3.1 Expectations
The participants of the test projects reported their expectations and previous experience with sustainable performance assessment. The responses on their general expectations that motivated the use of Level(s) are summarised in Table 16 below:
TABLE 16. Expectations when joining the test phase
Expectations Number of
responses That it would provide information to establish objectives and targets for the sustainability of
projects
10
That it would provide information to measure whether sustainability objectives and targets have been met
13
That it would provide information about the benefits of more sustainable buildings to clients/users
7
That it would provide information to avoid future risks (e.g. high carbon tax, high costs of renovation, low occupant satisfaction and therefore high property void rates)
2
The possibility to compare a Level(s) assessment with assessments made using existing schemes (e.g.DGNB, HQE, BREEAM etc.) or recent or forthcoming national regulation (e.g. in the Netherlands or France).
16
That it would provide information to support benchmarking and comparisons of the performance of different buildings
9
Other (please specify) 0
Multiple responses are possible.
The two highest-scoring expectations are:
• The possibility to compare a Level(s) assessment with assessments made using existing schemes (e.g. DGNB, HQE, BREEAM etc.) or recent or forthcoming national regulation (e.g. in the Netherlands or France).
• That it would provide information to measure whether sustainability objectives and targets have been met.
Other expectations are included in the following quotes from the respondents:
• I would like to get to know Level(s) and to actually work with it. Also, by joining the test phase I have the possibility to give feedback and perhaps have influence on the final Level(s) handbook.
• Learning about Level(s) and experience different approaches from the different countries.
• Creating a Danish touch on the test phase and evaluation.
• We are excited about whether the system can handle an existing building as our
building. In the future progress we would like to see how the building is evaluated against Level(s).
• A chance to get to know Level(s) and a chance to participate in the development of Level(s).
• We expected a tool that would be able to test the sustainability of the building in various degrees, and be able to say to which extent certain goals had been met.
• My expectation is that there will be some difficulty in using Level(s) for renovation projects, and that a DGNB certification facilitates the work / execution considerably.
• Since I have already done a test of Level(s), I have some insight into what Level(s) can or cannot. Thus, my expectations are more a question of how much of Level(s) can be used today to renovations and how. Furthermore, a question of how much more is required, or possibly less to perform an assessment in Level(s) about renovation. I do not think there are as many demands for renovation projects as for new buildings - especially not within sustainability (unless you carry out a DGNB certification). Thus, I will assume that Level(s) can contribute to a discussion on sustainability in the project, ask questions about several studies, etc. and that way get more sustainability included in the projects.
• We want to be at the forefront of the industry and are curious to understand how Level(s) may influence the current market of sustainable building certifications.
3.2 Previous experience
Table 17 below summarises the test team's overall previous experience in making environmental or sustainability performance assessments of buildings. As is evident from the table, the vast majority of test participants consider themselves to be highly experienced.
TABLE 17. Previous experience
Previous experience Number of
responses
No previous experience 1
Limited previous experience (e.g. minimum energy/Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) requirements)
1
Some previous experience (e.g. simplified building simulations, comparisons of building materials based on Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs), water use estimates)
3
Extensive previous experience (e.g. dynamic building simulations, LCA assessments, building certification scheme assessments)
13
The experience by the test teams of making environmental or sustainability performance assessments includes a wide range of tools and schemes:
• Building simulations of various kinds like IES-VE (developed by IES) and BSim (developed by SBi).
• Use of national Danish tools like LCAbyg (life cycle assessment), LCCbyg (life cycle costing) and Be18 (energy simulation), all developed by SBi.
• Certifications like DGNB-DK (extensive experience due to Danish adaptation of the German scheme), BREEAM (including in-use and the Norwegian adaptation BREEAM-NOR), LEED, GreenStar, GRESB, Ecolabel, WELL and CEEQUAL.
• Design approaches like Active House, Miljöbyggnad and Sustainability Management.
• Additional LCA tools like Klimagassregnskab.no (StatsBygg).
• Additional energy simulation tools like Whole Building Energy Simulations.
In the event that the test project followed the minimum scope, the test participants provided the following statements regarding what would have encouraged additional testing of optional indicators and life cycle tools. The statements fall into two main groups:
36
The statements regarding the purpose and user-friendliness of Level(s) – in particular the manual and spreadsheet – include:
• A more simple structure and less reading material. It would have been great to have had more elaborate examples, perhaps on an actual case.
• The manual should be easier to understand. It is hard to understand the meaning of the indicators, which is written in a very technical manner.
• The purpose of Level(s) is not clear, and it makes it harder to understand the meaning of Level(s).
• To emphasize the use of Level(s) and why it should be used, the added value to the project should be clearer. Where is Level(s) strong to use in the process?
• Emphasize the financial benefits, branding and value engineering.
• Insight in the tool – a more complete evaluation of the tested project.
• More knowledge of life cycle assessments and better explanation in the tool. The manual is difficult to understand, and the tool contains errors that confuse and complicates the use of it.
• That there was an easier approach to Level(s), understanding of the individual macro objectives and that there were requirements in terms of levels etc. (benchmarks). There is also a possibility for more general input to larger perspectives in the various macro objectives.
The statements regarding scope, time and resource issues related to the test project include:
• Scope decided on the base of customer demands and project relevance.
• We would have liked to do further testing but would have needed more time and specific skills to do so.
• Cover costs for the time used for testing.
• Available time and resources.
• I would love to do the full test for a customer if I was paid for it. Now it is an internal project in my company, and we don't have the funding to do the full test.
• The project was at an earlier state than expected. Therefore the design team did not have sufficient data to work more thoroughly with Level(s).
• More time, more explicit information, group-work like for the minimum reporting macro objective (MO) requirements (part of the Danish national test).
• A simple tool that provides a better sustainable "score" and makes you able to make the right decisions and provide information about the benefits of more sustainable buildings to clients/users.