,
an economic efficiency calculation and decision
preparation. In particular, good results have
been achieved by using existing structures for
the calculation of construction costs as a basis
for developing design and assessment tools.
This enables designers to assess simultaneously
the building’s environmental performance as
well as construction cost, i.e. life cycle analysis
is treated as an ‘add-on’ to the calculation of con-
struction costs. In Austria, efforts are currently
being made to combine building-related physical
calculations with environmental performance
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
assessment. Consideration of these examples
suggests that integrated design and assessment
tools need to fit into the national or local
context, otherwise there will be limited uptake
for these tools.
Job-sharing between integrated tools and
further instruments
Design and assessment tools can be complemented
by the use of case studies, best-practice program-
mes, guidelines, labels, checklists, codes and regu-
lations, building/energy passports, valuation reports,
post-occupancy evaluation studies, consumption
benchmarks, etc. Figure 9 shows a brief overview on
the measures and instruments and on their interplay
with assessment tools.
Figure 9 Job-sharing/interplay between tools, measures and instruments for sustainable construction
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
Examination of the relationships between these
measures is necessary in order to avoid misunderstand-
ings and conflicts of interest. This problem is illustrated
by the German guideline for sustainable building
(Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungs-
wesen, 2001). The guideline contains a number of
checklists that can be used by awarding authorities to
communicate their requirements to the designers.
However, the use of the checklists merely allows for
a qualitative verification if the designer has met the
posed requirements; without being able to assess the
direct economic, environmental, and social impacts
of the design and/or building solution. This is only
possible by making additional use of LCA- and LCC-
based assessment tools. In this case, there is a potential
for conflict between checklists and tools. Ensuring the
effective interplay of checklists and assessment tools
must be a goal. In this context, the job-sharing
approach is meant to be a system of instruments and
tools that fulfil specific tasks at different points in
time and which are applied by different actors, but
which all share the goal of fostering sustainable devel-
opment within the property and construction sector.
The developing of a job-sharing approach, which
brings together assessment tools and further instru-
ments, seems appropriate to optimize what works
best for different stakeholders. The following sugges-
tions are made:
. Accompanying the planning phase, checklists can
be used to formulate possible project goals for
investors as well as to communicate possible sol-
utions for planners and designers.
351
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
. Integrated tools can be used in the design/planning
phase to determine and assess the impacts of
design/planning decisions within the building’s
life cycle. Ideally, impacts can be assessed from
technical, economic, environmental and social
viewpoints.
. Integrated tools can be used to assess the impacts of
the actual design solution as well as of the actually
constructed building after completion.
. Planning and assessment results can be transferred
into appropriate communication formats. This
applies to the various forms of highly aggregated
assessments (e.g. labels, quality seals) as well as
to the presentation of relevant information within
building passports. It seems appropriate to adjust
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
formats of communication and presentation with
respect to the requirements of different groups of
actors (e.g. tenants, landlords, owner-occupiers,
facility managers, etc.). If possible, integrated
design and assessment tools should support the
compilation of required documents (e.g. energy
and building passports, repair and servicing
manuals, maintenance plans, etc.).
. The development and application of checklists are
needed for the operating phase. These checklists
can be based on building specific repair/servicing
manuals and maintenance plans. Furthermore,
checklists should include target values concern-
ing energy and water consumption, and operating
costs.
. Systematic data management is needed to provide
feedback and monitor performance during the
design phase by using data from occupancy evalu-
ations, consumption values, cost accounting, etc.
This would allow a comparison between the
target and actual performance. The permanent
storage of periodically compiled data and assess-
ment results can be useful for various purposes
(e.g. property valuation).
. Periodic assessments of single buildings could be
integrated into management processes concerning
the corporate building stock (e.g. to support port-
folio analyses).
Within the scope of the roundtable on sustainable con-
struction at the German Ministry of Transport, Build-
ing and Housing, a system for organizing the interplay
between specialized tools and instruments is currently
under development. The system’s basic concept corre-
sponds with Figure 9.
Integrated design and assessment tools have an essen-
tial role in describing and assessing the performance
of buildings over their entire life cycles. In general,
352
assessment tools provide building-related information
at selected points in time. The shift towards building-
related data collection and analysis accompanying the
entire life cycle requires developing and installing
building information systems, using database struc-
tures, and integrating existing instruments and
measures into a ‘job-sharing’ system that allows the
permanent monitoring of a single building’s contri-
bution to sustainable development.
