Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan

Sustainable Management of Public Buildings

Adnan AwanBachelor of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, RMIT University

Abstract: In light of the increasing number of deteriorating public buildings and with councils facing a limited budget, there is a strong need to pursue a sustainable management approach to assessing and monitoring public buildings. Currently, there are a variety of assessment tools and methods readily available to evaluate public buildings yet many of these methods lack a holistic approach. The aim of this research paper is to investigate a relationship between the impact levels of various building component types at their best and worst condition against a four-tier sustainability criterion. Impact levels obtained from local council delegates will allow for a detailed analysis of the level of impact of specific building component types against the four aspects of sustainability. The results from the assessment of the three local council buildings will highlight key trends and relationships observed as well as areas which are of concern to the operation of public buildings consequently aiming to assist in the improvement of management and monitoring procedures.

Keywords: Sustainable, Impact, Assessment, Building, Management, Ratings.

1. Introduction

In Victoria, there are 79 councils each of which operate and maintain over 200 public buildings. Many of these buildings have significantly aged with their structural components deteriorating over time. Local councils now face a challenging task of managing and maintaining these buildings and their services with a limited budget and a rapidly growing community. The need for a more sustainable approach to managing these public buildings is further highlighted by many current assessment methods and tools which lack a holistic perspective and adopt a one-dimensional criterion for assessing buildings. Current assessment tools fail to provide a balanced overview of the condition and impact of assets within public buildings, many of which focus too heavily on certain criteria and thus overlook key indicators that incorporate the principles of sustainability. Local councils have a large responsibility to constantly monitor and assess their public buildings and ensure that the condition of their assets will not have a negative impact on their services. Currently, there are a variety of building assessment tools and methods which are readily used in today’s industry however, some of these tools and methods are acclimatized for local conditions and consequently vary in their framework and rating system.

The challenge for local councils is to implement a balanced asset management strategy which addresses key indicators such as condition and impact levels of assets and components. This research aims to provide an insight into how to improve the overall sustainability of existing public buildings based on a building component type level and thus identify the key impact level trends as well as areas which need further development. By gaining an understanding of the current use of existing assessment tools, this paper further enhances their effectiveness to a significantly more holistic level. The implementation of building component types within the assessment of impact levels provides a more detailed analysis of the condition of assets within a public building and their impact socially, environmentally, economically and on a functional level. By targeting building component types and groups which have a significant impact at their best and worst condition, local councils will be able to focus their attention on improving the efficiency of these component types which ultimately will lead to minimising operating costs, energy consumption and recurring maintenance costs. If local councils can develop an assessment system which actively provides feasible information about the condition and impact of their public buildings, a more accurate evaluation of a building’s performance and functioning can be achieved. This research project will aim to explore the relationship between the condition and impact levels of building component types against the four critical underlying factors of sustainability and thus identify whether there is a clear trend among local councils and their public buildings.

2. Literature Review

Over the years, there have been many sustainable building assessment tools and methods readily used in the construction industry which have been further developed, adapted and become increasingly effective. Although the literature covers a vast range of building assessment tools from various countries, this review will focus on the major tools and methods currently incorporated which occur repeatedly in the literature. These major assessment tools include the Green Star Rating Tools (GBCA), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE). Evidently, these tools and assessment methods have been used in leading countries with many of these countries placing strong emphasis on the evolving concept of sustainability. The problem with existing building assessment methods lies within their framework and rating systems in addition to the one-dimensional criteria used for assessing the performance of public buildings. This literature review aims to identify the recurring issue within assessment tools and methods and provide means for possible adaption.

Throughout the industry, there have been a vast range of building assessment tools and methods, some of which have become increasingly effective such as the Building research establishment environmental assessment method (BREEAM) , Comprehensive assessment system for built environmental efficiency (CASBEE), Green Star Rating Tools (Developed by Green Building Council of Australia) and Leadership in energy and design (LEED). All of these tools have been adapted and developed in leading countries and contrast significantly in their framework and rating systems. In light of the emerging concept of sustainability in buildings, many tools and rating systems have been implemented to assess the performance of a building through an economic, social, functional and environmental perspective so as to maintain and manage these buildings in a sustainable manner. Fowler and Rauch (2006) discussed the various existing assessment methods through a comparative analysis in the ‘Sustainable Buildings Ratings Summary’. BREEAM was developed in the United Kingdom in 1990 and covers a variety of building types including offices, homes and schools. Under this assessment method, points are awarded for each criterion and the points are added for a total score. The overall building performance is awarded a ranking which consists of ‘pass’, ‘good’, ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ based on the score obtained. CASBEE was developed in Japan and is considered to be a relatively new assessment tool. This particular tool is based on the building’s life-cycle consisting of pre-design, new construction, existing buildings and renovation. CASBEE utilises the combination of environmental load and quality of building performance with each criterion scored from level 1 to level 5. Under this method, there are three major categories of criteria for Building Quality and Performance and Building Environmental Loading respectively. LEED was developed and trialled in the US in 1998 as a consensus-based building rating system in reference to the use of existing building technology. In contrast to other assessment tools, LEED uses a whole building environmental performance approach and there are varying versions of the tool for new construction, existing buildings and renovations (Sustainable Buildings Ratings Summary 2006). The issue with current building assessment tools and methods is the contrasting ratings systems implemented and differing frameworks for the assessment criteria which is adapted to suit local climatic conditions. The challenge is whether a general consensus can be adopted between assessment methods where there is a clear similarity in rating systems coupled with a holistic framework for the evaluations of buildings.

With the constantly evolving nature of the construction industry and with an ever increasing number of deteriorating buildings present, there is a strong demand for a holistic and systematic approach to sustainably managing public buildings from a local council’s perspective. Consequently, there is a strong need for assessment tools and methods that cohesively integrate functional, social, environmental and economic criterion in evaluating public buildings. As Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008) assert, ‘Sustainable building sets challenging requirements for the assessment tools – in addition to the environmental aspect, the economic and social aspects need to be considered and included in the assessments’. The framework of these existing tools and methods is of concern to leaders in the industry as a significant number of these assessment methods are directly related to specific types of buildings and climates. The current issue lies within the methodology behind the assessment tools and the importance which favours certain criteria over another. Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka (2007) further highlight this issue by stating that although indicators, checklists and assessment tools for sustainability in construction are available, they still lack a measured and structured approach for the implementation of sustainable practices and

methods within construction projects. The adaptability of these current tools and methods to be applicable to other climates and scenarios is a debatable topic and one which needs addressing.

