Comparing the fit between BREEAM assessment and design processes

Abstract

This paper explores the mapping of the environmental assessment process onto design and construction processes. A comparative case study method is used to identify and account for variations in the 'fit' between these two processes. The analysis compares eight BREEAM projects (although relevant to LEED, GreenStar, etc.) and distinguishes project-level characteristics and dynamics. Drawing on insights from literature on sustainable construction and assessment methods, an analytic framework is developed to examine the effect of clusters of project and assessmentlevel elements on different types of fit (tight, punctual and bolt-on). Key elements distinguishing between types include: prior working experience with project team members, individual commitment to sustainable construction, experience with sustainable construction, project continuity, project-level ownership of the assessment process, and the nature and continuity of assessor involvement. Professionals with 'sustainable' experience used BREEAM judiciously to support their designs (along with other frameworks), but less committed professionals tended to treat it purely as an assessment method. More attention needs to be paid to individual levels of engagement with, and understanding of, sustainability in general (rather than knowledge of technical solutions to individual credits), to ownership of the assessment process and to the potential effect of discontinuities at the project level on sustainable design.

Conceptualizing environmental expertise through the lens of institutional work

“…A large majority of the companies' state that they have partly or fully integrated their environmental work with quality issues and/or health and safety (Gluch et al, 2014). Moreover, in order to meet increased environmental demands, on, for example, energy efficiency requested by both clients and authorities (Thollander et al, 2013), there has also been an increased interest to adopt various environmental classifications systems (ECS), such as BREEAM and LEED (Schweber and Haroglu, 2014).…”

“…Over the past decades, the Architecture Engineering and Construction (AEC) industry has recognized the sustainability challenge, and currently we see many managerial and technological initiatives that attempt to cope with the more long-term and holistic view of sustainability, for example, through environmental management systems (EMS), BREEAM and LEED (Robichaud and Anantatmula, 2010, Schweber and Haroglu, 2014, Medineckiene et al, 2015, Zutshi and Creed, 2015. However, to comply with these current challenges requires more than instrumental initiatives provided by the above-mentioned tools, it also involves fundamental rethinking and a reconfiguration of professions, expertise, practices and institutions in the AEC industry (Häkkinen and Belloni, 2011;Teriö and Kähkö nen, 2011;Hughes and Hughes, 2013;Schweber, 2013;Janda and Killip, 2013).…”

Embedding green infrastructure evaluation in neighbourhood masterplans – does BREEAM communities change anything?

“…There has also been little research regarding how GI is evaluated within the masterplan process for a neighbourhood development, and how the evaluation of certain GI intentions affects masterplan decisions and outcomes (Lennon et al 2016;Schweber and Haroglu 2014). A masterplan process is described as a strategic process, involving a range of practitioners from planning, design, engineering, community engagement and other technical backgrounds who define a vision, plan and programme of work about how a new neighbourhood could be designed, both physically and functionally (Al-Waer 2014;Carmona et al 2010;Bell 2005).…”

Unintended consequences: institutional artefacts, closure mechanisms and the performance gap

“…Rohracher (2001) published a general statement underlining the multiple product and process challenges associated with green building and calling for socio-technical approach. Häkinnen and Belloni's (2011) study of barriers and drivers for sustainable buildings took up a similar call, as did Schweber and Haroglu's (2014) research into variations in the 'fit' between the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) and the building process. A number of studies focus on the role of one or more key actors in achieving this aim.…”