Outlook
Existing tools represent an important starting point for
the assessment of environmental and health-related
aspects. They close a gap that accrued through the
non-observance of environmental questions within
the planning process. But they must evolve if they are
to add further value and address the array of emerging
complex needs described herein. This can be achieved
by enhancing tools with construction and operating
cost-calculating facilities, and by further developing
existing tools to produce integrated building perform-
ance assessment tools. Assessment tools limited to
environmental considerations will not meet the
requirements of sustainable development currently
emerging in the property and construction sector.
In addition, applying integrated assessment tools
during the design and planning stage as well as along
the complete life cycle of buildings allows one to do
the following:
. create a longitudinal role of professionals by pro-
viding a series of active services over the life of
the building
. consolidate the (professionals’) knowledge base by
matching feedback from whole life involvement to
information provided by predictive/analytical
tools
. constantly validate and improve assessment tools
by comparing assessed/predicted and actual build-
ing performance
. improve the organization of the information flow
as well as the basis for sharing information and
knowledge between different professional groups,
between profession groups and stakeholders, and
between regulators and professionals
The further development of assessment tools will be
driven by the enquirers of information and of assess-
ment results rather than by the tool developers them-
selves. The focus will shift from ‘what is possible’ to
‘what is required’.10

Acknowledgements
The authors thank Richard Lorch and Ray Cole for
editorial support. They also thank the anonymous
referees for constructive critique and useful comments.
References
Ambachtsheer, J. (2005) SRI: What Do Investment Managers
Think?, Mercer Investment Consulting (available at: http://
www.merceric.com/srisurvey) (accessed 20 June 2006).
Baines, J. and Morgan, B. (2005) International Review of Experi-
ence and Practice in Sustainability Appraisal, Chapter 5: Sus-
tainability Appraisal: A Social Perspective, International
Institute for Environment and Development (available at:
http://www.iied.org/Gov/spa/documents/SAbook/Title-
page_18_Jan_05.pdf) (accessed on 8 December 2005).
Bakens, W., Foliente, G. and Jasuja, M. (2005) Engaging stake-
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
holders in performance-based building: lessons form the
Performance-Based Building (PeBBu) Network. Building
Research & Information, 33(2), 149– 158.
BCBS (2004) International Convergence of Capital Measurement
and Capital Standards – A Revised Framework, Bank for
International Settlements (available at: http://www.bis.
org/publ/bcbs107.htm) (accessed on 25 July 2004).
Bentivegna, V., Curwell. S., Deakin, M., Lombardi, P., Mitchell,
G. and Nijkamp, P. (2002) A vision and methodology for
integrated sustainable urban development: BEQUEST.
Building Research & Information, 30(2), 83–94.
Bordass, B., Leaman, A. and Ruysevelt, P. (2001) Assessing build-
ing performance in use 5: conclusions and implications.
Building Research & Information, 29(2), 144 –157.
Brindley, T. (2003) The social dimension of the urban village: a
comparison of models for sustainable urban development.
Urban Design International, 8(1– 2), 53–65.
Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und Reaktorsicher-
heit (2004) Umweltbewusstsein in Deutschland 2004 –
Ergebnisse einer repräsentativen Bevölkerungsumfrage,
BMU (available at: http://www.bmu.de/files/umweltbe-
wusstsein2004.pdf) (accessed on 18 January 2005).
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen
(2001) Guideline for Sustainable Building, BMVBW
(available at: http://www.bbr.bund.de/bauwesen/nachhal-
tigbauen/download/leitfaden_engl.pdf) (accessed on 22
November 2003).
Bundesverband Öffentlicher Banken Deutschlands (2005) VÖB-
Immobilienanalyse – Instrument zur Beurteilung des
Chance-Risikoprofils von Immobilien, VÖB (available at:
http://www.voeb.de/content_frame/downloads/them_fach_
immo.pdf) (accessed on 12 November 2005).
Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society: The Infor-
mation Age. Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. I, Black-
well, Cambridge.
Cole, R.J. (1998) Emerging trends in building environmental
assessment methods, Building Research & Information,
26(1), 3 –16.
Cole, R.J. (1999) Building environmental assessment methods:
clarifying intentions. Building Research & Information,
27(4), 230 –246.
Cole, R.J. (2005) Building environmental assessment methods:
redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Infor-
mation, 33(5), 455–467.
European Commission (2002) Directive of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council on the energy performance of build-
ings, 2002/91/EC, Official Journal of the European
Communities, L1, 65–71.