Many early building assessment tools developed, centered their focus on a performance based criteria and were restricted by a stringent underlying factor in cost. Although, cost plays a critical role in assessing and maintaining public buildings, the impact of other factors such as sustainable principles and the use of a multi criterion approach cannot be underestimated. Cole (cited in Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka 2007) defines the term ‘building performance’ as rather complex as various factors in the building sector have differing interests and requirements. Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008) assert ‘environmental assessment tools vary to a great extent. A variety of different tools exist for building components, whole buildings and whole building assessment frameworks. Ding (2007) addresses the issue of a performance based approach by contending that the aim of sustainability assessment goes even further than at the design stage of a project suggesting that there is a lack of concern at the project appraisal stage, a stage in which environmental principles are best incorporated. In many respects, assessment tools used for evaluating buildings adopt a single assessment criterion which limits the effectiveness of the results obtained. Janikowski et al (cited in Ding 2008) contests that using only one assessment criterion cannot be regarded as a correct approach, suggesting that the importance of implementing a multi-criteria approach which considers a variety of issues concerning a building is crucial. The implementation of an extended range of criteria within building assessment methods will provide a more accurate result and evaluation of the overall performance and functioning of a building.

Building performance has always been a major concern of professionals in the construction industry however with the emergence of ‘green buildings’, many assessment methods and tools are now starting to broaden their criteria and framework to achieve a more holistic evaluation of a building (Ding 2007). Achieving a sustainable level of management of public buildings is an extensive process which requires the integration of comprehensive building assessment tools and methods. With a large portion of public buildings in Victoria deteriorating rapidly, the concept of sustainability has become an underlying factor in monitoring and assessing the impacts of these buildings holistically. Currently, there are a variety of building assessment tools and methods which are readily available with each tool and method varying with their respective rating systems and frameworks. Many of these tools implement a single-criterion approach which disregards and overlooks important and critical performance indicators of a building. In addition, these tools seemingly focus their assessment on the operational stage of a building without considering the project appraisal or design stages which underpin the building’s framework and design for performance. Essentially, the literature covered in this paper follows a similar trend such that it suggests that although there are performance indicators and methods readily available, many of these assessment tools lack a structured and measured approach to adopting sustainable practices within the construction industry (Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka 2007). After reviewing the literature covered in this paper, it is evident that there is a strong recommendation for assessment and rating tools for buildings to provide a multi-criteria approach which is comprehensive in the addressing all the performance indicators from a sustainable perspective, yet establish a clear and systematic concept which can be easily applied to all public buildings.

3. Method

Public Buildings consist of many building components all of which relate to their overall performance. In regards to my research question: ‘how does the impact level of building components at various condition levels affect the sustainability of public buildings from a social, economic, environmental and functional sense?’, the aim of the research is to create a systematic and holistic approach and thus identify whether a relationship exists between the impact and condition levels of building component types against a four tier criterion for sustainability which includes social, environmental, economic and functional aspects.

This research project implemented a four-tier criterion within the framework of assessing the impact levels of building component types and thus aims to provide a balanced and holistic outlook on the assessment of public buildings. Each of the four elements of sustainability used in the criteria had their own relative sub-criteria which provided a greater level of understanding and analysis. The framework for the research was based upon utilising a spreadsheet which involved using the NAMS building hierarchy to gather the building component groups and building component types as well as incorporating four aspects of sustainability (Economic, Environmental, Functional and Social) as the criterion to be assessed. Please

refer to Appendix A for the sustainability assessment criteria hierarchy and Appendix B for the component group hierarchy used and Appendices C, D, E and F for the defined criteria for each sustainability aspect used in the research project.

4. Experimental Procedure

In order to investigate the relationship between the impact and condition levels of building component types using the NAMS Hierarchy against a four tier sustainability criteria, a proposed spreadsheet was implemented (See Attachment). This spreadsheet aimed to provide an insight into the relative impact levels of specific building component types at their best and worst condition across a functional, social, environmental and economic scale. Local councils within Melbourne were contacted via email and telephone to discuss the objectives of this research and upon consent; interviews were conducted across three different council municipalities. Each of the council delegates was presented with the defined criteria and the assessment spreadsheet which was used to collect the data. Each council based their impact level ratings from 1-5 (very low to very high impact) for building component types on their respective council building in which the interview actually took place. The reason behind basing the data on a single council building was to ensure that the data could be correlated and summarized due to the similarities in the building’s components and operation/functioning. Although each building varied in size and components, each of the three council buildings assessed were quite similar in their functioning and operation with only a few discrepancies. Council A (Manningham City Council) based their impact level ratings on the council depot and city development office building, Council B (Melbourne City Council) based their impacts on the ‘CH2’ (Council House 2 Building) and Council C (Hume City Council) based their impact level ratings on their own their own respective local council building.

Council A and B provided a one-to-one interview with the asset/facilities manager providing the impact level ratings based on their knowledge and experience. Council C provided a three member panel to assess the impact level ratings which proved to be quite beneficial to the accuracy of the ratings collected. Due to the nature of the buildings which were assessed, some of the building component types were not applicable for assessment and therefore, no impact level ratings were provided. Additionally, some of the criteria were not directly related to specific component types and thus no ratings were provided. Following the completion of the impact levels recorded, multiple impact level graphs were generated from the ratings. Each specific building component type presented a unique impact level range which was restrained by a minimum impact level of 1 and a maximum impact level of 5. Additionally, the other restraint was the condition level of each component type which was predetermined to be on a broad scale from best to worst condition. Essentially, each component type will have an impact level range for each sub criteria within the four tier sustainability criterion.

Due to the extensive size of the assessment, impact ranges for each building component will be summarized into a concise and clear representation of the relationship between the average impact levels for each component group and the four aspects of sustainability. The key notion will be to identify critical areas within the building component groups which appear to have a higher range of impact levels at their best and worst condition and thus evaluate how these impacts will affect the management and operation of a public building. Each individual sustainability criterion will be evaluated and dissected based on building component groups which play a critical role with a higher impact level range. Based on the discussion with council delegates and analysis of the impact levels recorded from various local councils, the strength of the relationship between impact levels based on best and worst condition levels will be identified and discussed further in the discussion and conclusion sections.

5. Results

Upon completion of interviews with various council delegates, three sets of impact level ratings were recorded based on each council’s respective building with a minimum rating of 1 denoted as very low impact and a maximum rating of 5 denoted a very high impact. It is to be noted that due to the fact that each set of impact level ratings were based on a single building and upon discussion with council members, some building component types as well as certain criteria were not applicable and as a result, were left out of the assessment criteria.

The results from the impact level ratings recorded for each Council’s building are presented with each aspect of the sustainability criteria assessed individually. For each council, the average impact level ratings were calculated for each building component group at their best and worst condition. The average impact level ratings for each building component group consisted of the averages of each individual building component type which are summarised in graphical format in the section below. The component types assessed within each building component group can be found in Appendix B.

5.1 Council A – Manningham City Council

For Council A, the building assessed was a single storey council depot and city development office which had recently been extended after an increase in service demand. The depot building was relatively aged in regards to the overall structure however had incorporated all the necessary services required for occupants. In terms of assessment, emergency power and lighting were combined for their impact level ratings as proposed by the interviewee due to the similarity in their operation and functioning. The majority of exterior works were found to have little or no effect on any of the four aspects of sustainability with the exception of water tanks. Council A did not have a fire sprinkler or hydrant system and thus these components were left out with the exception of the fire alarm system and fire services. After some discussion, for the interior finishes component group, interior doors, interior windows, interior walls and wall finishes had no impact on the assessment criteria and thus were excluded. This particular building had no lifts and as a result, Lifts/Hoist services were excluded. For mechanical services, Air Handling and Air Distribution units were combined for a set of impact level ratings which included chilled water system, heating system, and split A/C units. The interviewee from this council suggested that the impact level ratings for the mechanical services were considered to be relatively similar and an overall impact level rating across all aspects of sustainability would be more appropriate. For security services, CCTV systems were the only applicable component type for this building. A combined set of impact level ratings were provided for domestic cold water, hot water and warm water for this particular building.

5.1.1 Environmental Criteria

Figure 1. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council A.

From an environmental perspective, it was evident that for council A’s depot building, the majority of the building component groups generally had a lower impact level average at their best condition in direct comparison to their worst condition. Exterior works was the only exemption as it included water tanks as a component group type which, at its best condition would be functioning well and consuming a lot of water usage and management in comparison to its worst condition where there would be minimal or no water usage. This is explained by the impact level range of 4-2 from best to worst condition for water tanks under the water quality and management sub criteria. The most critical aspects of the environmental criteria evidently appeared to be energy efficiency and user comfort which presented relatively high impact levels for building component group types at their worst condition. It is interesting to note that fire and security services had an equal level of impact at best and worst condition with both component group types providing low to moderate levels of impact with ranges of 2-2 and 3-3. This may suggest that these component groups play a critical role in regards to the environmental impact of a building as indicated by their ratings for energy

0

1

2

3

4

5

Average Impact Level @ Best Condition

Average Impact Level @ Worst ConditionBuilding Component Group

Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

efficiency and user comfort. The largest discrepancy between best and worst condition for a building component group was electrical services where the difference in the average impact level was 2.3. At its best condition, electrical services had only an average impact level of 1.5 however at its worst condition; it had an average impact level of 3.8. The difference between the best and worst condition for electrical services highlights the importance of managing the condition and functioning of this particular building component group in regards to minimising its environmental impact.

5.1.2 Economic Criteria

Figure 2. Economic Impact Level Average for Council A.

From an economic perspective, it is observed from the graph above that the average impact level of a building component group at its best condition is lower than the average impact level at its worst condition. Electrical services evidently recorded the highest average impact level for council A’s building with a rating of 3.6 at its worst condition. However, the significance of the economic impact of this particular building is highlighted by the notion that nine out of the ten building component groups had an average impact level rating of 3 or more at their worst condition. This suggests that close monitoring and management of all building component groups is crucial in mitigating any significant economic impact as a result of building components reaching a condition level which is simply unsustainable. Life cycle cost and additional capital investment appeared to be the underlying factors towards the overall economic impact of this particular building with impact level ranges reaching 3 and 4 respectively. It is interesting to note that the majority of component group types had an equal impact at best and worst condition for the additional capital investment criteria emphasising their value towards the building. Land value and local economy didn’t seem to have a significant impact on any of the building component types. Additionally, electrical services again had the greatest difference in average impact level at best and worst condition with a discrepancy of 2.2.

5.1.3 Social Criteria

Figure 3. Social Impact Level Average for Council A.

From a social perspective, it was rather surprising to observe from the graph above that the majority of building component groups had a similar impact at their best and worst condition. Eight out of the ten building component groups had the same average impact level at their best and worst conditions respectively. With the exceptions of electrical services and water services, the eight other building component groups provided an average impact level rating of at least 3 at their best or

012345



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

012345

Average Impact Level @ Best ConditionAverage Impact Level @ Worst ConditionBuilding Component Group

Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

worst condition. These particular building component groups further underline the level of social impact that this particular building collectively exerts and the importance of their functioning towards the community as well as employees. In addition, community benefits and equity, neighbourhood character and employee well-being were the major contributors towards the overall social impact of the building. Lighting, air distribution/handling units, sanitary plumbing and fire services were some of the building components types which presented impact level ranges of 4-4 from best to worst condition. Water tanks had the highest impact level with a range of 4-4 which highlighted the significance of this component type towards community benefits and equity. Overall, it is evident that this particular building and its component groups play a critical role in exerting social impact with employee well-being and community benefits providing the foundations for controlling and managing their influence.

5.1.4 Functional Criteria

Figure 4. Functional Impact Level Average for Council A.