European Commission (2004a) Towards a Thematic Strategy on
the Urban Environment. COM(2004)60, EC, Brussels (avail-
able at: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/urban/the-
matic_strategy.htm) (accessed on 5 September 2004).
Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools
European Commission (2004b) Mandate on the Development of
Horizontal Standardised Methods for the Assessment of the
Integrated Environmental Performance of Buildings. Euro-
pean Commission’s Standardisation Mandate to CEN M/
350, 2004, European Commission, Brussels.
European Ministers Conference on Sustainable Housing (2002)
Final Communiqué (available at: http://international.v-
rom.nl/docs/internationaal/comm3.pdf) (accessed on 5
November 2004).
Heerwagen, J.H., Kampschroer, K., Powell, K.M. and Loftness,
V. (2004) Collaborative knowledge work environments.
Building Research & Information, 32(6), 510 –528.
IEA (2001) IEA Annex31: Directory of Tools – A Survey of LCA
Tools, Assessment Frameworks, Rating Systems, Technical
Guidelines, Catalogues, Checklists and Certificates (avail-
able at: http://annex31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/INDEX.
HTM) (accessed on 15 January 2005).
IEA (2004) IEA Annex31: Types of Tools (available at: http://
www.iisbe.org/annex31/pdf/D_types_tools.pdf) (accessed
on 15 December 2004).
ISO (1984) ISO 7730: Moderate Thermal Environments – Deter-
mination of the PMV (Predicted Mean Vote) and PPD (Pre-
dicted Percentage of Dissatisfied People) Indices and
Specification of the Conditions for Thermal Comfort, Inter-
national Organization for Standardization.
ISO (1997) ISO 14040: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework, Inter-
national Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (1998) ISO 14041: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Goal and Scope Definition and Inven-
tory Analysis, International Organization for Standardiz-
ation, Geneva.
ISO (2000a) ISO 14042: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Impact Assessment, Inter-
national Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2000b) ISO 14043: Environmental Management – Life
Cycle Assessment – Life Cycle Interpretation, International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO (2005a) ISO Committee Draft 21931: Framework for Methods
for Assessment of Environmental Performance of Construc-
tion Works – Part 1 – Buildings, International Organization
for Standardization, Geneva (standard under development).
ISO (2005b) ISO Draft International Standard 15686-5: Build-
ings and Constructed Assets – Service Life Planning – Part
5: Whole Life Costing, International Organization for Stan-
dardization, Geneva (standard under development).
ISO (2005c) ISO Draft Technical Specification 21929: Sustain-
ability in Building Construction – Sustainability Indicators
– Part 1: Framework for the Development of Indicators for
Buildings, International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva (standard under development).
Jayne, M.R. and Skerratt, G. (2003) The requirements of ethical
fund managers and property investment. Property Manage-
ment, 21(2), 136–152.
Kampschroer, K. and Heerwagen, J.H. (2005) The strategic
workplace: development and evaluation. Building Research
& Information, 33(4), 326 –337.
Kats, G., Alevantis, L., Berman, A., Mills, E. and Perlman, J. (2003)
The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings – A
Report to California’s Sustainable Building Task Force (avail-
able at: http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/News/News477.pdf)
(accessed on 22 January 2004).
Kohler, N. and Lützkendorf, T. (2002) Integrated life-cycle analy-
sis. Building Research & Information, 30(5), 338 –348.
Kraus, F. (2005) Der Energiepass – Rahmenbedingungen und
Umsetzung. Speech given at Berliner Energietage, 2 –4 May
2005, Deutsche Energie Agentur (dena) (available at:
http://www.gebaeudeenergiepass.de) (accessed on 22
January 2006).
Leaman, A. and Bordass, B. (1999) Productivity in buildings: the
‘killer’ variables. Building Research & Information, 27(1),
4 –19.
353
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
Lee, A. and Barrett, P. (2003) Performance Based Building: First
International State-of-the-Art Report. International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction
(CIB) (available at: http://cibworld.xs4all.nl/pebbu_dl/
resources/pebbupublications/downloads/01SotaPart1.pdf)
(accessed on 15 December 2004).
Lorch, R. (2005) Sustainable development and regionalism.
Building Research & Information, 33(5), 393 –396.
Lorenz, D., Trück, T. and Lützkendorf, T. (2006) Addressing risk
and uncertainty in property valuations. Forthcoming in
Journal of Property Investment and Finance.
Lützkendorf, T. and Lorenz, D. (2005) Sustainable property
investment: valuing sustainable buildings through property
performance assessment. Building Research & Information,
33(3), 212 –234.
Lützkendorf, T., Speer, T., Szigeti, F., Davis, G., le Roux, P.,
Kato, A. and Tsunekawa, K. (2005) A comparison of inter-
national classifications for performance requirements and
building performance categories used in evaluation
methods, in Proceedings of the 11th Joint CIB International
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
Symposium; Helsinki, Finland, June 2005.
McNamara, P. (2005a) Interview. Property Week, 14 October,
84–86.
McNamara, P. (2005b) Sustainable property investment –
balancing the commercial pressures of today with the reali-
ties of the future. Presentation made at the RICS Valuation
Conference 2005, 29 December 2005, London, UK (avail-
able at: http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/DAF0FD53-
23F1-4A56-B05A-739A4A41E77B/0/PaulMcNamara.pdf)
(accessed on 1 February 2006).
Meacham, B., Bowen, R., Traw, J. and Moore, A. (2005)
Performance-based building regulation: current situation
and future needs. Building Research & Information, 33(2),
91–106.
Parnell, P. (2005) Sustainability – a valuer’s perspective. Presen-
tation made at the RICS Valuation conference 2005, 29
December 2005, London, UK (available at: http://www.
rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/ABFE4385-9E11-4989-ABC0-2E778
3506C68/0/PhilipParnell.pdf) (accessed on 1 February
2006).
Peuportier, B. and Putzeys, K. (2005) Inter-comparison and
Benchmarking of LCA-based Environmental Assessment
and Design Tools – Final Report. European Thematic
Network on Practical Recommendations for Sustainable
Construction (PRESCO) (available at: http://www.etn-pre-
sco.net/generalinfo/PRESCO_WP2_Report.pdf) (accessed
on 8 August 2005).
Pivo, G. and McNamara, P. (2005) Responsible Property Invest-
ing. International Real Estate Review, 8(1), 128–143.
Porrit, J. (2000) Playing Safe: Science and the Environment,
Thames & Hudson, London.
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2004) Sustainability
and the Built Environment – An Agenda for Action,
RICS, London (available at: http://www.rics.org/NR/
rdonlyres/DE2FC8A1-9600-46F4-9673-D13D6B686023/
0/Sustainability_and_built_environment.pdf) (accessed on
10 November 2004).
Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (2005) Green Value –
Green Buildings, Growing Assets, RICS, London (available
at: http://www.rics.org/NR/rdonlyres/93B20864-E89E-
4641-AB11-028387737058/0/GreenValueReport.pdf)
(accessed on 18 November 2005).
Rydin, Y. (2003) In Pursuit of Sustainable Development: Rethink-
ing the Planning System, RICS Foundation (available at:
http://www.rics-foundation.org/publish/document.aspx?did
=3170) (accessed on 13 June 2004).
Sayce, S., Ellison, L. and Smith, J. (2004) Incorporating sustain-
ability in commercial property appraisal: evidence from the
UK, in Proceedings of the 11th European Real Estate
Society Conference (ERES 2004), Milan, Italy, 2004.
SNARC (2004) SNARC – Systematik zur Beurteilung der Nach-
haltigkeit von Architekturprojekt für den Berich Umwelt,
354
Schweizer Ingenieur- und Architektenverein (available at:
http://www.nachhaltiges-bauen.ch/forschung/images/
snarc_deutsch.pdf) (accessed on 13 December 2005).
The European Group of Valuers Association (TEGoVA) (2003)
European Property and Market Rating (available at:
http://www.tegova.org/reports/EPMR.pdf) (accessed on
10 January 2004).
Todd, J.A., Crawley, U., Geissler, S. and Lindsey, G. (2001) Com-
parative assessment of environmental performance tools and
the role of the Green Building Challenge. Building Research
& Information, 29(5), 324 –335.
UNEP FI (2005) A Legal Framework for the Integration of
Environmental, Social and Governance Issues into Insti-
tutional Investment, United Nations Environment
Program Finance Initiative, New York, NY (available at:
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/freshfield-
s_legal_resp_20051123.pdf) (accessed on 8 December
2005).
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987)
Our Common Future [Brundtland Report], WCED/
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
World Health Organization (2004) World Health Organization’s
Technical Meeting on Housing-Health Indicators, Rome,
Italy, 15–16 January 2004.