From a functional perspective, it is clearly evident from the graph above that each building component group’s worst condition has a significantly higher impact level average compared to its best condition. Most importantly, the severity of a building component type’s impact level at its worst condition is further exemplified from a functional aspect. Impact of failure and response as well as level of service proved to be some of the major contributors towards the overall functional impact of each building component group. Emergency power and internal/external lighting provided the highest impact level range with 1-5 and 2-5 respectively for their best to worst condition in regards to the impact of failure and response criteria. Additionally, these two component types as well as water tanks, fire alarm and fire services all provided an impact level rating of 4 for their worst condition in regards to the level of service criteria. It is also worth noting that in terms of compliance to building standards and regulations, each component type provided an equal impact level at their best and worst conditions respectively which further highlights the significance of complying with specific codes and building standards which have to be legally met regardless of a component’s condition. Overall, electrical services had the highest impact level average at its worst condition with a rating of 4.2 whereas water services and external fabric provided the equal lowest impact level average of 2.7 for their worst condition. Interestingly, external fabric which includes external walls, roof, windows and doors provided the highest impact level average of 3.2 for its best condition with impact level ranges of 3-3 and 4-4 respectively in comparison to security services which had the lowest impact level average of 1 at its best condition and 3 at its worst condition which directly coincided with the impact of failure and response criteria.

5.2 Council B – Melbourne City Council

The assessment of council B was based upon the Council House 2 building which is otherwise known as ‘CH2’. This particular multi-storey building in comparison to the other two council’s buildings was the most advanced in terms of passive design and sustainable measures implemented throughout the building. Although this building had its unique individual characteristics, it also had similar concepts within the building which could be compared with the other two council’s respective buildings which were assessed. In terms of assessment, power conditioning was excluded from the electrical services group as it was not applicable, stairs and rails as well as water tanks were the only component types within exterior works rated, fire communications was incorporated within the fire services component type, fixtures and fittings,

Electri

cal S

erv.

..

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es0

1

2

3

4

5



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

interior windows and wall finishes were not applicable to the criteria upon discussion and some of the mechanical services component types were combined with other component types for assessment as was the case with security services component group.


Figure 5. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council B.

From an environmental perspective, it can be seen from the graph above that eight out of the ten building component groups have a greater impact level average at their worst condition in direct comparison to their best condition. The two exceptions were security services which did not have any associated environmental impact and exterior works which included water tanks as well as stairs and rails. For the exterior works component group, it is evident that there is a greater impact level average at its best condition with a rating of 3.5 as opposed to its worst condition with an impact level average of 3. The reason for the higher impact level at its best condition can be best explained by the fact that the water tanks component type had an impact level range of 4-1 from best to worst condition under the water quality and management criteria which certainly affected the overall environmental impact level average for the best and worst condition. The highest impact level average at worst condition was provided by the lift/hoist services and plumbing services component groups with a rating of 5. The ratings for the lift/hoist services component group were the direct result of the impact level range associated with the energy efficiency criteria of 3-5 from best to worst condition. Similarly, the ratings for the plumbing services component group were the direct result of the water quality and management criteria which presented an impact level range of 3—5 from best to worst condition. In regards to environmental criteria, water quality and management, material sustainability, energy efficiency, air and noise pollution as well as user comfort collectively proved to be critical factors in assessing the overall environmental impact of each component group. The majority of impact levels for component types at their worst condition reached a rating of 5 under the water quality and management and user comfort criterion which highlights the significance of the impact of these component groups if they reach a poor condition level whilst functioning.


Figure 6. Economic Impact Level Average for Council B.

012345



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

From an economic perspective, it can be observed from the graph above that nine out of the ten building component groups have a ‘very low’ impact level when operating at their best condition with the impact level averages varying between 1-1.4. Lifts/hoist services was the only exception with an impact level average of 2.5 at its best condition. At worst condition it is evident that lifts/hoist services and exterior works accounted for the highest impact level average of 4 which consisted of component types including stairs and rails, water tanks and vertical transport. Security and fire services provided the lowest impact level ranges which were 1-2 from best to worst condition. Generally, within the life cycle cost sub criteria, the impact level ranges across numerous building component types were 1-2 and 1-3 respectively with the exceptions of water tanks and emergency power which had an impact level range of 1-4. Equally, the additional capital investment criteria presented a large number of impact level ranges of 1-2 and 1-3 across all component groups and types which indicated that there is a low to moderate level of impact from this building and its components towards additional capital investment costs. Interestingly, within the local economy criteria all component types which were assessed were given an impact level rating of 5 at worst condition which stipulates that more than 50% of materials and services are non-locally produced as mentioned in the defined criteria. Building component types appeared to have no relation to the land value criteria.

5.2.3 Social Criteria

Figure 7. Social Impact Level Average for Council B.

From a social perspective, Council B’s building appeared to have a mixed assessment towards social impact at each building component group’s best and worst condition. Electrical services, exterior works, external fabric, interior finishes and lifts/hoist services all evidently presented greater impact level averages at their best condition in direct comparison to their worst condition. These particular component groups had higher impact level ratings at their best condition for local community engagement, neighbourhood character but most significantly, employee well-being. This can best explained by the reasoning that at their best condition, the component groups mentioned appeared to have benefited a larger portion of the community and employees within the building which stipulated the higher impact level averages recorded ranging from 2.7-5. However, these particular component groups still presented relatively moderate levels of impact at worst condition which highlights their overall social impact importance. Conversely, fire services, mechanical services, plumbing, security and water services all had a greater impact level average at worst condition ranging from 2-4.6. Although these building component groups may have some benefit at

012345

Average Impact Level @ Best ConditionAverage Impact Level @ Worst Condition

Building Component Group

Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

012345



Impa

ct L

evel

best condition, the interviewee from council B suggested that at their worst condition, these particular component groups would present substantially larger impact levels and serious concern. This is emphasised by the fact that within these component groups, all the component types excluding the fire alarm system presented impact levels of 1 at their best condition suggesting that there is ‘very low’ impact whilst operating at their optimum. Fire services evidently provided the highest impact level range which was 1-5 from best to worst condition within the employee well-being criteria. Overall, the majority of component types assessed had a strong influence on employee well-being as opposed to local community engagement, community benefits and equity and neighbourhood character.

5.2.4 Functional Criteria

Figure 8. Functional Impact Level Average for Council B.

From a functional perspective, it is clearly evident that nine out of the ten building component groups had a lower impact level average at their best condition compared to their worst condition which was to be expected. The only exception was interior finishes which had an average impact level range of 5-4 which is best explained by the fact that this particular component group was only assessed on its compliance to building standards and regulations where the impact level range was also 5-4. Due to the fact that no other functional criteria were assessed for this component group, its impact level averages are quite misleading. One of the key concepts which were a clear trend among all building component groups was that compliance to building standards and regulations had either an equal range between best and worst condition or only a minor difference. In this case across all component types assessed, the impact level range was 5-4 from best to worst condition. The other main trend identified was that all component types at best condition within the impact of failure and response and level of service sub criteria had presented an impact level of 1 which stipulates that within this building, all component types functioning at their optimum level provide only a ‘very low’ impact. Level of service provided a low to moderate response for all component types with typical impact level ranges of 1-2 and 1-3 respectively. In terms of impact of failure and response, multiple component types at their worst condition such as emergency power, stairs and rails, roof, sanitary plumbing and lifts presented very high impact levels of 5.

5.3 Council C – Hume City Council

The assessment of council C was based upon their typical municipal multi-storey council building which is now 6 months old. This particular building was quite similar to Council B’s building in terms of its multi-storey nature and the relatively young age of the structure. On the contrary, this building had its own minor differences in regards to services and components. In regards to assessment, lighting-flood/security, power conditioning and conversion were excluded from electrical services, only stairs/rail and water tanks were assessed for exterior works, fire services and communications were combined into the fire alarm system component type, ceiling finishes and interior doors were rated for the interior finishes component group with all other component types not being applicable across the criteria. In addition, some of the component types within the mechanical services group were combined to give a more accurate rating and special services was excluded from the security services component group.


Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

v...

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es012345



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

Figure 9. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council C.

From an environmental perspective, it can be observed from the graph above that each building component group at its worst condition has an impact level average of at least equal to or greater than its impact level average at its best condition. The security services building component group had no ratings across all seven assessment criteria for environmental impact. Seven out of the ten building components had an impact level average which was greater at its worst condition compared to its best condition with only two of these component groups exceeding an impact level greater than 3 at their worst condition. External fabric and interior finishes had the same impact level average across both best and worst conditions which were strictly due to their individual ratings for the material sustainability criteria where the impact ranges were 3-3 and 5-5 respectively. These two component groups did not have any effect on any other assessment criteria for environmental impact. Water quality and management, energy efficiency and user comfort were the major critical assessment criterion which determined the overall environmental impact of each component group. Water quality and management had a typical impact level range of 2-3, energy efficiency had a typical impact level range of 1-2 and user comfort had a typical impact level range of 2-5 across the majority of component types.


Figure 10. Economic Impact Level Average for Council C.

From an economic perspective, it can be clearly seen from the graph above that security services and exterior works provide the highest impact level averages at their worst conditions with ratings of 5 and 4 respectively. For security services, all of its impact levels under the life cycle cost criteria for each component type at its best condition were rated as 1 with ‘very low’ impact however, at their worst condition each of the three component types within security services produced an astounding rating of 5 which signalled ‘very high’ impact towards life cycle cost. Exterior works was essentially assessed solely on its life cycle cost which presented an impact level range of 1-4 consisting of the water tanks component type. Generally, the overall trend appeared that at their best condition, all component groups had either the same or less impact as compared to their worst condition. Life

Electri

cal S

erv.

..

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

v...

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es0

1

2

3

4

5



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

v...

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es012345


Average Impact Level @ Worst ConditionBuilding Component Type

Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

cycle cost and additional capital investment were the major underlying factors towards the overall economic impact of each building component group.

5.3.3 Social Impact

Figure 11. Social Impact Level Average for Council C.

From a social perspective, it can evidently be observed from the graph above that there are two clear trends among the best and worst conditions of component groups and the impact level averages. One of the trends is that at their best and worst conditions, component groups such as exterior works and lifts/hoist services have the same level of impact with ranges of 3-3 and 3.5-3.5. The other trend is that at their best condition, component groups such as electrical services, fire services, interior finishes, plumbing, mechanical, security and water services all have a lower impact level as compared to their worst condition where their impact level averages reach a maximum of 5. It also interesting to note that the external fabric component group had no effect socially and thus was not rated. The major factors within the social criteria included community benefits and equity and employee well-being. Under the community benefits and equity criteria, the major impact level range across many component types was 3-2 from best to worst condition and under the employee well-being criteria; the major impact level ranges were 1-5 and 3-5 respectively which indicates the severity of the social impact of these component types if they are at their worst condition.

5.3.4 Functional Impact

Figure 12. Functional Impact Level Average for Council C.

From a functional perspective, it apparent from the graph above that there is a clear trend that applies across nine out of the ten building components. This trend is quite similar to the environmental, economic and social criterion where the building component groups have a much smaller impact level average at their best condition as compared to their worst condition. The exception here is exterior works where the impact level average is the same at best and worst condition with a rating of 5. This can be explained by the fact that the exterior works component group did not have any impact levels for impact of failure and response or level of service criteria. This particular component group had an impact level range of 5-5 for both component types which included stairs and rails and water tanks. These impact level ranges were in accordance with the compliance to building standards and regulations criteria and thus the average impact levels for this

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

v...

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es012345



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

vices

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es012345



Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

component group can be misleading. One of the other major trends within the functional criteria was that all the component types and groups assessed for the compliance to building standards and codes criteria had an impact level range of 5-5 which highlights the importance of legally meeting compliance codes and standards. The impact of failure and response criteria was most critical among water services, security services, lifts/hoist services, plumbing, interior finishes and external fabric in which all of these component groups had an impact level range of 1-5 from best to worst condition. In regards to the level of service criteria, component groups such as security services and mechanical services were considered to have fairly high impact level ranges which were 1-5 and 1-4 respectively. Overall from a functional sense, once a building component reaches its worst condition, it is evident that the average impact level is a minimum of 3.3 which is severe enough to cause serious concern in regards to the operation of a building.

6. Discussion

Each of the councils interviewed had an individually selected building which was assessed based on similarities however varied slightly in their location, features, operation and components used. It is apparent that among each of the council buildings assessed, the location, features and overall functioning of the building proved to play a significant role in influencing the impact levels of building component types across various aspects of the sustainability criterion. Depending on these parameters, each building had its own requirements and objectives which needed to be satisfied and thus impact level averages fluctuated to some extent across various environmental, economic, social and functional criteria.

Manningham City Council (Council A) was assessed on its single story council depot and city development office building located in Doncaster East which undoubtedly would have been factor in assessing various building component types and their relative impact levels. This particular building consisted mainly of employees with customers visiting for construction and planning purposes. Additionally, in comparison with the other two council buildings assessed, this particular building had aged significantly even after the recent extension and also did not have any lift services. As a direct result of the age of the structure and its components, this building evidently provided slightly higher impact levels for building components at their best condition in comparison to council B and C’s buildings.