Endnotes
1
Specialized tools that allow for support of the investment
decision on an appropriate location, as well as addressing and
accounting for the ‘local context’, are beyond the scope of this
paper. It is assumed that the basic investment decision to realize
a construction project has also been made before the application
of building assessment tools. Issues of risk and return will have
been addressed by using other methods and tools not directly
related to the objective of this paper. Today, building assessment
tools that support sustainable planning and construction of single
buildings are usually not applied in order to clarify if (in terms of
deciding for an investment into the asset class ‘property’) but how
the building or construction measure will be realized. Nonethe-
less, building assessments could be used to influence basic invest-
ment and financing decisions by capturing the risk profile of
property assets in more detail. However, due to a number of
shortcomings of existing assessment tools and data limitations,
this is not yet possible.
2
See http://www.etn-presco.net. For this reason, the authors do
not provide detailed examples or descriptions of single tools;
nonetheless, they are aware that a number of tools and instru-
ments that support sustainable design and construction are
already successfully applied in practice, but their description
and detailed comparative assessment would lead beyond the
scope of this paper.
3
For a more detailed description and explanation of these instru-
ments, see http://www.uni-weimar.de/scc/PRO/TOOLS/
instru.html
4
For Switzerland, see http://www.the-software.de/Ogipl.html;
for Germany, see http://www.legep.de
5
See http://www.globalreporting.org and http://www.accounta
bility.org.uk, respectively.
6
In a very general sense, a rating can be defined as a procedure
that illustrates the assessment of a thing, a person, a situation,
etc., on a scale in order to improve the informational basis for
the prediction of future outcomes. Rating is not a new concept;
it has been used since the beginning of the 20th century by com-
panies such as Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s in order to
provide information on the financial strengths and willingness
of companies to comply with liabilities completely and in time
(TEGoVA, 2003).
 Integrated performance approach in building assessment tools

7
This approach is currently pursued by ISO TC 59/SC 17 Sustain-
ability in Building Construction. See http://www.iso.org/iso/en/
stdsdevelopment/tc/tclist/TechnicalCommitteeDetailPage.Techni
calCommitteDetail? COMMID¼5595.
8
See http://www.cenorm.be/CENORM/BusinessDomains/Tec
hnicalCommitteesWorkshops/CENTechnicalCommittees/CEN
TechnicalCommittees.asp?param ¼ 481830 & title ¼ CEN%2F
TC þ 350
9
See http://www.dena.de
10
This paper was written in 2005 and there may have been
changes to the specifications of the standards under development
mentioned in the text and references.
Appendix: Terminology
The present paper makes use of a number of terms that
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
essential needs of the world’s poor, to which over-
riding priority should be given; and the idea of
limitations imposed by the state of technology
and social organization on the environments
ability to meet present an future needs.
(World Commission on Environment and Devel-
opment, 1987, p. 54)
Thus, the concept to sustainable development can be
interpreted as the journey towards one final destination:
‘sustainability’. In order to operationalize this concept,
the present paper refers to the expression of the so-
called ‘triple bottom line’ of sustainable development,
i.e. sustainable development involves balancing econ-
omic and social development with environmental protec-
tion. There are, however, discrepancies in the literature

with regard to these three dimensions: they are either

are commonly applied within the international debate,
considered equal or the environment is viewed as the
but which can be (and are) interpreted controversially.
dominant dimension that sets the preconditions for the
In order to avoid misunderstandings, some of these
others (Rydin, 2003). However, the present authors
terms are (for the scope of this paper) now explained
believe that ‘true’ sustainable development involves
and defined in more detail. The intention was not to
addressing and accounting for each of these three dimen-
provide conclusive or ultimate definitions, but to ease
sions simultaneously and equally.
the understanding of the paper.
A sustainable building is meant to be a building that con-
The term sustainability is meant to be the desirable
tributes – through its characteristics and attributes – to
overall concept or goal of economies’ or societies’ devel-
sustainable development. This requires – besides func-
opment or evolution, respectively. The term circum-
tional and aesthetic requirements – that environmental,
scribes an equilibrium state of an economy or society
economic, and social aspects are considered and evaluated
with regard to environmental, economic and social
equally and simultaneously during the building’s design,
conditions. Since it is difficult to define sustainability
planning, construction, use, refurbishment and sub-
from a scientific perspective, see Porrit (2000), who
sequent disposal. By safeguarding and maximizing func-
argues that the realization of sustainability can be
tionality and serviceability as well as aesthetic quality, a
measured against a set of four ‘system conditions’:
sustainable building shall contribute to the following:
. finite materials (including fossil fuels) should not be
extracted at a faster rate than they can be redepos-
. minimization of LCC
ited in the Earth’s crust
. protection and/or increase of capital values (i.e.