Melbourne City Council (Council B) was assessed on its multi-story ‘Council House 2’ office building which was located along Collins St within Melbourne’s CBD. In comparison to the other councils, this particular building implemented state of the art passive design and sustainability concepts and thus led the way in regards to the development of a holistic green environment. The ‘CH2’ building utilized natural light, cooling and heating to provide comfort for occupants with many components providing multiple benefits and as a result, conserving energy and water. Consequently, this particular building had comparatively lower impact levels across building component types at their best condition than council buildings A and C.

Hume City Council (Council C) was assessed on its local council building located in Broadmeadows. This particular building had an extremely high capacity of occupants which included employees and customers which was significantly greater in comparison to council A’s building. As was the case with council B, this building also provided lift services. In regards to overall efficiency and sustainability, Hume City Council was comparable to Council B with respect to it being built to 5-star green building standards and the relative age of the structure. Additionally, this building also had incorporated natural light and various other sustainable measures throughout the structure to ensure conservation of energy. Due to the relative youthful age of the structure, the average impact levels for building components at their best condition were fairly low to moderate which was rather comparable to council B’s impact level averages.

Although each council presented various differences in their structures assessed, there was evidently a selection of trends and relationships evident between impact level averages and their parameters at best and worst condition across the three different councils. By conducting a detailed analysis of each of the four aspects of sustainability for each individual council, a set of similar impact level ranges and ratings were observed across multiple building component types and groups. Within each of the four aspects of sustainability, there also appeared to be a selection of criteria which seemingly had a strong influence on the impact level averages of the building component groups.

Figure 13. Comparison of Average Environmental Impact Level at Worst Condition.

Environmentally, the clear trend was that the majority of building component groups had a greater impact level average at their worst condition as compared to their best condition which can be observed from the figure above. Water services had similar impact level averages at worst condition across all three councils with a range of 3-3.8. Similarly, mechanical services had average impact level ranges of 1.8-3.9 and 1.5-3.5 across councils B and C. In addition, water services had similar impact level averages which ranged from 2-3.8 from best to worst condition across all three councils. It was interesting to note that security services had no environmental impact across council buildings B and C. In terms of assessment criteria, the major contributors to the overall environmental impact levels across the three council buildings consisted of water quality and management, energy efficiency and user comfort. These three criterions provided the majority of impact level ratings for building component types and evidently can be seen as the absolute measures in regards to managing the environmental impact of these council buildings.

Economically, the major contributors in reference to the assessment criteria were the life cycle cost and additional capital investment. These two factors accounted for the majority of the impact levels recorded for the economic criteria and thus can be viewed as the underlying concepts which need to be closely monitored and managed in order to minimise the economic impact of a building and its components. Interestingly, the majority of component groups at their worst condition had only a low to moderate impact level average across the three councils with the exceptions of only a select few component groups. At their best condition, building component groups had an average impact level range which was between 1-2.6 indicating that if these component groups can be managed in such a way that they function at a fairly good condition, then the economic impact will be very low to low. This particular trend is clearly evident in figure 14 below. The exterior works component group appeared to have a comparable impact level average at its worst condition across the three different council buildings which varied slightly from 3.5-4. Generally, the average impact level at best condition was lower than the average impact level at worst condition which was evident among the economic assessment of each of the council’s buildings.

Figure 14. Comparison of Average Economic Impact Level at Best Condition.

Socially, there were quite a few building component groups which presented fairly moderate to high impact level averages at both best and worst condition across all three councils assessed. Exterior works had an equal impact level average at both best and worst condition for councils A and C with ranges of 4-

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

v...

Mecha

nical

Serv.

..

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es0

1

2

3

4

5

Council A

Council B

Council C


Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

vices

Mecha

nical

Servic

es

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es0

2

4

Council A

Council B

Council C


Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

4 and 3-3 respectively. Contrastingly, council B had a greater impact level at its best condition as opposed to its worst condition across multiple component groups with a moderate to high social impact within the two condition level parameters. Another trend which was noticeable was that the fire services and plumbing component groups had a significantly high impact at their worst condition across all three councils with ratings varying between 3.5-5 for fire services and 3-5 for the plumbing component group. In terms of the social assessment criteria, employee well-being was the clear social impact parameter across all of the council buildings assessed with a significant portion of building component groups providing an impact level of at least 3 or more at their worst condition. This particular trend suggests that there is serious impact towards employee well-being across the majority of building components if they are functioning at a level which is at or near their worst condition. Component types such as internal/external lighting, fire services, air distribution, sanitary plumbing and water services all provided impact level ratings between 3-5 which correlated to moderate-very high social impact across councils A, B and C. One key trend to note was that the neighbour character and local community engagement criterion proved to have little or no influence on building component types and thus minimal effect on the overall social impact levels of each of the council’s buildings.

Figure 15. Comparison of Average Functional Impact Level at Worst Condition.

Functionally, as evident from the graph above, there was a clear trend among eight of the ten building component groups assessed for each council’s building where the average impact levels at worst condition were quite similar with a variation of only 3 to 4.3. This particular trend suggests that a significant number of building component groups assessed at their worst condition have a moderate to high functional impact towards the overall building and its operation. Additionally, councils B and C which had lift services incorporated had similar average impact levels for the lifts/hoist services component group at its worst condition which deviated slightly from 4.3 to 4.7. Across councils B and C, building component groups at their best condition typically had low to moderate functional impact levels with a range of 2 to 3. From a functional assessment perspective, impact of failure and response, level of service and compliance to building standards and regulations collectively played a critical role in providing the average impact levels at best and worst condition and consequently the overall functional impact of each council’s building. It was interesting to note that among each of the councils assessed, the compliance to building standards and regulations had an equal impact at best and worst condition stipulating that this particular criteria was a vital parameter which seemingly was strongly adhered to for all component groups.