. artificial materials (including plastics) should not the cash flow generated by the building and its
be produced at a faster rate than they can be market value)
broken down by natural processes
. reduction of land use, raw material and resource
. the biodiversity of ecosystems should be main- depletion
tained, whilst renewable resources should only be
consumed at a slower rate than they can be natu-
. reduction of malicious impacts on the environment
rally replenished
. protection of the health, comfort and safety of
. human needs must be met in an equitable and effi- workers, occupants, users, visitors and neighbours,
cient manner and (if applicable) to the preservation of cultural
values and heritage
In order to define the term sustainable development,
the present paper adopts the definition provided In contrast, a green building is meant to be a building
within the Brundtland Report: that does not fulfil all the requirements outlined
above, but which exhibits positive characteristics and
Sustainable development is development that attributes with regard to the following areas:
meets the needs of the present without compro-
mising the ability of future generations to meet . energy efficiency
their own needs. It contains within it two key con-
cepts: the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the . resource depletion
355
 Lu«tzkendorf and Lorenz
. impacts on the environment
. protection of health and environment
Two common green building approaches are usually
termed ‘building ecology’ (with a focus on energy,
resources and the environment) and ‘building
biology’ (with a focus and health and comfort). Also,
the term green building can be used to summarize
different design strategies, e.g. design for the environ-
ment or design for deconstruction.
A method is meant to be the generic basis for systema-
tic and purposive proceeding, meant here in connection
with solving particular planning, design and/or assess-
ment tasks. Partially, methods are standardized, e.g.
life cycle assessment according to ISO 14040 (ISO,
Downloaded by [University College Dublin] at 07:15 07 November 2013
1997).
The term optimization is meant to circumscribe a
process of purposive improvement (e.g. of design
sketches) and is understood here in an unstrict math-
ematical sense.
A design and assessment tool is meant to be an instru-
ment that can be applied during design and decision-
making processes in order to provide, interpret and
communicate unassessed or assessed information.
Planning and assessment tools can be based on standar-
dized or on unstandardized methods. Also, tools can
exactly match with one specific method or they can
allow the application and/or combination of different
methods.
The use of the term job-sharing approach is apparently
open for misunderstanding. There exists, however, no
direct English translation of the German term arbeit-
steilig. A job-sharing approach is not a new concept;
it evolved during the early stages of the industrializ-
ation of manufacturing processes and was usually cir-
cumscribed by the term division of labour. The
variety of tools, instruments, and methods to support
356
and assess sustainable construction as well as the
increasing degree of complexity caused by new assess-
ment tasks requires both the safeguarding of infor-
mation flow and the efficient interplay of different
tools and instruments. In essence, a job-sharing
approach in the area of building assessments circum-
scribes the need for all the actors involved to focus
on the key sources of productivity and competitiveness
within an ‘informational economy’. Today’s economy
is informational because the sources of productivity
and the competitiveness of its actors depend, more
than ever, on knowledge and information and on the
technology of their processing, including the technol-
ogy of management and the management of technol-
ogy (Castells, 1996).
Integrated planning and assessment tasks are meant to
be complex problems and questions that pose particu-
lar requirements to both the assessor (e.g. architect,
engineer, decision-maker, etc.) and the tool due to
their multidimensional and multicriterial character,
as well as due to existing mutual interdependencies
(e.g. to what extent does the planned quality of the
heat insulation as well as the quality of the indoor
environment impact on occupants’ productivity and
to what extent does a possible higher degree of occu-
pants’ productivity reduce the risk of losing the
tenant and, as a consequence, improve the building’s
cash flow and market value?). The question is in how
far can complexity be reduced by developing methods
of resolution for partial aspects without neglecting
the overall context as well as mutual interdependen-
cies. For example, approaches to deal with complexity
within the construction sector are represented by the
methods of integral planning/design. With regard to
design and assessment tools, the following question
arises: is it possible to use a number of different
single tools and to merge their results or is it necessary
to develop and apply integrated design and assessment
tools that can cope with integrated design and assess-
ment tasks?