7. Conclusions

Three local councils were interviewed and assessed in regards to the impact levels of their main council building. Each council was assessed on its own selected building which in many ways was similar in size and shape yet differed slightly in the services, features and components implemented within the buildings. It is worth noting that councils B and C had lifts in their building however, council A did not have any lifts. This research paper aimed to investigate the relationship between the impact levels of various component types and groups at best and worst condition across a sustainability criterion which included environmental, economic, social and functional aspects. Each local council’s building was analysed separately across each of the four aspects in order to accurately determine any visible trends and relationships among building component groups and their impact levels. This method was implemented to account for the variations between each council’s building due to various factors including the age of the structure, number of stories, type of components, features and materials. After analysing each council’s

Electri

cal S

ervic

es

Exter

ior W

orks

Exter

nal F

abric

Fire

Servic

es

Inte

rior F

inish

es

Lifts

/Hois

t Ser

vices

Mecha

nical

Servic

es

Plumbin

g

Secur

ity S

ervic

es

Wat

er S

ervic

es0

2

4

Council A

Council B

Council C


Imp

ac

t L

ev

el

building individually, it was apparent that there were some obvious trends and relationships that frequently occurred across various aspects of sustainability and certainly among component types and groups.

Some of the clear trends evident across each council’s building varied based on the condition parameters of best to worst as well as the four aspects of sustainability. From an environmental impact perspective, the clear trend observed was that the majority of building component groups had a greater impact level average at their worst condition as opposed to their best condition. Additionally, the critical factors that influenced the economic impact for building component types appeared to be water quality and management, energy efficiency and user comfort. From an economic impact perspective, the overall impact level averages for best and worst condition across all councils was stipulated as being low to moderate which suggests that the overall economic impact for the buildings assessed is at a manageable level between the two condition parameters. The critical economic criteria observed was found to be life cycle cost and additional capital investment which accounted for the majority of the impact levels recorded for this aspect. From a social impact point of view, one of the major trends identified suggested that a significant number of building component groups presented fairly moderate to high impact level averages at both best and worst conditions across all three council buildings. This trend highlighted the importance of the social impact of each of the buildings assessed with employee well-being and community benefits and equity being the major influencing factors. Finally from a functional impact perspective, the obvious trend among the three council buildings was the majority of building component groups at their worst condition each had relatively high impact level averages suggesting that building component groups at their worst condition can have a serious negative impact towards the operation of the overall building. Impact of failure and response, level of service and compliance to building standards and regulations collectively influenced the impact levels of component types with compliance to building standards and regulations having an equal impact at best and worst condition due to legality requirements which strongly needed to be adhered to.

Upon verbal discussion with each of the local councils, it was evident that there was overwhelming group of building components which play a critical role in regards to impact, management and maintenance of a building. These components consisted of solar panels, insulation panels, lifts, lighting, external façade systems, ventilation, security, HVAC systems and electricity power. Furthermore, council delegates suggested that there needed to be greater management of building control systems which affected efficiency as well intense focus on the level of control, time schedules of components as well creating backlogs with regards to cost and operation.

8. Recommendations

The aim of this research paper was to identify the relationship between the impact levels of various building component types at their best and worst condition against the fours aspects of sustainability which were assessed. After completing this research and analysing the results, the following recommendations can be made:

Greater numbers of local councils need to be interviewed with a focus on assessing multiple buildings within each council in order to improve the accuracy of the impact level data, averages and level of detail.

Each aspect of the sustainability criteria could become more specific with the intention of making clear distinctions between impact level categories from very low impact to very high impact.

A deeper analysis of the impact levels obtained could provide a clearer understanding of the relationships and trends observed in conjunction with a greater level of statistical analysis.

9. Acknowledgement

Firstly I’d like to acknowledge the help of Manningham City Council, Melbourne City Council and Hume City Council and their delegates who donated their valuable time to assist me by providing impact levels and answering my queries in person. Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge the help of Pushpitha Kalutara, a PhD student at RMIT University who assisted me with creating the NAMS building hierarchy, assessment criteria and general queries throughout my research work. Lastly, I’d like to thank my supervisor Kevin Zhang for constantly assisting me with general queries and ideas as well frequently meeting with me to discuss my research project.

10. References

Alpopi, C, Manole, C, and Colesca, S.E 2011, ‘Assessment of the Sustainable Urban Development Level through the use of indicators of Sustainability’, Journal of Theoretical and Empirical Research in Urban Management, vol. 6, no 2, pp.78-87, viewed 24 April 2013, Questia

Arnel, T 2003 International Developments in Green Building, Australian Green Building Commission, viewed 21 August 2013, <http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/6927/AGBM_Final_Report_-_body_text.pdf >.

Brganca, L, Pinheiro, M, Jalali, S., Mateus, R, Amoeda, R & Correia Guedes, M (Eds) 2007, Portugal SB07- Sustainable Construction Materials and Practices, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Hall, C, T 2012, Sustainability in Public Buildings Achievable without Capital Outlay, Sustainability in Public Buildings, viewed 21 August 2013, < http://seedengr.com/documents/SustainabilityinPublicSectorbyCTHRev2.pdf >.

Ding, K.C, G 2008, ‘Sustainable Construction – The role of environment assessment tools’, Journal of Environmental Management, vol. 86, pp.451-464, viewed 24 April 2013, Elsevier Collection.

Fowler, K.M, Rauch, E.M 2006, Sustainable Buildings Ratings Summary, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, viewed 24 April 2013, < http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1915.pdf>.

Haapio, A & Viitaniemi, P 2008, ‘A critical review of building environmental assessment tools’, Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 28, pp. 469-482, viewed 24 April 2013, Elsevier Collection.

Hakkinen, T, Vesikari, E and Pulakka, S 2007, ‘Sustainable Management of Buildings’, SB07- Sustainable Construction Materials and Practices, pp. 233-240, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Hes, D 2007, 3rd Edition ESD Design Guide – Office and Public Buildings, Department of the Environment and Water Resources, viewed 19 April 2013.

Mickaityte, A, Zavadskas, E.K, Kaklauskas, A & Tupenaite, L 2008, ‘The Concept Model of Sustainable Buildings Refurbishment’, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, vol.12, pp.53-68, viewed 19 April 2013, Taylor and Francis Online.

Sabol, L 2008, Measuring Sustainability for existing buildings, Design + Construction Strategies, viewed 19 April 2013, < http://www.dcstrategies.net/files/2_sabol_measuring_sustainability.pdf>.

Setunge, S and Zhang, K 2010, A reliability based approach for sustainable management of public buildings, International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment (ICSBE-2010), viewed 19 April 2013, < http://www.civil.mrt.ac.lk/ICSBE_2010/vol_02/6.pdf >.

Way, P, Lyons, S 2009, Building Condition and Performance Assessment Guidelines Practice Note 3 - Buildings, IPWEA –NAMS.AU, viewed 24 April 2013, IPWEA Database.

Zuo, J, Xia, B, Zillante, G and Zhao, Z 2012, ‘The future of sustainable building assessment tools – A case study in Australia, CRIOCM 2012 Conference, 17-18 November 2012, Shenzen, China.

http://www.civil.mrt.ac.lk/ICSBE_2010/vol_02/6.pdf

http://www.dcstrategies.net/files/2_sabol_measuring_sustainability.pdf

http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1915.pdf

http://seedengr.com/documents/SustainabilityinPublicSectorbyCTHRev2.pdf

http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/6927/AGBM_Final_Report_-_body_text.pdf

http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/6927/AGBM_Final_Report_-_body_text.pdf

Appendix A – Sustainability Assessment Criteria

Appendix B – Building Component Group -Type Hierarchy

Sustainability

Social

Local Community Engagement

Community Benefits and Equity

Neighbourhood Character

Employee Well-Being

Environmental

Water Quality and Management

Material Sustainability

Energy Efficiency

Waste Management

Air and Noise Pollution

User Comfort

Usage of Hazardous Goods

and Materials

Economic

Life Cycle Cost

Land Value

Local Economy

Additonal Capital Investment Cost

Functional

Impact and Failure of Response

Level of Service

Compliance to Building Standards

and Regulations

Distribution Boards, Emergency Lighting, Emergency Power, Lighting -Internal/External, Lighting-Flood/Security, Micscellaneous, Power Conditioning, Power ConversionElectrical Services

Buildings, Channels, Civil Works, Fencing, Furniture, Gates, Hard StandMiscellaneous , Signs, Stairs & Rails, Water TanksExterior Works

External Walls, RoofWindows and DoorsExternal Fabric

Fire Alarm System, Fire Communications, Fire Services, Fire Sprinkler SystemHydrant SystemFire Services

Ceiling Finishes, Fixtures & Fittings, Floor Finishes, Interior Doors, Interior WallsInterior Windows, Wall FinishesInterior Finishes

Vertical TransportLifts/Hoist Services

Air Distribution, Air Handling Units, Building Management System, Chilled Water System, Compressed Air/Pneumatics, Condensed Water System, Fan Coil Units, Heating System, HVAC Control System, Split A/C Units, Ventilation System

Mechanical Services

Sanitary PlumbingPlumbing

Access Control Systems, CCTV System, Intrudent/Duress Alarm SystemSpecial ServicesSecurity Services

Domestic Cold Water, Domestic Hot WaterWarm WaterWater Services

Linguistic

Terms

Environmental Criteria

Water management (En1) Material sustainability

(En2)

Energy

efficiency (En3)

Waste management

(En4)

Air and noise

pollution (En5)

User comfort (En6) Usage of hazardous

goods and materials

(En7)

Very High

(5)

High usage of water in the function

of the building component (More

than 50% of water used out of total

consumables for the function)

Very low usage of recyclable

materials and materials with

low embodied energy (Less

than 10%)

More than 50% of

energy usage is

non-renewable

More than 50% out of

total waste generated

is non- recyclable

More than 50% of

emissions cause

noise and air

pollution

More than 50% of emissions

contribute to increasing

temperature and reducing air

quality of the indoor

environment

Usage of more than

30% of hazardous

materials out of total

constituent materials

High (4) 30%-50% of water usage 10%-30% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 20%-30%

Medium

(3)

10%-30% of water usage 30%-50% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-20%

Low (2) 0%-10% of water usage 50%-80% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10%

Very Low

(1)

No water is used Very high usage of recyclable

materials and materials with

low embodied energy (>80%)

No energy used No waste generated No emissions

cause noise and

air pollution

No emissions contributed No usage of hazardous

materials

Appendix C – Defined Environmental Criteria

TermsEconomic Criteria

Life cycle cost (Ec1) Land value (Ec2) Local economy (Ec3) Additional capital investment (Ec4)

Very

High (5)

Higher degradation rate, hence less than 50% of predicted

service life can be acquired. Consequently, a lot of life cycle

cost including operation, routine, maintenance and

replacement costs are occurred

Building component’s current resale

value (Salvage value) is less than

50% of its costs such as demolitions

More than 50% of

materials and services

are non-locally produced

The building component is highly adhered with property quality

standards (PQS). The building component’s replacement cost

contributes more than 50% of its value to maintain PQS causing a very

high impact on additional capital investment

High (4) 50%-60% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50%

Medium

(3)

60%-80% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30%

Low (2) 80%-100% 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10%

Very

Low (1)

Same predicted service life or more can be acquired No demolition; only residual value All material and service

are locally producible

No PQS adhered to the building component

Appendix D – Defined Economic Criteria

Appendix E – Defined Social Criteria

Appendix F – Defined Functional Criteria

Terms

Social Criteria

Local Community engagement

(Sc1)

Community benefits and equity (Sc2) Neighbourhood character

(Sc3)

Employee well-being (Sc4)

Very High (5)

The service provided by the

component attracts more than 50%

of the community

More than 50% of the community is benefited by

the service provided by the building component

More than 50% of constituents of

the building component are related

to heritage and aesthetics

More than 50% of constituents are related to have

an effect to the well-being of the employee or

employees who operate the component

High (4) 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50%

Medium (3) 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30%

Low (2) 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10%

Very Low (1)No interest at all No benefit is given

No heritage value or aesthetics at

allNo relation to employee well-being at all

Terms

Functional Criteria

Impact of failure and

response (Fn1)

Minimum level of service

(Fn2)

Compliance to building standards

and regulations (Fn3)

Very High (5) Length of interruption and

response time is greater than

24hrs

More than 70% of user

requirements from the building

component have not been

obtained

More than 80% of constituents are

related to compliance with building

standards and regulations

High (4) 12hrs to 24hrs 50%-70% 50%-80%

Medium (3) 2hrs to 12hrs 20%-50% 20%-50%

Low (2) 1/2 an hour to 2hrs 10%-20% 10%-20%

Very Low (1) Less than 1/2 an hour 0% to 10% 0%-10%

Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan

Documents

Transcript of Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan