Improving sustainability decision-making at neighbourhood

level: a new framework for performance assessment based

on china’s small residential district

Author:
Deng, Wu
Publication Date:
2011
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.26190/unsworks/23785
License:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/au/
Link to license to see what you are allowed to do with this resource.

Downloaded from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.4/51005 in https://

unsworks.unsw.edu.au on 2024-07-20
IMPROVING SUSTAINABILITY DECISION-MAKING AT

NEIGHBOURHOOD LEVEL

A New Framework for Performance Assessment Based on

China’s Small Residential District

Wu Deng

A thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

The University of New South Wales, NSW, Australia

©Wu Deng, 2011

PLEASE TYPE
THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
Thesis/Dissertation Sheet

Surname or Family name: Deng

First name: Wu Other name/s:

Abbreviation for degree as given in the University calendar: PhD

School: Faculty: Faculty of the Built Environment

Title: Improving Sustainability Decision-making at Neighbourhood

Level: A New Framework for Performance Assessment Based on
China’s Small Residential District

Abstract 350 words maximum: (PLEASE TYPE)

The built environment (BE) in cities has significant impacts on environmental quality, socio-economic wellbeing and human health.
Neighbourhoods are the key spatial link between individual buildings and the broader urban context. Sustainability efforts at building and city level
will be less effective if this link is not appropriately addressed.

There are two primary types of assessment approach for evaluating the sustainability performance of the BE: qualitatively based building rating
systems and quantitatively based material & energy accounting (MEA) methods. Both can only partially address the neighbourhood sustainability.
Building rating systems can take a snapshot of the sustainability state of a neighbourhood at a particular time but cannot describe the actual
material and energy flows over its life cycle. MEA methods calculate physical flows from a life-cycle perspective but cannot address socio-
economic and spatial concerns.

This thesis hypothesizes that the two distinct approaches complement one another and their simultaneous use can generate additional data and
better quality decision-making information for neighbourhood stakeholders such as buyers, planners and managers. In order to validate this
hypothesis, a conceptual framework is proposed, which consists of a regionally specific neighbourhood rating system and life-cycle energy and
carbon accounting.

China’s Small residential district (SRD), which is a type of ‘gated’ neighbourhood and the major residential form in urban China, is used for the
case study. Two case study SRDs are used in this research to validate the working of the proposed framework and to understand what additional
decision-making information can be generated by using both approaches in an empirical context. Applying the framework involves: a) quantifying
the life-cycle material & energy flows and the related carbon emissions for the case study SRDs; b) developing a regionally specific neighbourhood
rating system and applying it to the case studies. Applications further leads to create two profiles: a sustainability profile, presenting the full range
of sustainability issues at a particular time point; and an energy and carbon profile, describing material & energy flows and the related emissions
from a life-cycle perspective.

The case study research indicates that the proposed framework can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability performance of
the BE at neighbourhood level. The thesis concludes that using multiple approaches for neighbourhood assessment, qualitatively and
quantitatively, can significantly improve the quality of decisions of the various stakeholders.

Declaration relating to disposition of project thesis/dissertation

I hereby grant to the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or in
part in the University libraries in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968. I retain all
property rights, such as patent rights. I also retain the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in Dissertation Abstracts International (this is applicable to doctoral
theses only).

…………………………………………………………… ……………………………………..……………… ……….……………………...…….…

Signature Witness Date

The University recognises that there may be exceptional circumstances requiring restrictions on copying or conditions on use. Requests for
restriction for a period of up to 2 years must be made in writing. Requests for a longer period of restriction may be considered in exceptional
circumstances and require the approval of the Dean of Graduate Research.

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date of completion of requirements for Award:

THIS SHEET IS TO BE GLUED TO THE INSIDE FRONT COVER OF THE THESIS

i
 Publications

The following publications and papers have resulted during the course of this research:

Deng W., D. Prasad and P. Osmond (2011) Improving Sustainability Decision-making

Information at Neighbourhood level: A New Framework for Performance Assessment Base
on China’s Small Residential District, The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural,
Economic and Social Sustainability, Vol. 7, Issue 2, pp235-252.

Deng W., D. Prasad and P. Osmond (2011) Application of ‘Streamlined’ MIPS Concept to
China’s Small Residential District, fully accepted by Journal of Industrial Ecology, In press.

Deng W., Prasad D., P. Osmond and Li F.T., Quantifying Energy Consumption and CO2
Emission for Urban Scale Built Environment: Case Study of China’s Urban Small
Residential District, fully accepted by Journal of Green Building, In press.

Deng W., D. Prasad and P. Osmond (2011) Improving Sustainability Decision-making

Quality at Neighbourhood Level: Case Study of China’s Residential Small District, paper
presented at the 7th International Conference on Environment, Economic and Social
Sustainability, 5-7 January 2011, New Zealand.

Deng W. and D. Prasad (2010) Quantifying Sustainability for the Built Environment at
Urban Scale: A Study of Three Sustainable Urban Assessment Systems, in the proceedings
of Sustainable Building Conference South East Asia, 4-6th May 2010 Malaysia.

Deng W., D. Prasad and L. J. He (2008) Measuring Sustainability for the Built Environment
at Urban Scale: Initial Study for Four Large Size Chinese Cities, in the proceedings of The
3rd International Solar Energy Society Conference Asia Pacific Region, Sydney, 25-28th
November 2008.

ii
 Acknowledgements

For his patience, dedication and friendship, I would like to thank my supervisor Professor

Deo Prasad – your support and commitments were inspirational. I would also like to thank

my co-supervisor Dr. Paul Osmond for always being there for sound advice and a good chat.

I will forever be grateful for having the opportunity to take my PhD journey under their

supervision.

It has been a pleasure and privilege to be surrounded over the past three and half years by so

many passionate and committed people in the Faculty of the Built Environment (FBE) at the

University of New South Wales (UNSW). In particular I would like to thank Muhammad

Azzam Ismail and Mohd Farid Muhammad from my research group, for always being

willing to discuss and for always a constant source of inspiration. I would also like to thank

the other PhD students in the faculty, Louise Mckenzie, Steven Chang, Alireza Salahi, Bart

Marirana and Haitham Alrasheed. I enjoyed our conversions, from politics to cooking. I also

owe a huge debt of gratitude to Dr. John Blair for his excellent editing work and many

constructive comments on my research.

My thanks also go to the UNSW for offering me the University Postgraduate Award and to

the FBE for offering me the funds for conducting fieldworks and attending international

conferences. Without these financial supports, I could not have focused on my research.

To my wife, Yan, your patience and trust through these difficult times got me there in the

end. To my son, Congwen, the past three and half years have seen you growing from a little

toddler to a young boy. I believe everything is possible in your life.

I will forever remember the Red Center Building, to which many memorable moments relate.

This dissertation is then dedicated to the building, and to you and me.

iii
Originality Statement

‘I hereby declare that this submission is my own work and to the best of my knowledge it

contains no materials previously published or written by another person, or substantial

proportions of material which have been accepted for the award of any other degree or

diploma at UNSW or any other educational institution, except where due acknowledgement

is made in the thesis. Any contribution made to the research by others, with whom I have

worked at UNSW or elsewhere, is explicitly acknowledged in the thesis. I also declare that

the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of my own work, except to the extent that

assistance from others in the project's design and conception or in style, presentation and

linguistic expression is acknowledged.’

Signed ……………………………………………..............

Date ……………………………………………..............

iv
Copyright Statement

‘I hereby grant the University of New South Wales or its agents the right to archive and
to make available my thesis or dissertation in whole or part in the University libraries
in all forms of media, now or here after known, subject to the provisions of the
Copyright Act 1968. I retain all proprietary rights, such as patent rights. I also retain
the right to use in future works (such as articles or books) all or part of this thesis or
dissertation.

I also authorise University Microfilms to use the 350 word abstract of my thesis in
Dissertation Abstract International (this is applicable to doctoral theses only).

I have either used no substantial portions of copyright material in my thesis or I have

obtained permission to use copyright material; where permission has not been granted I
have applied/will apply for a partial restriction of the digital copy of my thesis or
dissertation.'

Signed ……………………………………………...........................

Date ……………………………………………...........................

Authenticity Statement

‘I certify that the Library deposit digital copy is a direct equivalent of the final
officially approved version of my thesis. No emendation of content has occurred and if
there are any minor variations in formatting, they are the result of the conversion to
digital format.’

Signed ……………………………………………...........................

Date ……………………………………………...........................

v
 Abstract

The built environment (BE) in cities has significant impacts on environmental quality, socio-

economic wellbeing and human health. Neighbourhoods are the key spatial link between

individual buildings and the broader urban context. Sustainability efforts at building and city

level will be less effective if this link is not appropriately addressed.

There are two primary types of assessment approach for evaluating the sustainability

performance of the BE: qualitatively based building rating systems and quantitatively based

material & energy accounting (MEA) methods. Both can only partially address the

neighbourhood sustainability. Building rating systems can take a snapshot of the

sustainability state of a neighbourhood at a particular time but cannot describe the actual

material and energy flows over its life cycle. MEA methods calculate physical flows from a

life-cycle perspective but cannot address socio-economic and spatial concerns.

This thesis hypothesizes that the two distinct approaches complement one another and their

simultaneous use can generate additional data and better quality decision-making

information for neighbourhood stakeholders such as buyers, planners and managers. The

purpose of this research is to identify, investigate and strategically assess the use of both

qualitative and quantitative assessment approaches in an empirical context. In order to

validate this hypothesis, a conceptual framework is proposed, which consists of a regionally

specific neighbourhood rating system and life-cycle energy and carbon accounting.

China’s Small residential district (SRD), which is a type of ‘gated’ neighbourhood and the

major residential form in urban China, is used for the case study. Two case study SRDs are

used in this research to validate the working of the proposed framework and to understand

what additional decision-making information can be generated by using both approaches in

an empirical context. Applying the framework involves: a) quantifying the life-cycle

material & energy flows and the related carbon emissions for the case study SRDs; b)
vi
developing a regionally specific neighbourhood rating system and applying it to the case

studies. Applications further lead to create two profiles: a sustainability profile, presenting

the full range of sustainability issues at a particular time point; and an energy and carbon

profile, describing material & energy flows and the related emissions from a life-cycle

perspective.

The case study research indicates that the proposed framework can provide a more

comprehensive evaluation of the sustainability performance of the BE at neighbourhood

level, in terms of neighbourhood labelling, and for existing development, point to possible

refurbishment needs and future regeneration. The framework can also be used to improve

the design quality of a neighbourhood development at an early stage and facilitate

comparison between design solutions. The thesis concludes that using multiple approaches

for neighbourhood assessment, qualitatively and quantitatively, can significantly improve the

quality of decisions of the various stakeholders.

vii
 Table of Content

Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1
1.1 Overview………………………………………………………………………………………...1
1.2 Research gaps…………………………………………………………………………………...2
1.3 Research questions……………………………………………………………………………..4
1.4 Research aims…………………………………………………………………………………...4
1.5 Research Methodology…………………………………………………………………….…..5
1.6 Structure of thesis………………………………………………………………………………7

Chapter 2: Contextual Description: Sustainability and Neighbourhood Built

Environment………………………………………………………………………………………11
2.1 Sustainable development and its core values………………………………………………..11
2.2 Sustainability and the built environment…………………………………………………….16
2.3 Sustainability and neighbourhood…………………………………………………………….21
2.4 Sustainable neighbourhood practice………………………………………………………….25
2.5 Neighbourhood sustainability principles…………………………………………………….35
2.6 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………39

Chapter 3: Review of Building and Neighbourhood Rating Systems……………..41

3.1 Green building and building rating systems…………………………………………………42
3.2 Review of individual building rating systems……………………………………………….48
3.3 Findings of evaluating individual building rating systems………………………………...61
3.4 Emergence of neighbourhood level building rating systems……………………………....69
3.5 Review of neighbourhood rating systems……………………………………………………72
3.6 Findings of evaluating neighbourhood rating systems……………………………………..84
3.7 Summary…………………………………………………………………………………………87

Chapter 4: Review of Material and Energy Accounting Methods………….…….90

4.1 Material flux analysis…………………………………………………………………………90
4.2 Building related life-cycle assessment methods…………………………………………...92
4.3 Ecological footprint approach………………………………………………………………..106
4.4 Carbon footprint approach……………………………………………………………………110
4.5 Stock aggregation approach………………………………………………………………….114
4.6 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..120

Chapter 5: Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Assessment……………122

5.1 Recapitulation of research gap……………………………………………………………….122
5.2 Conceptual framework for neighbourhood assessment…………………………………...125
5.3 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..131

Chapter 6: Contextual description: China, Small residential district and the

Case Studies……………………………………………………………………………………...132

viii
6.1 Overview of China’s urban built environment…………………………………………….132
6.2 Building related material and energy consumption in China…………………………….136
6.3 China’s small residential district…………………………………………………………….142
6.4 Sustainability concerns of China’s small residential district……………………………..149
6.5 Case study city: Guilin………………………………………………………………………..151
6.6 Case study small residential districts………………………………………………………..155
6.7 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..159

Chapter 7: Case Study Research Methods………………………………………………162

7.1 Methods for material and energy accounting……………………………………………….162
7.2 Methods for developing neighbourhood rating indicators………………………………...165
7.3 Initial set of indicators………………………………………………………………………...168
7.4 Survey of local experts………………………………………………………………………..172
7.5 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..182

Chapter 8: Life Cycle Energy and Carbon Accounting for Case Studies………185
8.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………….185
8.2 Assessment boundary…………………………………………………………………………187
8.3 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………………...189
8.4 Data analysis……………………………………………………………………………...……196
8.5 Results and analysis: energy and carbon profiles………………………………………….201
8.6 Summary………………………………………………………………………………………..209

Chapter 9: Neighbourhood Rating System and Its Application to the Case

Studies……………………………………………………………………………………………..212
9.1 Background variables…………………………………………………………………………212
9.2 Evaluating neighbourhood sustainability principles………………………………………214
9.3 Evaluating individual indicators……………………………………………………………..217
9.4 Selection of the most important indicators………………………………………………….240
9.5 Creating sustainability profiles………………………………………………………………242
9.6 Summary……………………………………………………………………………………….245

Chapter 10: Conclusion……………………………………………………………………….247

10.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………...247
10.2 Major research findings……………………………………………………………………..249
10.3 Diagnostic findings…………………………………………………………………………..250
10.4 Contributions to knowledge………………………………………………………………..255
10.5 Limitations and future research directions……………………………………………….260

References………………………………………………………………………………………..263

Appendix…………………………………………………………………………………………279
Appendix 1: Household operational resource and energy survey…………………………...279
Appendix 2: SRD public operational resource and energy consumption survey………….282

ix
Appendix 3: The initial set of indicators………………………………………………………..284
Appendix 4: Questionnaire for expert survey………………………………………………….286
Appendix 5: Scoring the case study SRDs……………………………………………………...296

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Flowchart of research methodology ............................................................................... 7

Figure 1.2: Description of the structure of the thesis........................................................................ 8
Figure2.1: The interrelationships between sustainability core values .......................................... 16
Figure 2.2: Neighbourhood sustainability framework in New Zealand....................................... 29
Figure 2.3: Matching values to principles in the context of neighbourhood built environment38
Figure 3.1: Assessment structure using category Transport in BREEAM as an example ......... 63
Figure 4.1: General MFA system for models of the BE ................................................................. 91
Figure 4.2: Conceptualized building LCA process ......................................................................... 93
Figure 4.3: Screen clip of BEES 4.0 demonstration ....................................................................... 98
Figure 4.4: Screen clip of BRE Envest demonstration: embodied vs. operational energy...... 100
Figure 4.6: Example of the results report in ATHENA ................................................................ 103
Figure 4.7: Assessment scope of EF analysis in ISET ................................................................. 109
Figure 4.8: The breakdown of the carbon footprint of an average York resident ..................... 113
Figure 4.9: Stock Aggregation technique ....................................................................................... 115
Figure 4.10: EEP Model Framework and its sub-models ............................................................ 116
Figure 4.11: EEP model for a village illustrating variation in CO2 emissions of postcode
units. .................................................................................................................................................... 117
Figure 5.1: The proposed assessment framework ......................................................................... 127
Figure 5.2: A hierarchic structure of developing locally adapted indicators ............................. 130
Figure 6.1: Evolution of Chinese population and urbanization level ......................................... 133
Figure 6.2: The growth rate of Chinese urban building stock 1997-2006 ................................. 134
Figure 6.3: Annually added urban and rural residential stock and per capita housing area .... 135
Figure 6.4: Material content per area of different building types ............................................... 137
Figure 6.5: Material intensity of different building types in China ............................................ 138
Figure 6.6: International comparison of building energy consumption per unit of floor area 140
Figure 6.7: International comparison of building operational consumption per capita ........... 141
Figure 6.8: A typical Chinese small residential district ................................................................ 144
Figure 6.9: SRD system and the interactions between the subsystems...................................... 145
Figure 6.10: The layout and configuration of case study SRD 1 ................................................ 156
x
Figure 6.11: The layout and configuration of case study SRD 2 ................................................ 159
Figure 7.1: Steps of developing the neighbourhood rating indicators for the case study city 166
Figure 7.2: Hierarchical structure of the neighbourhood rating system..................................... 169
Figure 7.3: Weighting structure of the proposed assessment system ......................................... 180
Figure 8.1: System boundary for the carbon footprint calculations used in this study........... 189
Figure8.2: Percent transportation means by SRD 1 commuters ................................................. 198
Figure8.3: Percent transportation means by the SRD 2 commuters ........................................... 200
Figure 8.4: Percent energy use in different life stages of the case study SRDs ........................ 203
Figure 8.5: Percent CO2 emissions in different life stages of the case study SRDs ................ 204
Figure 8.6: Breakdown of embodied energy and carbon emissions ........................................... 205
Figure 8.7: Initial embodied energy and carbon emissions of different construction materials206
Figure 8.8: Operational energy and carbon emissions by different energy types ..................... 207
Figure 8.9: Energy consumption (%) commuters of different transport means in SRD 1 ...... 208
Figure 8.10: Energy consumption (%) of commuters of different transport means in SRD 2 208
Figure 8.11: CO2 emissions by main physical components of the case study SRDs (%) ....... 209
Figure 9.1: Distribution of Profession Years of the participants ................................................. 213
Figure 9.2: Gender distribution of the participants ....................................................................... 214
Figure 9.3: Weighting distribution of sustainability principles by both groups ........................ 216
Figure 9.4: Weights assigned to ‘environmental quality’ indicators by both groups ............... 218
Figure 9.5: Weights assigned to ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators by both groups ................ 221
Figure 9.6: Weights assigned to ‘infrastructure’ indicators by both groups .............................. 224
Figure 9.7: Weighting assigned to the ‘transport’ indicators by both groups ............................ 227
Figure 9.8: Weighting assigned to the ‘resources and energy’ indicators by both groups ....... 232
Figure 9.9: Weights assigned to the ‘environmental impact’ indicators by both groups ......... 235
Figure 9.10: Weighting assigned to the ‘site ecology’ indicators by both groups .................. 237
Figure 9.11: Weights assigned to the ‘sustainable management’ indicators by both groups .. 239
Figure 9.12: Sustainability profile of the case study SRDs ......................................................... 245

xi
List of Tables

Table 2.1: Building sector impacts on global resources and pollution ......................................... 20
Table 3.1: Screening criteria scores of building rating systems .................................................... 50
Table 3.2: Applicable rating tools after screening analysis............................................................ 51
Table 3.3: Summary of CASBEE-NC 2008..................................................................................... 52
Table 3.4: Summary of LEED-NC 2.2 ............................................................................................. 54
Table 3.5: Summary of SBTool 2007 ............................................................................................... 55
Table 3.6: Summary of BREEAM-Ecohomes (2006) ................................................................... 57
Table 3.7: Summary of Green Star-Multi Unit Residential V1 (2009) ........................................ 58
Table 3.8: Summary of GOBAS 2003 .............................................................................................. 60
Table 3.9: Summary of CEPAS (2006)............................................................................................. 61
Table 3.10: Scope comparison of the seven building rating systems reviewed .......................... 64
Table 3.11: Scale Comparison of the seven building rating systems reviewed .......................... 67
Table 3.12: Scope comparison between LEED-ND and LEED-NC ............................................ 75
Table3.13: Scope comparison between BREEAM-Communities and BREEAM-EcoHomes . 78
Table 3.14: Scope comparison between CASBEE-UD and CASBEE-NC ................................. 81
Table 3.15: Comparison between CEATM and LEED-NC ........................................................... 83
Table 3.16: Percentage of assessment criteria at different scales in different systems .............. 84
Table 6.1: China’s building energy consumption and projections .............................................. 139
Table 6.2: Comparison of urban conditions in Guilin and the average Chinese city ............... 154
Table 8.1: Energy intensity and the associated emission factors of materials & water ........... 192
Table 8.2 Life spans of building materials and elements ............................................................. 194
Table 8.3: Life-cycle material consumption and construction related electricity & water
consumption of SRD 1 ...................................................................................................................... 196
Table 8.4: Life-cycle material consumption and construction related electricity & water
consumption of the SRD 2 ............................................................................................................... 199
Table 8.5: Life-cycle energy consumption and the related CO2 emissions .............................. 201
Table 8.6: Operational energy and carbon emissions in 50 years life span ............................... 207
Table 9.1: Statistical data for weighting the Neighbourhood Sustainability Principles .......... 215
Table 9.2: Weighting distribution of sustainability principles by different groups .................. 216
Table 9.3: Statistical data for weighting the ‘environmental quality’ indicators ...................... 218
Table 9.4: Weights assigned to ‘environmental quality’ indicators by different groups .......... 218
Table 9.5: Measures selected for ‘environmental quality’ indicators ......................................... 219
Table 9.6: Statistical data for weighting the ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators ....................... 220
xii
Table 9.7: Weights assigned to ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators by different groups .......... 221
Table 9.8: Measures selected for ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators.......................................... 222
Table 9.9: Statistical data for weighting the ‘infrastructure’ indicators ..................................... 224
Table 9.10: Weightings assigned to ‘infrastructure’ indicators by different groups ................. 225
Table 9.11: Selected measures for ‘infrastructure’ indicators...................................................... 225
Table 9.12: Statistical data for weighting the ‘transport’ indicators ........................................... 226
Table 9.13: Weights assigned to ‘transport’ indicators by different groups............................... 228
Table 9.14: Measures selected for ‘transport’ indicators.............................................................. 229
Table 9.15: Statistical data for weighting ‘economy’ indicators ................................................. 230
Table 9.16: Weightings assigned to ‘economy’ indicators by different groups ........................ 230
Table 9.17: Measures selected for ‘economy’ indicators ............................................................. 231
Table 9.18: Statistical data for weighting ‘resource and energy’ indicators .............................. 231
Table 9.19: Weights assigned to ‘resource and energy’ indicators by different groups ........... 232
Table 9.20: Measures selected for ‘resource and energy’ indicators .......................................... 233
Table 9.21: Statistical data for weighting ‘environmental impact’ indicators ........................... 234
Table 9.22: Weightings assigned to ‘environmental impact’ indicators by different groups .. 235
Table 9.23: Measures selected for the ‘environmental impact’ indicators................................. 236
Table 9.24: Statistical data for weighting ‘site ecology’ indicators ............................................ 237
Table 9.25: Weightings assigned to ‘site ecology’ indicators by different groups ................... 238
Table 9.26: Measures selected for ‘site ecology’ indicators ........................................................ 238
Table 9.27: Statistical data for weighting ‘sustainable management’ indicators ...................... 239
Table 9.28: Weightings assigned to ‘sustainable management’ indicators by different groups240
Table 9.29: Measures selected for ‘sustainable management’ indicators .................................. 240
Table 9.30: Statistical presentation of the selection of the most important five indicators ..... 241
Table 9.31: Overall sustainability scores of the SRDs and their distributions .......................... 243

xiii
Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

BE Built Environment
BQ Bill of Quantities
BEEC Building Energy Conservation Center
BRE Building Research Establishment
CEATM China Eco-housing Assessment Technical Manual
CEPAS Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme
CF Carbon Footprint
EEP Energy and Environmental Prediction
EF Ecological Footprint
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ETS Emission Trading Scheme
GFA Gross Floor Area
GHG Greenhouse Gases
GIS Geographic Information System
GJ Giga-joules
GOBAS Green Olympic Building Assessment System
GPDI Guilin Planning and Design Institute
ICE Inventory of Carbon and Energy
IEA International Energy Agency
IEQ Indoor Environmental Quality
LCA Life Cycle Analysis
LCC Life Cycle Costs
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MEA Material and Energy Accounting
MFA Material Flux Analysis
MOC Ministry of Construction
NC New Construction
ND Neighbourhood Development
NSF Neighbourhood Sustainability Framework
SD Sustainable Development
SEI Stockholm Environmental Institute
SRD Small Residential District
UD Urban Development
UNPF Unite Nations Population Fund
UNSW University of New South Wales

xiv
 Chapter 1: Introduction

1.1 Overview

Sustainable development (SD) or sustainability is an amendment to the conventional view of

development that “confuses improving quality of life with achieving an affluent consumer

life-style” (Dresner 2002:74). The famous Brundtland‘s Our Common Future implies there

are three core values of sustainability, respectively, meeting basic needs, ecological

sustainability and social equity (WCED 1987). The three core values constitute a much

broader concept than simply maintaining the environment, reflecting the whole overlay of

economy, society, and environment - the so-called “three pillars” of sustainability.

Cities in general and the built environment (BE) in particular, during their life-cycle, have a

significant environmental impact both at local and global levels (Graham 2004:12, Girardet

2003:5). Buildings account for an estimated 40% of all resource consumption and produce

about 40% of all waste including greenhouse gas emissions (Prasad and Hall 2003). The BE

also has great influence on economic affluence, social wellbeing and human health (Jones et

al. 2007, Brandon and Lombardi 2005, Graham 2004).

Neighbourhoods are a vital link between individual buildings and the greater urban area.

They are linkages and intermediary spaces/places that offer much scope for influencing

sustainability both at the local and wider scale. The neighbourhood scale mediates between

the city scale and individual building level - contributing to 1 1data generation and policy
formulation at city and building scale and absorbing/adopting from both other levels.

Ignoring such a link places the viability of efforts at the individual building level in jeopardy

and renders city-wide efforts less than effective(Saville-Smith et al 2005:11).

Sustainability assessment is a useful tool that can steer societies in a more sustainable

direction (Devuyst 2001:419). One of the key questions of the BE-related sustainability
1
assessment is how to provide various decision-makers with adequate range and quality of

information required so that they can address their concerns appropriately (Lutzkendorf and

Lorenz 2006).

This thesis is concerned with improving sustainability decision-making information at

neighbourhood level, using both qualitative and quantitative assessment approaches. China’s

Small residential district (SRD) is used as case study. The research argues that using

multiple assessment approaches can provide a more comprehensive evaluation of the

sustainability performance at neighbourhood level, and thus generate better decision

information for various stakeholders.

1.2 Research Gaps

Currently there are a great number of methods and tools for environmental assessment of the

BE (Forsberg and Malmborg 2004), ranging from construction material selection, energy

labeling and indoor air quality analysis to whole building environmental assessment, and

then to urban scale sustainability assessment. The current BE assessments can be roughly

classified into two groups: qualitatively based building rating systems such as LEED and

BREEAM, and quantitatively based material & energy accounting (MEA) techniques that

often involve life-cycle considerations (Reijnders and van Roekel 1999, cited in Forsberg

and Malmborg 2004).

A typical building rating system is composed of a checklist of items organized into themes

such as transport, siting, energy and water. The judgment of which item should be included in

a system and the assignment of weightings are subjectively based (Retzlaff 2008, Retzlaff

2009). Current building rating systems operate at two spatial scales: individual building level

and neighbourhood level. The building level rating systems focus on environmental aspects

and are mostly spatially limited to building sites (Retzlaff 2008). In contrast the

neighbourhood systems such as LEED-Neighborhood Development (LEED-ND),

2
CASBEE-Urban Development (CASBEE-UD) and BREEAM-Communities, give a more

balanced assessment between environmental, social and economic dimensions (Deng and

Prasad 2010). However, building rating systems cannot report real material and energy flows

and related environmental impacts. This restricts the possibility of increasing the actors’

motivation as well as their willingness and ability to take individual responsibility

(Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2006). In addition, they generally take a snapshot of the

sustainability state of the BE at a particular point in time and cannot address it from a

life-cycle perspective.

MEA methods aim to quantify and represent flows of materials and energy used in a

production or development process as indicative of the level of environmental impact (Moore

and Brunner 1996). They can take the temporal frame into account and can be applicable at

different levels from individual buildings to urban systems (Kohler 2007:348). This approach

reports quantitative and absolute values of material & energy flows and the related

environmental impacts in units such as tonnes of materials, GJs of energy consumption,

tonnes of carbon emissions or other equivalent proxies. However, a critical shortcoming of

MEA methods is that they deal only with material and energy aspects, and are not capable of

assessing social, spatial and site specific issues such as community involvement, accessibility

to public transport and urban heat island effect (Keeler and Burke 2009:250-252, IEA 2004b,

Blair et al. 2003).

Studies comparing the qualitatively based building rating systems and the quantitatively based

MEA methods are often found in the literature, but empirical analysis is not used to support

the comparisons. This thesis will provide this empirical analysis by combining two

assessment approaches, a neighbourhood rating system and a life-cycle assessment (LCA)

based energy and carbon accounting and applying them to the same case studies. The purpose

is to understand what additional decision-making information can be generated by using both

approaches.

3
1.3 Research Questions

The major research questions that this thesis addresses are:

z Are current BE assessment approaches, primarily qualitatively based building rating

systems and quantitatively based material & energy accounting (MEA) methods, capable

to adequately address the neighbourhood sustainability on their own?

z How can the simultaneous use of the two approaches generate additional data and better

quality decision-making information for neighbourhood stakeholders?

The first question looks at what sustainability means to a neighbourhood, and how current

BE assessment approaches address neighbourhood sustainability. Since it appears through a

critical review of the building rating systems and the MEA methods that neither individually

is sufficient basis for decisions intended to optimize neighbourhood sustainability

performance, this research argues that using both approaches in tandem could generate more

and better decision-making information for various stakeholders.

The second question addresses the essential aim of this research. A conceptual assessment

framework is proposed which includes an LCA energy & carbon accounting method and a

regionally specific neighbourhood rating system. The application of the framework to the

same case studies indicate that using multiple approaches for neighbourhood assessment,

qualitatively and quantitatively, can significantly improve the quality of decision-making

information.

1.4 Research Aims

The thesis’s research aim is:

To identify, investigate and strategically assess the use of both qualitative and quantitative

4
assessment approaches for improving decision-making quality at neighbourhood level.

This can be divided into five specific objectives:

z Objective 1: Identify the generic theories and practices that underlie neighbourhood

sustainability.

z Objective 2: Review current BE-related assessment approaches (qualitative and

quantitative) from a critical viewpoint.

z Objective 3: Develop a conceptual framework that allows the simultaneous use of both

qualitative and quantitative approaches.

z Objective 4: Explore the way in which the conceptual framework can be applied to the

case studies.

z Objective 5: Identify the opportunities for improving decision-making quality.

1.5 Research Methodology

Research originates with questions about a phenomenon of interest. Research questions help

researchers to focus thoughts, manage efforts and choose the appropriate approach (Williams

2007). There are three commonly used approaches to conducting research including

quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers typically select the quantitative

approach to respond to research questions requiring numerical data, the qualitative approach

for research questions requiring textual data, and the mixed methods approach for research

questions requiring both numerical and textual data (Williams 2007).

Qualitative research is exploratory in nature and is used to develop a better understanding of

complex situations (Leedy and Ormrod 2001:102), which is often based on documenting

information from the literature and its review. Quantitative research begins with a problem

statement (Williams 2007) and involves employment of strategies of inquiry such as

experiment and surveys, and data collection on pre-designed determined instruments that

yield statistical data (Creswell 2003). Historically there are three trends pertaining to
5
quantitative research including research design, test and measurement procedures, and

statistical analysis (Williams 2007).

Two primary research questions have been proposed in 1.3. Qualitative research is used to

identify the research gaps and generate the conceptual assessment framework (research

question 1). The quantitative approach can be used to test the proposed framework using

deductive analysis (Leedy and Ormrod 2001), thus it is adopted to address research question

2. In this research, quantitative methods involve application of the assessment framework

(including a material & energy accounting and a neighbourhood rating system) to the same

case study neighbourhoods, and empirical analysis of the assessment results.

This research uses China’s Small residential district (SRD) as the case study. The choice is

guided primarily by the author’s research interest in this area. Currently there is no

sustainability rating system operating at SRD level and very few studies have been

conducted with regard to material and energy flows in SRDs.

Creswell (2003:15) defines a case study as the “researcher explores in depth a program, and

even an activity, a process, or one or more individuals”. The data collection for a case study

is extensive and draws from multiple sources such as direct or participant observations,

interviews and archival documents (Williams 2007). Case studies can be used for different

types of research purpose such as exploration, theory building, theory testing and theory

extension. In this research, the case study technique is used to test the theory (or hypothesis)

developed on the basis of the qualitative literature review. The question is, can the

hypothesis survive the test of empirical data? It should be noted that the results from the case

studies cannot be generalised universally. However, it is proposed they are likely to be

strong enough to indicate that the conceptual assessment framework is working, which

illustrates the concept of using both qualitative and quantitative approaches to generate more

decision information. Figure 1.1 presents the flowchart of research methodology in this

thesis

6
 Research Question 1: Are current BE assessment approaches capable to
adequately address the neighbourhood sustainability on their own?

Qualitatively based literature review

Conceptual assessment framework

Research question 2: Can the simultaneous use of multiple neighbourhood

assessment approaches generate better quality of decision-making
information?

Quantitatively based case study

Material & Energy Neighbourhood

accounting rating system

Diagnostic analysis: the proposed

framework is working?

Figure 1.1: Flowchart of research methodology

1.6 Structure of Thesis

This thesis uses a structured framework to address the overall aims and objectives. A basic

schematic description of the thesis structure is provided in Figure 1.2, which involves five

key linked steps. Each step is related to a research objective, and the chapters written to

accomplish that objective.

7
 Step 1: Understanding general neighbourhood sustainability (Research Objective 1)

Chapter 2: Cotextual Description - Sustainability and Neighbourhood Built Environment

Step 2: Reviewing current BE-related assessment approaches (Research objective 2)

Chapter 3: Review of Building and Neighbourhood Rating Systems
Chapter 4: Review of Material and Energy Accounting Methods

Step 3: Conceptualising the assessment framework (Research Objective 3)

Chapter 5: Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Assessment

Step 4: Applying the framework to the case studies (Research Objective 4)

Chapter 6: Contextual Description - China, RSD and the Case Studies
Chapter 7: Case Study Research Mehtods
Chapter 8: LCA Energy and Carbon Accounting for the Case Studies
Chapter 9: Neighbourhood Rating System and Its Application to the Case Studies

Step 5: Identifying the opportunities for improving decision-making quality (Research Objective 5)

Chapter 10: Discussion and Conclusions

Figure 1.2: Description of the structure of the thesis

Step 1: Understanding neighbourhood sustainability

This step presents a conceptual understanding of sustainability in general as well as a

sustainability-oriented literature review of the neighbourhood built environment. Both are

summarized in Chapter 2 of the research. The general literature review, exploratory in nature,

explores the current debates on sustainable development, and identifies the core values of

sustainability. It sets the course of the research by addressing some fundamental questions

about the meaning of and barriers to achieving sustainability. A more investigative literature

review then identifies issues relating to neighbourhood BE that are vital to moving towards

8
sustainability. These issues, including the temporal and spatial frame, neighbourhood

components and neighbourhood sustainability principles, must be addressed in assessing

neighbourhood BE sustainability. Research objective 1 is therefore addressed by this step.

Step 2: Reviewing current BE-related assessment approaches

This step is to understand the current state of the art in the area of sustainability assessment

of the BE, aiming to address research objective 2. This is achieved by a more interpretive

and critical literature review presented in Chapters 3 and 4. The qualitatively based building

rating systems and quantitatively based MEA methods that are currently employed for

assessment of the BE are identified and reviewed to understand three specific issues:

z The theoretical or conceptual approach underpinning assessment methodology;

z The assessment criteria and techniques being employed in these methods;

z Their capacity to address neighbourhood scale sustainability.

Step 3: Conceptualising the Assessment framework

Based on the literature review conducted in Steps 1 and 2, it is argued that neither qualitative

building rating systems nor quantitative MEA methods can adequately address the

neighbourhood sustainability on their own. However, they are mutually complementary in

neighbourhood sustainability assessment if applied together. A hypothesis is then proposed

that using both approaches could expand the amount of decision-making information

available thus improving the quality of decisions. This hypothesis is substantiated to be a

conceptual assessment framework structured by a combination of a regionally specific

neighbourhood rating system and a life-cycle energy & carbon accounting method (Chapter

5). The research objective 3 is addressed in this step.

Step 4: Applying the framework to the case studies

This step carries out a ‘test run’ of the proposed assessment framework. China’s SRD, which
9
is a type of ‘gated’ neighbourhood and the major residential form in urban China, is chosen

for the case study research. First, a contextual description of China’s overall built

environment and the concept of SRD is given in Chapter 6. Two case study SRDs are

selected for application of the proposed assessment framework. In Chapter 7, data collection

methods for implementing the framework are described. Applying life-cycle energy and

carbon accounting methods will lead to an energy & carbon profile for the case study SRDs

(Chapter 8). The regionally specific neighbourhood rating system, on the other hand, will be

used to establish a sustainability profile for the case study SRDs (Chapter 9). The case study

research, including Chapters 6, 7, 8 and 9, addresses research objective 4.

Step 5: Identifying opportunities for improving decision-making quality

This step identifies what additional information is generated by applying both assessment

approaches simultaneously to the case studies (Chapter 10). The purpose of the analysis is to

examine if the proposed assessment framework has the robustness to provide better

information and more decision making opportunities for various stakeholders such as

housing buyers and urban planners. The analysis addresses research objective 5.

10
 Chapter 2: Contextual Description: Sustainability and
Neighbourhood Built Environment

This chapter provides the research context by defining general sustainability and its relevance

to the neighbourhood scale BE. In this chapter, the research first reviews the international

progression of sustainable development in the last few decades. Based on Brundtland’s Our

Common Future, the research adopts meeting basic needs, recognizing ecological limits and

social equity as the core values of sustainability. The research will then define the concept of

neighbourhood and explore the issues relevant to neighbourhood sustainability assessment.

The research further examines three existing sustainable neighbourhood programs and nine

neighbourhood sustainability principles are proposed.

2.1. Sustainable Development and Its Core Values

2.1.1 History trace

The term sustainability or sustainable development (SD) is relatively new though it is

alleged by some scholars that it tracks back to some ancient philosophies, such as Taoism in

China (Kumar 2006:12) as well as to the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. Examples of

the latter include the notable book, Utopia, written by Thomas More in 1516 (White

2001:47), and the famous Essay on Population written by Malthus in 1798 (Dresner

2002:8-9). However, in practice, this term was hardly heard until the late 1980s, 20 years

after the contemporary environmental movement got going (Dresner 2002:1). From then on,

sustainability has gradually come into the forefront of public discussion. We can find the

term in national strategies, newspaper editorials, and even awarded movies such as The Day

After Tomorrow and An Inconvenient Truth. Davison (2001:12) concludes “the language of

sustainable development has guided environmental issues from the margins towards the core

of political debate”.

11
The World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED) and its influential

report Our Common Future (so-called Brundtland Report) in 1987 represents a milestone for

the concept of sustainable development on the international stage and contributes to the

implementation of sustainability at national, sub-national and local levels. The WCED was

established following a UN General Assembly Resolution adopted at the 38th Session of the

Unite Nations in 1985 (WCED 1987). This commission was chaired by former Norwegian

Prime Minister G. Brundtland and was convened to:

z Re-examine issues of environment and development.

z Strengthen international cooperation on the environment and development.

z Raise the level of understanding of, and commitment to, action on the part of

individuals, voluntary organizations, businesses, institutes and governments.

By criticizing current development trends that “leave increasing numbers of people poor and

vulnerable, while at the same time degrading the environment” (WCED 1987:5), the

Brundtland Report calls for a new path of ‘sustainable development’. The report arises at a

time when the humans face real threats emerging from “business as usual” approaches to

development such as poverty, wealth polarization, environmental degradation, and energy

scarcity. Since then, the term ‘sustainable development’ has been “repeated, quoted and

rewritten countless times” (Dresner 2002:31). While there is much disagreement over what

sustainability means and how it can be implemented, after Brundtland, few governments

continue to dismiss environmental concerns as merely a “bourgeois” luxury. The concept of

sustainability now forces governments and international agencies such as the World Bank to

begin to think and talk seriously about sustainability (Dresner 2002:36-37).

2.1.2 Defining sustainable development

In the Brundtland report, the definition of sustainable development comes out as a single

sentence:

Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without
12
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (WCED 1987:8).

The report goes on to say, immediately after this single sentence so often quoted:

The concept of sustainable development does imply limits—not absolute limits but

limitations imposed by the present state of technology and social organization on

environmental resources and by the ability of the biosphere to absorb the effects of human

activities(WCED 1987:8).

Meeting essential needs requires not only a new era of economic growth for nations in which

the majority are poor, but an assurance that those poor get their fair share of the resources

required to sustain that growth (WCED 1987:8).

Sustainable global development requires that those who are more affluent adopt life-styles

within the planet’s ecological means (WECD 1987:9).

By this, the Brundtland Report recognizes that the commitment to eliminate world poverty

must be accepted as a priority, while simultaneously the wealthier people of the world must

radically change their life-style to reduce the consumption of materials, energy, and water

they currently use.

In another crucial passage, the Brundtland Report further reveals the interrelationships

between economic, social and ecological development.

“Development involves a progressive transformation of economy and society. A development

path that is sustainable in a physical sense could theoretically be pursued even in a rigid

social and political setting. But physical sustainability cannot be secured unless

development policies pay attention to such considerations as changes in access to resources

and the distribution of costs and benefits” (WCED 1987: 87).

13
From this passage, we can take a distinct impression that sustainability tries to draw a

balance between economic development, ecological conservation and social equity, or, using

more specific terms, meeting basic needs, recognizing ecological limits, and social equity,

which actually constitute the core values of sustainable development. Clearly, sustainable

development covers much more than purely environmental protection. There are three

interrelationships that must be addressed if development is to be sustainable (Dresner

2002:33). First, a healthy economy requires a healthy environment because “ecology and

economy are becoming ever more interwoven—locally, regionally, nationally, and

globally—into a seamless net of causes and effects” (WCED 1987:5) and “today’s

environmental challenges arise both from the lack of development and from the unintended

consequences of some forms of economic growth” (WCED 1987:73).

Secondly, a healthy environment is not possible in a world marked by the existence of

poverty because “environmental degradation often affects the poorest groups in society most

severely as they are unable to protect themselves from the environmentally destructive

activities of richer and more powerful people” (Dresner 2002:33). Vulnerable people are

unlikely to move away from heavily contaminated areas to seek a better quality environment

due to financial and employment constraints. So, over the long-term, vulnerable

communities will appear that are isolated from other parts of the city. This phenomenon has

been observed in many cities around the world, for example, isolated slums on the city edges

in some developing countries.

Thirdly, a healthy society implies meeting the basic needs of everyone, an appeal to equity,

one of the core principles of sustainability. As Bruntland stated: “sustainable development

requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfill their

aspirations for a better life (WCED 1987:8)” and “Even the narrow notion of physical

sustainability implies a concern for equity between generations, a concern that must

logically be extended to equity within each generation” (WCED 1987:43).

Criticisms of the Brundtland definition often refer to its vagueness and that it has not been
14
operationalized in practice. Jacobs (1991:60) argues that sustainable development is a

“contestable concept - one that affords a variety of competing interpretations or

conceptions”. The greatest divide is between those who place environmental concerns at the

heart of their thinking and those who focus more upon socio-economic development. Both

groups can realize their aims to a degree by emphasizing either the ‘environmental

responsibility’ part or the development part. However, most commentators agree that the

emergence of the concept of sustainability is a positive thing, especially its core values. For

example, Fischer and Hajer (1999:2) concede that “the concept of sustainable development

should be credited with providing a ‘generative metaphor’ — or storyline — around which

different key economic and environmental interests could converge”. Whilst the concept

does not yet provide clarity, many other socio-political objectives such as liberty, social

justice and democracy were vague in definition when they first came into being. We should

bear in mind that the term ‘sustainable development’ is relatively new and the most

important issue at this point is whether the values of sustainability and its implied direction,

is acceptable.

Perhaps Nitin Desai is right. In an interview with Dresner (2002:63), Desai said: the problem

in agreeing on the meaning of sustainable development is not fundamentally about agreeing

upon a precise definition, but about agreeing upon the values that would underlie any such

definition.

2.1.3 Core values of sustainability

Sustainable development is not rocket science. Sustainability is something that everyone can

understand (Bell and Morse 2003:7). The looseness of the sustainability framework gives

people at different locations and with different world views an opportunity to select their

own specific way towards sustainable development. People in Australia and Cambodia, even

people in Sydney and rural NSW, have their own opinions on this matter, based on their

world views, life experiences, and aspirations for the future.

15
As noted earlier, sustainability has three core values: meeting basic needs (economic

dimension), recognizing ecological limits (environmental dimension) and social equity

(social dimension). The interrelationships between them are illustrated in Figure 2.1. At

present, a large part of the world population has not gained their basic needs. It is hard to

imagine in any country, that policy-makers would commit to maximizing ecological

sustainability before meeting the basic needs of their people. On the other hand, effort to

increasing economic welfare should not permit permanent damage to ecological processes

and should be limited to the natural carrying capacity. Furthermore, we also should bear in

mind that social equity cannot be neglected. Social equity, such as gender equity, racial

equity and many other forms of equity, have been a huge challenge in many countries

around the world.

Meeting basic needs

Social equity Ecological limits

Figure2.1: The interrelationships between sustainability core values

2.2. Sustainability and the Built Environment

By the mid-21st Century, 70 to 80 percent of the world’s population will live in concentrated

urban centres (Battle and McCarthy 2001:88). Rees (2001:37) describes “for the first time in

the two-million-year history of our species, the immediate human environment will be the
16
built environment” and alleges that cities are simultaneously a major part of the [sustainability]

problem and a key to global sustainability.

2.2.1 Defining the built environment: boundary and scope

The Built Environment (BE), as defined in Encarta dictionary (2010), is “human-made

buildings and structures as opposed to natural features”. This definition is general and simple.

A more concrete and tangible definition is provided by Health Canada (Srinivasa et al. 2003)

that states “the built environment includes our homes, schools, workplaces, parks/recreation

areas, business areas and roads. It extends overhead in the form of electric transmission lines,

underground in the form of waste disposal sites and subway trains, and across the country in

the form of highways. The built environment encompasses all buildings, spaces and products

that are created or modified by people”. This definition gives a broader dimension of the

physical components of the BE, which actually refers to any physical alteration of the natural

environment.

Although the Health Canada’s definition of physical BE is very broad, it still overlooks an

important aspect of the BE - behaviour and the aspirations of users. Buildings are not standing

alone in a vacuum. They stand in a concrete context with complex interrelations to other

components of the anthropic-natural system. Individual components of the BE are defined and

shaped by context, and simultaneously they contribute either positively or negatively to the

overall quality of environments, both built and natural and to the human-environment

relationship (Bartuska 2007). In this way, the definition of BE is linked to multidimensional

considerations, i.e. environment, society and economy, which are generally accepted as the

three essential elements of sustainability. The assessment of the BE should encompass social,

economic, and environmental dimensions that emerge simultaneously with the erection of

buildings.

In practice, the boundary and scope of the BE vary greatly in different studies. Some

researchers use the term “built environment” only representing building stocks (see for
17
example Plessis et al. 2003). Some prefer a broader definition which adds road and other

man-made products to the content of research (see for example Kumar 2006, Srinivasa et al.

2003). Others see the terms ‘built environment’ and ‘urban area’ as virtually

inter-changeable (see for example Brandon et al. 1997, Forsberg and Malmborg 2004).

As this thesis examines the sustainability performance of contiguous buildings, especially

focusing on neighbourhood scale, the BE in this case is defined as a) the collection of

various buildings (e.g. residential, office, commercial); b) the open space between buildings

(e.g. roads, parks, playgrounds); c) occupants and users who impact or are impacted by the

existence of the BE; and d) various infrastructure and services that support the existence of

the BE (e.g. energy, water and transport). So defined, the BE can be examined systematically.

The BE is a component of the total city system and interacts with other component systems

such as water systems, agricultural systems, and urban natural systems. At the same time the

BE is comprised of its own sub-systems, respectively physical building systems, land use

patterns, and socio-economic systems. There are also flows of materials, energy, information

and wastes across and within the boundary of the urban BE system, which is necessary in

maintaining functioning and producing a relatively stable state at a particular time point

(sustainable or unsustainable). If necessary, the BE sub-systems can be further disaggregated,

for example, a building system is physically comprised of a set of elements such as

foundations, structures, windows and finishes.

To summarize, BE in this thesis refers to individual buildings extending in scale from a

single-standing site to an area with multiple buildings and open space, accompanied by

intensive socio-economic interaction between users and affiliated facilities and urban

support services.

2.2.2 Environmental impacts of cities and their built environments

A city is an area in which built environment predominates over the natural environment

(Kumar 2006:40). Alberti (1996) puts forward a more comprehensive definition which states
18
“[a city] is an organized system of many interacting biophysical and socioeconomic

components and that the system itself affects the level of pressure that individuals exert”.

Indeed, cities are a concentration of buildings where intensive social and economic activities

take place, accompanied by a large amount energy and resources input and waste and

pollution output. The Chapter 9 of Brundtland Report, titled Urban Challenge, also states that

“settlement - the urban network of cities, towns, and villages - encompass all aspects of the

environment within which economic and social interaction take place” (WCED 1987:243).

Therefore, cities physically are a complexity in which people, buildings, facilities, hinterlands

and various natural and semi-natural environments interact.

From a historical perspective, the exponential growth of cities in the last several centuries is

a result of cities “becoming the destination for fulfilling people’s aspiration for material

comfort, safety, prosperity and various opportunities” (Kumar 2006:80). Urbanization is a

process that involves the movement of people from countryside to cities or migration from

small towns to big cities. This movement results in the expansion of urban population and

urban scale which could be interpreted as a “social-culture transition to a higher level human

existence” (Rees 1999). This kind of transition can further lead to two essential

transformations, first, the change of production patterns and second, the change of

consumption patterns. Both of them imply increasing consumption of resources and energy

because “the sub-cultures of cities, in many cases, are consumption orientated life style”

(Alberti 1996).

Building or building stock today means much more than its original connotation such as

protecting us from weather and physical attacks. It has become something that is related to

the human mind. The BE has become a place where we can meet our aspirations for

opportunity, welfare and cultural entertainment. Homes are places where we can retreat from

the outside world. We prefer to live in a suburb whose residents possess similar values and

social status. Moreover, there is increasing evidence that indicates the physical

characteristics in and around a building directly impact our health. For example, as indicated

in the Energy and Environmental Prediction (EEP) model (Jones 2007), cardio-vascular
19
disease, injuries in the home and mental health, are directly related to the indoor

environment, house layout and neighbourhood. In addition, poor design and maintenance of

buildings can lead to acute respiratory illnesses, allergies and asthma, and the so-called ‘sick

building syndrome’ resulting from mould, moisture problems, and various indoor pollutants

(Cidell and Beata 2009).

Table 2.1 gives an overall view of resources used and wastes produced in the building sector

at global level. It is clear that the BE and cities in particular, are the key factor in global

resource use and need to spearhead global endeavors towards sustainable development.

Table 2.1: Building sector impacts on global resources and pollution

Global resource Building use Global pollution Building related
Energy 50% Air quality (cities) 24%
Water 42% Global warming gases 50%
Materials by bulk 50% Drinking water pollution 40%
Agricultural land loss 48% Landfill waste 20%
Coral reef destruction 50% CFCs/HCFCs 50%
Source: Edwards (2001:31), cited in Hyde et al (2007:4)

As a consequence of resource depletion and environmental deterioration, especially under the

threat of climate change, the BE needs to change its planning, design, construction and

operation. Argued by Pyke et al. (2007), the traditional planning and design approach, which

is typically based on the assumption that climate is static, should change because:

z climate is changing - trends are toward warmer temperatures, more frequent heat waves,

more intense precipitation events, and longer, potentially more severe droughts, and,

z These changes have significant consequences for the performance of the built

environment - designs based only on past conditions will encounter significantly

different conditions during their expected service lifetimes.

(Pyke et al 2007)

In the vision of urban researchers, the BE means much more than its visible physical

appearance. Graham (2004:4-17) describes what BEEs (a group of building professionals

20
who are ecologically literate and environmentally aware) are thinking when looking at a

building:

When BEEs look at a building they see the mines, the minerals and forests from which

materials are made, they see the road upon which materials have traveled and the

power-plants and refineries that supply the fuel for the journey. BEEs see the rivers that

supply our water and which receive our run-off. BEEs see the atmospheric emissions caused

by the production of the electricity running our building, and by the burning fuels used to

transport people to and from it. Most importantly, BEEs see the demands on nature created by

the choices we make and know how to make decisions that are life sustaining.

(Graham 2004:17)

2.3. Sustainability and Neighbourhood

2.3.1 Defining neighbourhood

Neighbourhood is a term that is hard to define, but everyone knows a neighbourhood when

they see it. According to the Encyclopedia Dictionary (2010), a neighbourhood is “a

geographically localized community within a larger city or suburb. (…) Traditionally a

neighbourhood is small enough that the neighbours are all able to know each other. However

in practice, neighbours may not know one another very well at all”. From this it seems that

the identity of a neighbourhood is related to two factors: geographical cohesiveness and a

place which has the ability to generate social interaction. Galster (2001) synthesizes a number

of neighbourhood definitions and classifies them into two categories: one with a purely

geographical perspective and the second with an integrated social and geographical

perspective. Some researchers look at the neighbourhood as a purely geographical unit. For

example, Keller (1968:89) defines neighbourhood as a “place with physical and symbolic

boundaries”. Golab (1982:72) uses the phrase “a geographical entity with specific (subjective)

boundaries” (cited in Glaster 2001). Others have attempted to integrate social and

21
geographical dimensions, as in Hallman’s (1984:13) definition: “a limited territory within a

larger urban area, where people inhabit dwellings and interact socially”. Warren (1981:62)

defines neighbourhood as “a social organization of a population residing in a geographically

proximate locale”. “Geographic units within which certain social relationships exist” is the

definition suggested by Downs (1981:15) (cited in Glaster 2001).

Neighbourhood is both spatially and temporally based (Saville-Smith et al. 2005:13).

Neighbourhoods have their own geographic sizes and are linked to the broad urban matrix

through various transport networks. Glaster (2001) points out that neighbourhood

characteristics can be observed and measured only after a particular location has been

specified and many neighbourhood characteristics are intrinsically coupled with geography

such as infrastructure, topography, and buildings. Daniell et al. (2004) stress that spatial

considerations are a crucial factor for successfully assessing sustainability of housing

development, and suggest a number of spatial issues that should be included in the assessment

including location, layout, transport, topographic and land use information.

Neighbourhoods should be also addressed through a temporal dimension. The physical

elements of a neighbourhood are likely to exist for a few decades before they are demolished

or redeveloped. Both the built entities and the residents within a neighbourhood will consume

resources and energy to sustain their existence throughout its service life, and the social,

economic and environmental factors affecting a neighbourhood’ sustainability could change

over time. Life cycle assessment (LCA) is often used to address such temporal considerations.

It could be inferred from the above discussion that a neighbourhood is a relatively small

geographical area (compared to a city or a district) and within it a certain level of social

functioning occurs. The existence of neighbourhood is dependent on the infrastructure and

services provided by its urban matrix. Since neighbourhoods are spatially and temporally

based, they should be examined in both spatial and temporal frames.

It is important to recognize that the discussion generally reflects a concept of open community,
22
its geographical size is loosely defined and it is dependent on residents’ “familiarity and

special distinction” (Humber and Soomet 2006:713), which “typically go beyond a

household’s directly adjacent neighbours” (Saville-Smith et al 2005:13). Unlike such blurred

neighbourhood boundaries, ‘gated’ neighbourhoods including China’s SRD, present a

geographical form well defined by walls and gates. This will be discussed in detail in Chapter

6.

2.3.2. Neighbourhood components

A neighbourhood principally consists of individual buildings constructed for various purposes,

i.e. residential, a few commercial and occasionally community buildings. Residential

buildings are at the centrepoint of a neighbourhood, providing shelter for residents. The

existence of other types of buildings and the open space is to support the residential function.

The residential building typology within a neighbourhood may be diverse such as

multi-family apartment buildings, detached single-storey bungalows, semi-detached house,

and townhouses. The commercial buildings provide various socio-economic services to

residents such as banking, dining, and shopping. Often they are embraced in a large

commercial building or placed on the bottom level of a residential-commercial mixed

building with street frontages. The community buildings mainly include neighbourhood

communication centers, gyms, schools and kindergartens.

Beside buildings, a neighbourhood also includes the open space between buildings such as

streets, walkways, lawns and parking lots. Open space is important for people to socialize or

walk their dogs. Neighbourhood analysis needs to address how well buildings and the space

around them work collectively. For example, a building that overshadows over the adjacent

open space can provide additional benefit in summer for people moving around.

As noted above, neighbourhoods are linked to the broader urban context. In order to support

their functioning, the urban context needs to provide them with infrastructure such as

electricity and water connection, and public transport. Without them, a neighbourhood cannot
23
exist as a viable urban unit. Cole (2010:279) also argues that considering urban context can

promote a number of opportunities including exploiting synergies between buildings and

other systems and accounting for the social and economic consequences of buildings.

Alongside the functional aspects of buildings, spaces and urban infrastructure, their design,

quality and aesthetics all work together to shape neighbourhood BE and exert a collective

influence over the activities and behaviours that take place there. Neighbourhood form and its

features have social and environmental consequences. For instance, neighbourhood layout

should consider issues such as facilitating daily lives, integration with scenic axes and skyline

of the surrounding areas, and provision of social facilities. It should be noted that a specific

neighbourhood form may have both advantages and disadvantages, for example, the gated

neighbourhood form may improve security and increase the community cohesion within the

neighborhood, but also promotes segregation from other neighbourhoods and spaces in the

city.

Finally, beside these physical components, it is necessary to consider the users of

neighbourhoods. Understanding social processes around and within the neighbourhood and

involving people in partnerships are critical to moving towards sustainability of both the

neighbourhood community and the wider urban area. This mainly involves people’s life style,

the way they consume resources and energy, and their aspirations for sustainability. The

neighbourhood’s physical existence should encourage interactions between residents,

encourage a shift of life style and forge environmental awareness. For example, walkable

streets around and within a neighbourhood can reduce the use of cars.

Based on the above discussion, it can be summarized here that the neighbourhood, physically,

has four basic components: buildings (residential, commercial and community), infrastructure

(e.g. transport, water, waste, and information), spaces (e.g. car parking, parks, playgrounds,

roads, and walkways) and, people and their life style. Behind these physical components,

there are other not-so-visible factors that also influence the neighbourhood performance such

as urban context and energy & resource consumption patterns. For example, big cities may
24
have city-wide rail connection that is a more reliable and efficient public transport means than

public buses. Neighbourhoods sitting in the city center may have better transport service but

poorer environmental quality.

Energy and resource consumption patterns vary greatly between different neighbourhoods.

Many neighbourhoods in Sydney, in the top band of the property market, are without rail

connection and a large-size shopping mall nearby. There are also some Chinese SRDs

locating on the city fringes which have better landscaping areas and environmental quality but

a less efficient public transport system. People living in such neighbourhoods often have

better social facilities but consume more energy and resources to construct and to operate

(larger housing sizes and public areas) and use more petrol because of longer commuting

distances.

2.4. Sustainable Neighbourhood Practices

2.4.1 Review of current sustainable neighbourhood programs

Current sustainability programs and policies are generally focused on city and individual

building level (Humber and Soomet 2006:714). However, the recent emergence of a number

of neighbourhood rating systems such as LEED-Neighborhood Development reflects a

greater attention being given to environmental impact at neighbourhood level.

The following section will give a brief review of three sustainable neighbourhood programs,

with the purpose of distilling common factors from these practices.

2.4.1.1 Beddington Zero Energy Development

Beddington Zero Energy Development or BedZED, is the largest eco-village in the United

Kingdom. The development was designed by architect Bill Dunster and developed by the

25
Peabody Trust. BedZED comprises 82 homes, office space and live-work units. The village

has a mix of social housing, shared ownership, key-worker homes and private houses for sale

at prices comparable to more conventional homes in the area.

The key features of BedZED’s planning and design are summarized as follows (BRE 2002a):

Mixed-use development: A mixed-use development offers the opportunity to work locally

and provides an increased sense of community resulting from the layering and interaction of

different activities and occupation patterns. Building mixed-use developments at high

densities can also reduce the need to develop greenfield sites.

Home Zone regulation: At BedZED, ‘Home Zone’ principles are designed to involve

measures including reducing car speeds, giving priority to cyclists and pedestrians, having

safe and convenient cycle routes and providing secure cycle storage facilities.

Public transport and car sharing: The BedZED development is located on a major road used

by two bus routes, which connect to local centers. BedZED has also established a car club to

reduce car ownership.

Site ecological conservation: A Biodiversity Plan was developed to maximise spaces for

wildlife in the urban environment. Existing features of the site have been retained or enhanced

to increase biodiversity and natural amenity value.

Energy efficiency design of the buildings: First, energy efficiency can be increased through

considered zoning of activities. Second, insulation levels are considerably higher than those

required by the Building Regulations. Third, triple-glazed, krypton-filled windows with

low-emissivity glass, large panes and timber frames further reduce heat loss.

Energy efficiency appliances: ‘A’-rated domestic appliances (including light bulbs) were

specified throughout the development. Such appliances can cost a little more to buy, but
26
return considerable energy savings and reduced running costs.

Renewable energy: The main source of energy in BedZED is a Combined Heat and Power

(CHP) plant which runs on chipped tree surgery waste. The CHP has been sized so that over

the course of a year it generates enough electricity to provide for all of the development's

needs which makes BedZED a zero fossil energy development.

Water efficiency: By using water efficient fittings and appliances such as washing machines,

spray taps, showers and dual-flush low-flush toilets, reductions in mains water usage of 40%

are achieved.

Waste disposal: Target for waste during construction was to be set at 5% of total construction

material. Recycling and composting facilities were incorporated at design phase.

Sourcing construction materials locally: 52% of the construction material (by weight) was

sourced from within a 35 mile radius of the site, reducing pollution and energy impacts from

transportation and to encourage local industry.

Avoiding unhealthy materials: Certain materials have been avoided due to their potential

health risks to builders, occupants and future generations.

(BRE 2002a)

BedZED has gained publicity since its completion and continues to be an often cited case

study (Keeler and Burke 2009:224) in sustainable neighbourhood development. The

monitoring of BedZED’s performance indicates that, compared to the current UK benchmarks,

it realizes a reduction of hot water heating of 45%, electricity consumption is 55% less, and

water consumption about 60% less (Twinn 2003). In an ideal situation, a four-person

BedZED household can reduce the overall eco-footprint from 6.19 hectares (typical UK

lifestyle) to 1.90 hectares (Twinn 2003).

27
2.4.1.2 Neighbourhood Sustainability Framework (NSF) in New Zealand

NSF has been developed by the research consortium called Beacon Pathway Limited in New

Zealand, which is a unique consortium in New Zealand’s built environment research

community. The group focuses on the residential built environment encompassing buildings,

infrastructure and space such as green and open space as well as connecting and dividing

spaces (Bijoux et al. 2007, Saville-Smith et al. 2007, Bijoux et al. 2008, Lietz et al. 2008).

A Neighbourhood Sustainability Framework (Figure 2.2) and supporting tools has been

developed and this has been tested and refined by applying it to nine case study

neighbourhoods in urban areas throughout New Zealand (Bijoux et al. 2008).

This framework comprises three neighbourhood BE elements and six critical domains. The

BE elements include infrastructure, buildings and space, representing the physical form of the

neighbourhood. The six domains reflect the functional aspects of the neighbourhood. Within

each of the functional domains, a number of sustainability issues are addressed, which can be

summarized as follows (Bijoux et al. 2007, Bijoux et al. 2008):

Functional flexibility: The built environment can be continuously adapted to the needs of

diverse and changing populations, social, economic and environmental conditions:

z adaptability to changes in household structure

z adaptability to changes in transport costs and choices

z adaptability to changing ethnic and socio-economic mix of the population

z adaptability to the effects of climate change

28
 Figure 2.2: Neighbourhood sustainability framework in New Zealand
Source: Bijoux et al. (2008)

Neighbourhood satisfaction: The built environment maximises the key determinants of

neighbourhood satisfaction:

z housing quality

z durability and low levels of dilapidation

z street safety

z low noise disturbance

z opportunities for casual social interaction

z opportunities for enclave living.

Minimised Costs: The built environment minimises the direct and indirect costs and cost

uncertainty for households and cities associated with:

z travel

z dwelling and section provision, maintenance and repair

z infrastructure provision, maintenance and repair

29
z facility provision, maintenance and repair.

Effective Governance and Civic Life: The built environment encourages:

z casual social interaction at street level

z access to neighbourhood and city wide facilities and amenities

z equitable access to basic services and amenities for children and adults with diverse

levels of mobility within the neighbourhoods

z formal interaction and spaces for formal interactions for neighbourhood governance,

civic participation and government.

Appropriate Resource Use and Climate Protection: The neighbourhood built environment

encourages resource efficiency, resource conservation and the use of more sustainable

resources in relation to:

z maximisation of dwelling performance

z land consumption

z transport energy consumption

z energy and other resource sources

z sustainable and renewable sources of energy, potable water and materials.

z lifecycle impacts

Maximised Biophysical Health: The neighbourhood built environment is designed to protect

and enhance the biosphere, with particular focus on:

z reducing negative impacts on air quality

z ensuring aquatic health

z protecting/enhancing biodiversity and soil quality

(Bijoux et al. 2007, Bijoux et al. 2008)

There are two tools that support the NSF (Lietz et al. 2008), which are:

z The Built Environment Observational Assessment Tool which involves a structured,

expert assessment of the built environment; and

30
z The Resident Self-report Tool which involves collecting and analysing residents’

behaviour and perceptions in relationship to the critical domains of the NSF.

The Observational Assessment Tool consists of a mixture of measurement and professional

judgment structured through a set of well-defined requirements and guidelines. The Resident

Self-report Tool is applied as a resident questionnaire that is delivered to householders. The

results are reported as relative values to a baseline database of neighbourhood behaviours and

perceptions. The aim of the tools is to pinpoint neighbourhood strengths and weaknesses and

assist in identifying the critical priorities for the management and retrofit of neighbourhoods.

In summary, the Beacon Neighbourhoods Research Team consider that neighbourhoods tend

to work well if they can achieve a specific number of the design goals including: an

acceptable physical appearance of the neighbourhood including low levels of dilapidation;

safety in the street both from traffic and other people; low noise disturbance; access to

facilities and services; access to other sites in the settlement system; manageable cost of both

residences in the neighbourhood and in connecting to other parts of the city system; ability to

have pleasant, friendly and non-threatening casual social relations; ability to provide

opportunities for neighbourhood action on local issues, and low tenure mix (Saville-Smith et

al. 2007, Bijoux et al. 2007).

2.4.1.3 Sustainable Renovation of Buildings for Sustainable Neighbourhoods

‘Sustainable Renovation of Buildings for Sustainable Neighbourhoods’ or HQE²R is a

project partly funded by the European Commission under the Fifth Framework Research &

Development Programme. The objective of the HQE2R project is to allow local authorities

to implement plans of action for the renewal of their neighbourhoods and to renovate their

buildings in the light of sustainable development (Charlot-Valdieu and Outrequin 2003).

The HQE2R project proposes the use of five global objectives of sustainable development for

European cities as a point of departure for a thought process, which include:

31
z To preserve and enhance heritage and to conserve resources, i.e. human resources,

constructed or natural heritage, natural resources (energy, water, space), whether local or

global and biodiversity.

z To improve the quality of the local environment, for the residents and users of the city

z To ensure diversity: diversity of the population, the habitat, human activities and space

z To improve integration: integration of the inhabitants in the city, in order that everyone

feels he or she is both an inhabitant of and has a role to play in the city. An example is

integrating neighbourhoods in the city with reference to the multi-centre city

z To reinforce social life through local governance, and relations of social cohesion and

actions of social equity

(Charlot-Valdieu and Outrequin 2003)

These five objectives must serve as the foundation for regeneration projects, development,

and construction, whether for a city or a neighbourhood as well as for buildings. Below these

overall objectives, there are 21 concrete sustainability targets relevant to neighbourhood

renovation.

To preserve and enhance heritage and to conserve resources

z To reduce energy consumption and improve energy management

z To improve water resource management and quality

z To avoid land consumption and improve land management

z To reduce the consumption of materials and improve their management

z To preserve and enhance the built and natural heritage

To improve the quality of the local environment

z To preserve and enhance the landscape and visual comfort

z To improve housing quality

z To improve cleanliness, hygiene and health

z To improve safety and risk management

z To improve air quality

32
z To reduce noise pollution

z To minimise waste

To ensure diversity

z To ensure the diversity of the population

z To ensure the diversity of functions

z To ensure the diversity of housing supply

To improve integration

z To increase the levels of education and job qualification

z To improve access for all residents to all the services and facilities of the city by means

of easy and non expensive transportation

z To improve the integration of the neighbourhood in the city by creating living and

meeting places for all the inhabitants of the city

z To avoid unwanted mobility and to improve environmentally sound mobility

infrastructure

(Charlot-Valdieu and Outrequin 2003)

Furthermore, 65 indicators are identified and grouped into the 21 targets. This process reflects

a ‘principle to indicators’ methodology in which the universal SD objectives, neighbourhood

targets and assessment indicators form a chain to ensure the whole process is not deviated

from the SD origins.

The objectives, targets and indicators constitute a hierarchy indicator suite (INDI model) to

evaluate the state of neighbourhoods and different neighbourhood renovation plans. The

INDI model can lead to establishment of a sustainability profile of the renovation plan. It is

interesting to note, together with the INDI model, HQE2R employs an environmental impact

model (ENVI model) to give a calculation of the environmental impact of the renovation

scenario at the building level. It covers seven areas: buildings, transportation, ground

occupation, public lighting and network, local energy production, water and sewage, and
33
waste. The environmental model can lead to construction of an environmental profile.

However, the ENVI model has not taken life-cycle impacts into account but only focuses on

the operational stage. Beside these two models, HQE2R also runs an assessment of

sustainable construction and technology cost model (ASCOT model), which calculates the

global cost of efficient technologies from an environmental point of view at the building

level.

2.4.2 Common threads from the Case Studies

From the above three sustainable neighbourhood programs, it seems that a sustainable

neighbourhood should be one that is accessible, environmentally friendly, sociable and

economically efficient. The sustainability factors addressed by the current practices

generally include:

z Increasing density in urban areas can protect valuable ecological areas by reducing

sprawl, reducing the amount of land that is developed, improving the viability of town

centres and public transport and directly affecting travel behaviour.

z Reducing car dependence is a priority of sustainable neighbourhood. Related issues

include mixed-use development, proximity of daily used services and facilities,

availability of effective, safe and convenient public transport, neighbourhood walkability,

use of bicycles and a reasonable urban road network.

z Providing communication facilities and quality public spaces, which play a key role in

neighbourhood sustainability. They can encourage people to interact and forge a sense of

community, and improve resident satisfaction. Public space also provides local habitat,

facilitates the use of rainwater, increases walking and is the stage for creative activities.

z Providing efficient solutions to energy, water and materials. Related issues include

installing efficient appliances, onsite generation of renewable energy, reuse of water and

materials, and enhancement of building insulation.

z Improving economic efficiency and reducing operation cost. Key action pathways

include a mixture in building typology and dwelling size, mixed use, local facilities,

locally materials sourcing and the availability of public transport.

34
z Providing sound and healthy environmental quality for the neighbourhood residents. The

neighbourhood should have acceptable air quality and noise quality although these are

partially affected by the broad urban environment. The use of unhealthy materials should

be avoided and site ecology maintained. The neighbourhood also needs to reduce the

environmental load on the outside environment by reducing wastewater discharge and

waste generation.

2.5. Neighbourhood Sustainability Principles

2.5.1 Concept of sustainability principles

Sustainability principles, as defined in this thesis, aim to provide relatively clear-cut

interpretation for the core values of sustainability and help to “provide further guidance for

implementation” (Harding 2006) in the context of neighbourhood BE. Shepherd and Ortolano

(1996) stress that sustainability principles can trickle down to policies, plans and programs,

then to projects. Through a set of defined principles that guide the development process,

various dimensions of the rhetoric of sustainable development are merged and explored and

bring the sustainability concept closer to its original value based roots (Kobus 2005).

This approach is also called the “principle to indicator” model (Mawinney 2002:166) in

which the principles are further developed into sets of operational performance indicators. It

has been used by some researchers for sustainability design, planning and assessment (e.g.

Aall 2001, Curwell and Cooper 1998, Fahy and Cinnéide 2007, López-Ridaura et al. 2002,

Utne 2008). A recent work finished by Hyde et al. (2007) used the “principle to indicator”

model as the basis for developing a design tool for sustainable precincts in Australia. They

argued that “[since] the environmental principles espoused are connected to environmental

performance, this approach is preferred by many, as it forms a very logical route to

environmental assessment”.

35
In this research, the neighbourhood sustainability principles, which are rooted in the

sustainability core values, will serve as the basis for the further development of the regionally

specific neighbourhood assessment indicators, which will be discussed in Chapter 9.

2.5.2 Neighbourhood sustainability principles

This thesis seeks a set of principles that properly addresses the BE at neighbourhood scale.

Based on these, this research can move on to identify and select a number of regionally

specific indicators according to the local context, which will be discussed in the case study

section of the thesis. As noted earlier, sustainability principles provide relatively more clear

interpretations for the sustainability values, so the question emerges as to what principles

best explain the core values of sustainability in the context of the neighbourhood BE.

Based on the discussion in the previous sections of this chapter, the matching of

sustainability core values to neighbourhood sustainability principles is shown in Figure 2.3.

The requirement of meeting basic needs represents the core of the development aspirations

of the Brundtland definition. Given the context of neighbourhood BE, meeting basic needs

means providing livable environmental quality, providing needed infrastructure and

providing efficient public transport. The fundamental need of creating the neighbourhood

BE is to improve the life quality of people and a healthy environment is a crucial factor for

life quality. Neighbourhood residents should live in a sound environment that is related to

factors such as air quality, acoustic pollution, and urban heat island. The environmental

quality within a neighbourhood is determined by both onsite and offsite pollution sources

and the related environmental laws and regulations of the city. Urban infrastructure such as

water supply, wastewater treatment, waste disposal and communications are all relevant to

the basic needs of people and they are also issues related to the general urban context.

Neighbourhood residents also need to travel between different destinations every day. Thus

it is a basic need to provide environmentally friendly, efficient and economic transport

means. Sustainable neighbourhoods should also reduce dependence on the use of private
36
vehicles which is related to air pollution, land consumption, and congestion. The key issues

(besides mix-use development) addressed should include improving proximity to public

transport service, providing sufficient conveying capacity and encouraging use of bicycles.

Accessibility to public transport and local facilities & amenities is also argued by Fields

(2007) as an equity issue.

The second core value is ecological sustainability which means that development needs to

recognize natural limits. As argued earlier, without a healthy environment, basic needs

cannot be met in the long-term. The earth’s natural capital is seen as a finite quantity and its

use must be spread out over time in order to benefit as many generations of people as

possible (Aall 2001:229). Buildings, unlike many other physical entities, may exist from

several decades to over one hundred years. Thus it is important to develop a life-cycle view

on their consumption of energy and resources, which have significant environmental and

socio-economic consequences. Given the significance of climate change over-shadowing the

future of humanity itself, it is vital for each level of human society to prevent irreversible

effects of greenhouse gases (GHG) accumulating in the atmosphere. As stated in the

Brundtland Report, it is not only an issue at a technical level, but “a moral obligation to the

current generation and for future generations” (WCED 1987:51). The principle of reducing

local and global environmental impact also addresses other local and global environmental

impacts such as water pollution and waste generation. In many developed countries,

technologies of dealing with local environmental contamination such as air and water

pollution are quite mature. The priority is moving to combat global environmental woes

such as climate change, acid rain and ozone depletion. But in the developing world, both

need to be coped with. Accompanying the development of neighbourhoods, the construction

site will be changed permanently. Thus the principle of maintaining site ecology involves

reducing site disturbance, preserving site ecosystems, improving use of recycled materials,

and complying with construction codes. These issues are related to the construction

technologies used and local construction regulations and codes.

37
 Sustainability Core Values Neighbourhood Sustainability Principles

Meeting Basic Needs Principle 1: Providing livable environmental quality

Principle 2: Providing needed infrastructure
Principle 3: Providing efficient public transport

Principle 4: Improving resource and energy efficiency

Recognizing ecological Principle 5: Reducing Environmental impact on local
limits and global environment
Principle 6: Maintaining site ecology

Principle 7: Providing social neighbourhood layout

Social equity and facilities
Principle 8: Improving housing affordability and
local economy
Principle 9: Providing sustainability management

Figure 2.3: Matching values to principles in the context of neighbourhood built environment

The third core value - social equity - covers a wide range of sustainability issues and is often

interwoven with the requirements of meeting needs and preserving the environment. For

example, the poor are more vulnerable to environmental degradation, thus, many

environmental problems are equity-related. Since not everyone owns a car, the availability of

transportation, the location of mass transit and the option of a walkable environment are also

equity-related. School proximity may also be an issue of gender equity because women,

rather than men, often need to pick up their children at schools. Since planning is about

influencing the future distribution of activities in space to create a more rational organization

of land uses and linkages between them (Reeves 2005), neighbourhood layout has the most

powerful influence on social equity in the context of neighbourhood BE. Neighbourhood

layout should facilitate sound environmental, social and economic consequences. For

example, provision of social facilities and open space is important to forge a sense of

community and improve life quality, especially in the compact urban context of many Asian

cities. Improving housing affordability and local economy refer to issues such as improving

housing affordability, reducing operational cost and benefiting the local economy. For

example, neighbourhood developments should boost the local economy by using local labor

force and sourcing construction materials locally. Finally, providing sustainability

38
management is a cross-disciplinary principle, which is relevant to issues such as educating

the residents, monitoring energy and resource consumption, maintaining community

facilities and planning transport demands. Without sound neighbourhood sustainability

management, implementing sustainability measures will be very difficult.

These nine neighbourhood sustainability principles depict what the profile of a sustainable

neighbourhood should encompass and they represent some common characteristics that

recur across international efforts at improving neighbourhood sustainability. They actually

describe the challenges (or targets) that sustainable neighbourhoods are facing wherever

they are located, even if the particularities of different neighbourhoods lend themselves to

different mixes of priorities and solutions. These principles will be used as the assessment

categories of the neighbourhood rating system proposed in Chapter 9.

It should be noted that this research does not attempt to universally apply these nine

principles to every neighbourhood BE regardless of context. In some cases, more principles

may be added according to the contextual interpretation of sustainability. However, these

nine principles represent at least the core part of urban neighbourhood sustainability since

they are rooted in its core values. It should also be noted that since the urban context and the

characteristics of individual neighbourhoods could vary greatly, different indicators,

priorities and solutions will be needed within the framework of these principles.

2.6. Summary

This chapter has discussed in detail general sustainability and its relation to the

neighbourhood BE. A neighbourhood is not only a group of buildings with open spaces

between them, but also a place where social activities occur. In addition, the existence of

neighbourhoods is dependent on the infrastructures and services provided by the urban matrix.

Neighbourhood is the key link between individual buildings and the broader urban areas.

Sustainability efforts will be less effective at city and building level if neighbourhoods are not

39
properly addressed.

This chapter has identified a number of issues related to neighbourhood sustainability

assessment. First, neighbourhoods should be evaluated in the spatial and temporal frame.

Second, neighbourhoods have four basic components including buildings, open space,

infrastructure and people. Third, there are nine sustainability principles applied to

neighbourhood sustainability assessment. These principles actually constitute the major

categories that should be addressed in a neighbourhood indicator framework.

In Chapter 3 and 4, a number of current BE assessment methods, primarily building rating

systems and material & energy accounting methods, will be examined to understand their

capacities to address these neighbourhood sustainability issues.

40
 Chapter 3: Review of Building Rating Systems

There are a great number of tools for environmental assessment of the BE (Forsberg and

Malmborg 2004), ranging from construction material selection, energy labeling, indoor air

quality to whole building assessment, and then to urban scale BE. Reijnders and Roekel

(1999) have roughly classified current BE assessment tools into two groups: qualitatively

based building rating systems, and quantitative tools “using a physical life cycle approach

with quantitative input and output data on flows of materials and energy” (Forsberg and

Malmborg 2004). In both groups there exist a diverse variety of concepts all over the world

(Forsberg and Malmborg 2004).

This chapter will discuss building rating systems, which currently operate at two spatial

scales: individual building level and neighbourhood level. In this chapter, the research first

tries to define green building and green building assessment. Then a number of rating

systems at individual building level are selected and compared. The purpose of this

comparison is to examine their scope and assessment scales, as well as identify the common

issues addressed in these systems. Since the individual building assessment cannot address

the public space and the collection of a group of buildings, currently there is a trend to

expand rating systems to neighbourhood level. This chapter will further examine a number

of rating systems at neighbourhood level. The capacity of current rating systems to address

neighbourhood sustainability issues, either at building level or neighbourhood level, will

also be discussed.

Building assessment is defined in this research as the endeavors that attempt to evaluate

building environmental/sustainability performance. The terms building rating system and

building assessment systems are interchangeably used in this research to describe a

technique that “has building environmental assessment as one of its core functions, but

which may be accompanied by third-part verification before issuing a performance rating or

label” (Cole 2010:274). This can distinguish them from other building related assessment

methods such as Life cycle assessment (LCA) methods and building ecological footprint,
41
which currently are not used as market-based tools.

3.1 Green building and building rating systems

3.1.1 ‘Green building’ and ‘sustainable building’

Retzlaff (2009) defines a green building as “a structure or group of structures that is

designed to increase efficiency of resource use, including energy, water, indoor

environmental quality, siting, infrastructure, and pollution”. Kilbert and Grosskopf (2005)

argue that the ideal green building should have five major features including integration with

local ecosystems, closed loop material systems, maximum use of passive design and

renewable energy, optimised building hydrologic cycles, and full implementation of indoor

environmental quality measures. Burnett (2007) suggests that the green building definition

can be presented by a life-cycle eco-efficiency equation, which is:

Life cycle eco-efficiency = indoor environmental quality (IEQ) + services + amenities

+ resource consumption + environmental loadings

The above definitions all primarily address the environmental performance of a building. In

recent years, there are arguments that green building approach should move on to consider

broader sustainability issues (Cole 2005; Kohler 1999), i.e. the socio-economic dimension,

which constitutes the major distinction between ‘green building’ and ‘sustainable building’.

As stated by Lutzendorf and Lorenz (2006), ‘green building’ focuses on “the assessment of

environmental and (to some extent) health-related attributes of buildings, while ‘sustainable

building’ leads to the inclusion of economic and social matters that results in a substantially

wider scope of assessment criteria”. One of the most radical criticisms toward the current

green building initiative is proposed by Tuan-Viet (2008), who argues that the expansion in

the application of green building rating systems, while pushing buildings as much as possible

to the highest rating level, may ignore some other social and economic issues and thus may
42
possibly not increase the sustainability outcomes of the urban area as a whole.

Lutzendorf and Lorenz (2006) describe the history of building rating systems in four stages.

In the first stage, systems compared buildings based solely on construction costs. In the

second stage, systems added environmental impacts and technical solutions to their life cycle

cost analyses. In the third stage, they shifted their aims from operationally defining green

building to operationally defining sustainable building. The fourth stage will go beyond this to

compare multiple themes, such as water, energy, livability, and others, addressing them as an

integrated system and accounting for interdependencies. Lutzendorf and Lorenz suggest that

building rating systems are currently between stages three and four.

3.1.2 Building environmental rating systems

Cole (2010:273) points out that regulatory approach and building rating systems (that are

voluntary market-based) have been the most important mechanisms in improvement of

building performance in the last several decades.

The regulatory approach refers to the introduction and enforcement of building related

environmental laws, regulations, codes and standards. They can be very effective due to the

“nature of mandatory requirement”. (Cole 2010:273). But Cole (2010:273) argues that

historically environment-related building regulation only defines “minimally acceptable

level of performance” and do not necessarily “drive developers to achieve higher levels of

performance”. In addition, they typically only partially address building-related

environmental impact such as energy use or indoor environmental quality (Cole 2010:273).

By far the most significant improvements in building environmental performance have

occurred through the introduction of voluntarily based building rating and labeling systems

(Cole 2010:274). The primary objective of these systems is to stimulate market demand for

buildings with improved environmental performance. An underlying premise is that “if the

market is provided with improved information and mechanisms, discerning buyers can and
43
will provide leadership in environmental responsibility and others will follow suit to remain

competitive” (Cole 2010:274).

The building rating systems have directly influenced the performance of buildings (Cole

2010:274). Examples can be seen in many countries around the world, such as LEED in the

US, BREEAM in the UK, CASBEE in Japan, and Green Star in Australia. Cole suggests that

these programs are increasingly positioned “not only as the most potent mechanism for

affecting change, but, seemingly and unfortunately, as the sole focus of the current

building-environment debate” (Cole 2010:274).

There are also signs that these assessment systems have moved beyond voluntary market

place mechanisms by being endorsed by public agencies and other organizations as

compulsory performance requirements (Cole 2005), for example, LEED has been required

by many federal agencies, and state, county, and local governments as the compulsory

requirement for new buildings funded by them in the US (Retzlaff 2008). In Australia,

government-funded public buildings also need to meet the requirement of Green Star.

Based on the description in Retzlaff (2008) and Retzlaff (2009), a typical building rating

system is composed of a checklist of items organized into categories such as water, energy,

siting, planting, and indoor environmental quality, some of which may be optional. In most

systems, each item is assigned a point value, and users must obtain a certain number of points

in each category. The judgment of which item should be included in a system and the

assignment of point values are subjective. Ultimately, a building receives a total score to

reflect its environmental performance. Often, the scores are used to assign a ranking, such as

platinum, gold, or silver. Users typically pay to use the system, and get in return market

recognition, and promotional opportunities. Many of the major building rating systems offer a

suite of products each targeted at a specific building type, phase or situation, for example,

commercial or residential, multi-unit residential or single standing residential.

The use of this type of building assessment system is not only for labeling purposes and
44
marketing promotion. In many cases, they have been used as planning and design tools

(Crawley and Aho 1999, Cole 2005, Lutzendorf and Lorenz 2006, Pyke et al. 2007, Retzlaff,

2008, Retzlaff, 2009) because they present “a set of organized environmental criteria. By

default they are understood as being the most important environmental considerations by the

planning and design teams” (Cole 2005). Lutzendorf and Lorenz (2006) also point out that the

use of the building rating systems by planners and designers can facilitate “comparison

between different solutions or optimizing sketches and designs during the whole design

process including the very early phases of conception or pre-design”.

3.1.3 Disputes over current building rating systems

Current building environmental rating systems have enjoyed considerable success and have

“dwarfed all other mechanisms for instilling environmental issues within the building

industry” (Cole 2010:275). Cole (2005, 2010) identifies a number of factors that have

collectively generated the success of such assessment methods, which are:

z The prior absence of any means to both discuss and evaluate building performance in a

comprehensive way.

z The limited number of performance criteria present a complex set of issues in a

manageable form.

z Public-sector building agencies have used the building rating system as a means of

demonstrating their environmental commitments, and declare an industry expectation of

what constitutes ‘green’ building design and construction.

z Manufacturers of ‘green’ building materials have been given the opportunity to make

direct and indirect associations with the relevant performance criteria.

(Cole 2005, 2010)

However, suggestions about the inadequacies of current building assessment systems and

their future development paths are also endemic in the research community. Some studies

have urged the need to extend the current practice into the sustainability domain by

establishing an overarching sustainability framework of environmental, social and economic

45
categories (Cole 2005, Lutzendorf and Lorenz 2006). Some suggest the integration of LCA

methods in building assessment (Crawley and Aho 1999, Fay et al. 2000, Zhang et al. 2006,

Li et al. 2010). Other studies have focused on the scale issue and concluded that it is

necessary to expand the assessment from individual building level to urban scale BE (Cole

2005, Kumar 2006, Jones et al. 2007, Cole 2010). Some studies have stressed the

importance of developing regionally and locally specific systems to fit the local contexts and

goals (Liu et al. 2006, Retzlaff 2008). Others call for the calculation of ‘absolute’ values of

the actual environmental impact of a building (Kohler 1999, Olgyay and Herdt 2004).

Among all these criticisms, the subjective nature of the existing building assessment systems

is most vulnerable. This has led some researchers to question their “factual basis” (Retzlaff

2009). The rating systems provide only relative, not absolute, assessments of building

performance by establishing an assessment framework structured by a number of ‘green’

measures and their corresponding weights determined based on subjective judgments. Thus

they cannot indicate the specific impacts of a development on the environment (Cooper 1999).

For example, using LEED, it is possible to construct a ‘gold’ rated building of 250,000 square

feet and a small 25,000 square foot ‘‘silver’’ rated building. The large building will have a

better environmental rating but will also have a larger environmental impact (Olgyay and

Herdt 2004). Olgyay and Herdt argue that this would skew the evaluation because there has

been no correlation with the actual environmental impacts.

More clearly, Kohler (1999) criticizes current building rating practice since “it hides the real

mass and energy flows which determine the effective environmental impact” based on the

assertion that “the specific environmental impact of one human being can enormously vary

according to the society in which he lives; some building rated ‘green’ in one country would

be above the energy consumption average in other countries”. As an alternative, Kohler

(1999) proposes that the building assessment should be based on ‘absolute flows’, e.g.

energy, materials and land. By this, it allows “us to really compare the impacts created by

buildings during their life cycle in different contexts”.

46
In addition, as these assessments are relative and contextually implicit, they cannot take the

temporal dimension into consideration (Cooper 1999). They intend to take a snapshot

assessment of the environmental (or sustainability) state at a particular time point but are

often unable to address the past (e.g. embodied impacts) and the future (e.g. operational

impacts). For example, Pearce and Fischer (2001) find that there are two categories of

impacts currently missed in LEED:

z Impacts associated with manufacturing products and transporting them to the project

site, or the impacts associated with disposal of waste, even if that disposal involves

recycling.

z Impacts associated with ongoing operations and maintenance.

Furthermore, Treloar et al. (2000) argue there is a need to consider not only the

environmental impacts related to a building but also the environmental impacts attributable

to activities being undertaken by the actual users of the building. Essentially, energy is not

used by buildings, it is used by people, who participate in many different types of activities

during their lives. Thus, in the analysis of buildings, it is also necessary to understand the

impacts generated by users’ activities and life styles such as individual transportation and

household daily consumption. In this regard, current building rating systems mainly aim at

providing green labels to the development itself and ignore the influence generated by the

actual users and their life styles.

Finally, another criticism is that the existing assessment methods at individual building level

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” (Lutzendorf and Lorenz 2006). To some extent this inadequacy may be

explained by the fact that they are whole building assessment tools, and essentially deal with

issues lying within their sites. Also it may be because “many of the issues related to building

impacts (especially social and economic) are difficult to quantify when considered on the

basis of a single building and would be more suitably addressed at a neighborhood or

development level” (Lowe & Ponce 2008).

47
3.2 Review of Individual Building Rating Systems

3.2.1 Objective of review

There are numerous individual building assessment systems in current practice which are

used to evaluate how buildings affect the environment. These systems are very diverse in

terms of development history, strategy choices, assessment structure, assessment criteria and

local benchmarks. Some comparative studies can be found in the literature which generally

look at the effectiveness and applicability of these systems (see for examples, AIA 2008,

Saunders 2008, Fowler and Rauch 2006).

In order to understand the essentials of the individual building rating systems, five major

international building assessment tools and two China specific systems are selected by a

screening analysis. The purpose is to study three specific matters: first, to gain an

understanding of the assessment principles, mechanisms, scoring and criteria being

employed in these systems; second, to identify common and specific issues; and finally, to

examine their strength and weakness in addressing neighbourhood sustainability.

3.2.2 Screening of the existing individual building rating systems

Fowler and Rauch (2006) conducted a screening analysis to find applicable rating systems

with the potential to be used for evaluating General Services Administration (GSA, which is

the managing body of federal properties) projects in the US. They identified 34 systems for

further investigation and set up screening criteria in order to concentrate the review on the

systems that had the greatest potential to address GSA needs:

z Relevance: Does the rating system provide a “whole building evaluation” rather than an

evaluation of an individual design feature?

z Measurable: Does the rating system use measurable characteristics to demonstrate the

extent of sustainable design incorporated into the building?

48
z Applicability: Can the rating system be used on all of the types of commercial buildings

that GSA builds or leases (e.g., offices, courthouses, and border stations)?

z Availability: Is the rating system easily adaptable to the U.S. market or currently

available for use in the U.S. market?

Fowler and Rauch (2006) finally identified five building rating systems that scored

positively on all of the screening criteria. The systems were CASBEE, BREEAM, LEED,

GBTool and Green Globes.

Similar to the approach adopted by Fowler and Rauch, the initial 34 rating systems (the

number reduces to 23 after combing sub-systems affiliated to the same system family, for

example, LEED Canada, LEED India and LEED Mexico all belong to the LEED family) are

used as reference systems to conduct the screening analysis in this thesis. However, the

screening criteria need to be adapted to the research purpose of this thesis. The new

screening criteria are:

z Relevance: Does the system provide a “whole building evaluation” rather than an

evaluation of an individual design feature?

z Measurable: Does the system use measurable characteristics to evaluate building

environmental performance?

z Applicability: Can the system be used on residential buildings including multiple unit

buildings?

z Availability: Can access to a full version of the rating system (an application manual and

full list of assessment criteria) be found in English or Chinese?

z Adaptability: Has the rating system been used in countries other than the original

country?

It is apparent that the first two criteria are almost the same as those of Fowler and Rauch

(2006) and their scoring on these two criteria is adopted by the thesis. If one of the first two

criteria indicates negative scoring (i.e. does not meet the criterion or information is unknown)

by Fowler and Rauch (2006), there is no need to check the next three criteria. The result is
49
shown in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1: Screening criteria scores of building rating systems

System Relevance Measurable Applicability Adaptability Availability
BREEAM √ √ √ √ √
CASBEE √ √ √ √ √
CEPAS √ √ √ ─ √
Earth √ * NA NA NA
Advantage
Commercial
Buildings
EkoProfile √ √ * * ─
ESCALE √ √ * * ─
GOBAS √ √ √ ─ √
Green √ * NA NA NA
Building
Rating
System
Green √ √ ─ √ √
Globes™
Green Leaf™ √ * NA NA NA
Green Star √ √ √ √ √
HQE √ * NA NA NA
iDP √ ─
Labs21 √ √ ─ * √
LEED √ √ √ √ √
MSBG √ *
NABERS √ √ ─ √ √
PromisE √ ─ NA NA NA
SBAT √ √ √ * √
SBTool √ √ √ √ √
Scottsdale's √ √ * * ─
Green
Building
Program
TERI √ √ * * *
TQ Building √ * NA NA NA
Assessment
System
Note: √: does meet criterion; ─: does not meet criterion; *: information unknown; NA: no need to check

Source: Based on Fowler and Rauch (2006)

50
Finally, five rating tools score positively on all screening criteria (see Table 3.2). Besides

these five tools, CEPAS and GOBAS are also added to the list because they are applied to

the Chinese territory. Each of the tools in Table 3.2 will be examined more thoroughly in the

following part of this chapter.

Table 3.2: Applicable rating tools after screening analysis

BREEAM: Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method, UK
CASBEE: Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency, Japan
CEPAS: Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme, Hong Kong China
GOBAS: Green Olympic Building Assessment System, China
Green Star: Australia
LEED: Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, USA
SBTool: Canada

3.2.3 CASBEE

CASBEE (Comprehensive Assessment System for Building Environmental Efficiency) was

first launched in 2004 by the Japan Sustainable Building Consortium (Saunders 2008). The

current CASBEE building assessment comprises four basic tools tailored to evaluate

individual buildings at different development phases including CASBEE for Pre-design,

CASBEE for New Construction (CASBEE-NC), CASBEE for Existing Building

(CASBEE-EB), and CASBEE for Renovation. A newly emerging tool, CASSBEE for Urban

Development (CASBEE-UD), tries to extend the individual building assessment to groups of

buildings, or urban scale. This is one of the discussion focuses later in this chapter.

According to the technical manual of CASBEE-NC (2008), CASBEE assessment tools are

designed to examine both the Environmental Quality (Q) and the Environmental Load (L),

and uses Q/L to calculate Building Environmental Efficiency (BEE) as a comprehensive

evaluation indicator. ‘Q’ refers to the environmental quality within the building site while ‘L’

represents the impact that the building exerts on the exterior environment. The current

framework of CASBEE building assessment includes three categories in the ‘Q’ aspect,

respectively, indoor environment, quality of service and outdoor environment on site. The ‘L’

aspect also comprises three categories, being energy, resources & materials, and off-site

51
environment. Each of the categories consists of a number of issues and each issue comprises a

number of assessment criteria. CASBEE uses a multi-layer weighting system which is

deemed to be much more complex than BREEAM, LEED or Green Star (Saunders 2008).

Weighting is applied to each level through the whole assessment process. Scores firstly are

assigned to each of the assessment criteria by a certificated CASBEE assessor. The scores are

then weighted and aggregated from criteria level, to issue and category level, and finally reach

a unique Q score and L score. The BEE result is calculated based on the Q and L scores and is

ranked in five grades.

Table 3.3: Summary of CASBEE-NC 2008

Scale Whole building

Development basis Originality
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting Weighting is applied at all levels
Categories Indoor environment, quality of service, outdoor
environment on site, energy, resource & material,
off-site environment
Complexity Relatively complex
Results presentation Five levels
Application Mainly in Japan but influence the development of
Chinese tools
Addressing social concerns? No
Addressing economic concerns? No

Generally CASBEE is a relatively new system developed for the Japanese market. Fewer than

10 buildings have used the system and all of those are in Japan (Fowler and Rauch 2006).

However, it seems that CASBEE has influenced the development of green building

assessment in China. GOBAS, specifically developed for evaluating Olympic construction in

Beijing 2008, is largely dependent on CASBEE (Fowler and Rauch 2006, TopEnergy

2007:40).

3.2.4 LEED

LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) was developed by the US Green

Building Council in the U.S. in 1998 as a consensus-based building rating system based on

52
the use of existing building technology. It has provided a relatively simple way to label the

environmental performance of buildings (Saunders 2008). The rating system addresses

specific environmental building related impacts using a whole building environmental

performance approach.

Currently there are 7 versions of LEED developed to assess various types of buildings

including schools, retail, homes, core and shell development projects, commercial interiors

projects, existing building and new construction & major renovation. A pilot version of

LEED for Neighborhood Development was developed in 2007, which will be discussed in

detail later in this chapter.

LEED-New Construction 2.2 (LEED-NC 2.2) is organized into six assessment categories:

sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor

environmental quality, and innovation and design process. Each category includes a few

prerequisites that must be achieved, and a number of optional assessment criteria. Each of the

assessment criteria is assigned one credit point and where there are multiple performance

levels each level is worth one point. Achieving credit points is dependent on the

accomplishment of the requirements given by the criteria, for example, one credit point will

be given if a building can reduce potable water use for landscape irrigation by 50%. The

LEED overall score is determined by totalizing the number of points achieved in all

assessment criteria, and then ranked in one of the five levels – Uncertified, Certified, Silver,

Gold and Platinum. There are no formal weightings assigned to the assessment categories and

criteria in LEED. However, since the assessment categories have different numbers of criteria

(thus different numbers of points), it is argued by some researchers that the number of points

related to each category is a de facto weighting (Retzlaff 2008). For example, in LEED-NC,

14 possible points are assigned to sustainable sites, 5 to water efficiency, 17 to energy and

atmosphere, 13 to materials and resources, 15 to indoor environmental quality, and 5 to

innovation and design process. The maximum points that an assessment category can achieve

reflect the relative importance in contrast to other categories.

53
LEED is currently dominant in the US and is being adapted to other countries worldwide

(Fowler and Rauch 2006). Since the initial launch LEED has been used to certify 1823

buildings in the US (Saunders 2008).

Table 3.4: Summary of LEED-NC 2.2

Scale Whole building
Development basis Originality
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting No formal weighting system
Categories Sustainable site, water efficiency, energy & atmosphere,
material & resource, indoor environmental quality,
innovation & design process
Complexity Easy
Results presentation Five levels
Application USA, Canada, Mexico, China
Addressing social concerns? No
Addressing economic concerns? No

3.2.5 SBTool

SBTool, is formerly known as GBTool, which was developed in 1996 by the International

Initiative for a Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE) in Canada. Compared to the GBTool,

SBTool has added some socio-economic and urban planning criteria to extend from ‘green

building assessment’ to ‘sustainable building assessment’.

Unlike market-based tools such as CASBEE and LEED, SBTool (2007) follows a different

development mode. It is not a rating tool that can be directly used to evaluate buildings unless

it is validated by an independent third party (AIA 2008) by defining scope and setting weights,

context and performance benchmarks. SBTool is actually a “generic framework, or a toolkit,

designed to allow countries to design their own locally relevant rating systems” (iiSBE 2007)

in line with the local contexts. The reason underlying SBTool method is because assessment

tools are context specific, and it is neither appropriate nor sufficient to directly adopt existing

methods for evaluation of buildings in a different context. SBTool allows authorized users to

establish a scope for assessment, to have the system reflect the relative importance of

performance issues in a particular region, and also to contain regionally relevant benchmarks
54
(iiSBE 2007). By replacing the default benchmarks and their responding weights provided in

SBTool with their own, users in different countries and regions can ensure that the system will

be relevant to their unique local conditions (iiSBE 2007). Custom versions of SBTool have

already been implemented in several countries including Hong Kong, Taiwan, Italy, UK,

Japan, Brazil, and Sweden (Shari 2007).

The current SBTool (2007) framework is structured hierarchically in three levels,

respectively performance issues, categories and criteria. In total it has seven performance

issues, 29 categories and 125 criteria. The seven issues comprise site selection, energy and

resource consumption, environmental loadings, indoor environmental quality (IEQ), service

quality, social and economic aspects, and cultural and perceptual aspects.

SBTool establishes a weighting system for each of the assessment levels. A default value is

recommended for each criterion, providing the “base for a green building performance target”

(AIA 2008). Similar to CASBEE, the weighted scores are aggregated from criteria level to

issue level, and then to an overall score. Buildings evaluated will be ranked into one of the

four levels: negative, minimum acceptable performance, good practice and best practice.

Table 3.5: Summary of SBTool 2007

Scale Whole building
Development basis Based on GBTool
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting Varies according to local context
Main issues Site selection, energy and resource consumption,
environmental loadings, indoor environmental quality,
service quality, social and economic aspects, and
cultural and perceptual aspects
Complexity Relatively complex
Results presentation Four levels
Application UK, Brazil, Taiwan, Sweden
Addressing social concerns? Partially
Addressing economic concerns? Partially

55
3.2.6 BREEAM

BREEAM (Building Research Establishment’s Environmental Assessment Method) was

developed in the United Kingdom in 1990 and is the “building environmental assessment

method with the longest track record” (Fowler & Rauch 2006). BREEAM covers a range of

building types including offices, eco-homes, industrial units, retail units, courts, prisons,

hospitals, and schools.

The BREEAM methodology also calculates an environmental rating by awarding points, for

meeting the requirements of a series of criteria. Each of the criteria is usually worth a single

credit except where there is a large variation in the performance of buildings which meet the

requirements of the criteria (Saunders 2008). For example Reduction in CO2 Emissions is

assigned 15 credits awarded on a scale which runs from one credit for a building just above

the minimum level required to meet UK Building Regulations, up 15 credits for a building

which has net carbon emissions of zero (Saunders 2008).

BREEAM is structured hierarchically in two levels: criteria and categories. Each of the

categories comprise of a number of assessment criteria. The BREEAM-EcoHome (2006) has

eight categories and 33 criteria. The categories comprise: energy, transport, pollution,

material, water, land use and ecology, health and wellbeing, and management.

Similar to LEED, BREEAM does not have a formal weighting system that assigns weighting

coefficient to each of the criteria and categories. Instead, each of the criteria is given a number

of points which represent “the perceived importance of the environmental issue” (Saunders

2008). For example, Building Fabric (improving insulation performance) is given 2 points

while Drying Space (minimizing energy for drying clothes) is assigned only 1 point. In total,

the category of Energy is given 24 points compared to 7 of Water. When a building is

assessed, points are awarded for each criterion and the points are added for a total score. The

overall building performance is then awarded a “Pass”, “Good”, “Very Good” or “Excellent”

rating based on the score. There have been more than 100,000 buildings certified by

56
BREEAM and another 500,000 buildings registered (Saunders 2008).

Table 3.6: Summary of BREEAM-ECOHOMES 2006

Scale Whole building
Development basis Originality
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting No formal weighting system
Categories Energy, transport, pollution, material, water, ecology,
health and management
Complexity Relatively easy
Results presentation Four levels
Application UK, USA, France, Italy, Turkey, Germany
Addressing social concerns? No
Addressing economic concerns? No

3.2.7 Green Star

The Green Star rating scheme is provided by the Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA)

in 2003 to “promote sustainable development and the transition of the property industry to

implementing green building programs, technologies, design practice and operations”

(Tredrea and Mehrtens 2008). It was developed on the basis of BREEAM and LEED. Green

Star uses the same mechanisms to calculate the environmental performance as those

employed by BREEAM. However, adaptations have been made in order to reflect the various

differences between Australia and the UK, such as the climate, local environment and the

construction standard practice (Saunders 2008).

All Green Star projects are evaluated against eight categories of environmental impact plus

innovation. Akin to BREEAM, the eight environmental categories are: Management, IEQ,

Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Land Use & Ecology, and Emissions. Each category

comprises a number of criteria, each of which addresses a few requirements that need to be

met. Achieving points is dependent on the accomplishment of the requirements given by the

criteria. Once all assessment criteria in each category are evaluated, a percentage score is

calculated and Green Star environmental weighting factors (only for category level) are then

applied. A single overall score is then determined by adding all the environmentally weighted

57
category scores plus any innovation points. The final score of Green Star is ranked into three

levels: four, five and six stars.

A distinction between Green Star and BREEAM is in the addition of a category for

Innovation. There are a maximum of 5 points available for innovation and the innovation

points achieved are added to the weighted score calculated from the eight environmental

categories. Since Innovation is one of LEED’s assessment areas, Fowler and Rauch (2006)

also put LEED as another development basis of Green Star together with BREEAM.

Table 3.7: Summary of Green Star-Multi Unit Residential V1 (2009)

Scale Whole building
Development basis Based on BREEAM and LEED
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting Applied to each category
Categories Management, IEQ, energy, transport, water, materials,
land use & ecology, emissions, and innovation
Complexity Relatively easy
Results display Three levels
Application Australia and New Zealand, South Africa
Addressing social concerns? Sparse
Addressing economic concerns? No

The current Green Star assessment can be used for building types including healthcare, retail

centres, education, offices, and office interior work. In July 2009, the Green Star extended its

assessment range from the public building domain to residential buildings by releasing Green

Star-Multi Unit Residential V1, which is specifically designed for evaluating buildings with

more than 2 dwellings. It retains the same structure as other Green Star tools but some of the

criteria are eliminated in the multi-unit residential version, for example, Ventilation Rates, Air

Change Effectiveness, Carbon Dioxide Monitoring and Control are deemed to be not

applicable to the residential version.

58
3.2.8 GOBAS

GOBAS (Green Olympic Building Assessment System) was developed by a research project

team in 2003 specifically for evaluating Beijing Olympic construction. It was developed on

the basis of CASBEE and LEED (Fowler and Rauch 2006) with the consideration of

Chinese needs and context.

As indicated in its technical manual (Jiang et al 2003), GOBAS mainly covers three building

types - office buildings, residential buildings and sport stadiums. The whole assessment is

divided into four stages, including planning, design, construction, and operation &

management. The current GOBAS is structured hierarchically in 3 assessment levels:

categories, issues and criteria. GOBAS has 11 assessment categories including Site

Selection, Environmental Impact Assessment for Master Plan, Transport, Green Space,

Energy, Water, Material & Resource, Indoor Air Quality, Outdoor Environment,

Construction Management, and Operation Management. Each of them comprises of a

number of issues and each issue includes a number of criteria. GOBAS establishes a

separate weighting table for weighting reference. Weighting is applied to category level and

issue level. Similar to CASBEE, GOBAS uses Q (Quality) scores refer to environmental

quality and service quality, while LR (Load Reduction) scores are used to reflect reduction

levels of environmental loading. The final Q/LR score is calculated based on the Q and LR

scores and is ranked in five levels.

GOBAS has been successfully applied to Olympic construction in Beijing. However, the

rating system does not seem to have been applied to other projects.

59
 Table 3.8: Summary of GOBAS 2003
Scale Whole building
Development basis Based on CASBEE and LEED
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting Applied to category and issue level
Categories Site selection, environmental impact assessment for
master plan, transport, green space, energy, water,
material & resource, IEQ, outdoor environment on site,
construction management, operation management
Complexity Relatively complex
Results display Five levels
Application China
Addressing social concerns? Sparse
Addressing economic concerns? No

3.2.9 CEPAS

The Comprehensive Environmental Performance Assessment Scheme (CEPAS) was initiated

under Hong Kong’s 2001 Government Policy Objectives to form a green building labeling

scheme. CEPAS (2006) is designed as a generic assessment scheme for various new and

existing building types (both residential and non-residential) as well as building demolition

and alteration works. The entire assessment process covers the pre-design, design,

construction & demolition and operation stages.

CEPAS establishes a three level hierarchy in structure. Eight performance categories are

identified for CEPAS, which are Indoor Environmental Quality (IEQ), Building Amenities,

Resources Use, Environmental Loadings, Site Amenities, Neighbourhood Amenities, Site

Impacts, and Neighbourhood Impacts. The IEQ, Building Amenities, Site Amenities and

Neighbourhood Amenities are mainly human-related and the remaining categories are mainly

physical factors. Each category is allocated with a specific weighting, which directly

influences the cumulative performance scores. Each performance category consists of

numbers of performance & strategy indicators and each indicator may include a number of

criteria. There is no weighting for individual indicators and criteria. These indicators and

criteria reflect the unique local characteristics in Hong Kong such as high urban density, hot

and humid climate (Wu and Yau 2005). The CEPAS performance labels are divided into 4

60
levels, which are `Platinum’, `Gold’, `Silver’ and `Bronze’.

A very significant feature is the intense, high density built environment in Hong Kong, which

improves the efficiency of the public transportation network in Hong Kong, but also reduces

the potential for the sun and daylight access and wind. It also incurs visual impacts and

creates social problems such as lack of privacy (Wu and Yau 2005). Therefore, amenities for

site and neighbourhood are considered important social assets. Site amenities such as open

areas, planting, landscaping and communal facilities are encouraged in CEPAS.

CEPAS (2006) considers a broad picture of building performance beyond the boundary of the

assessed building by incorporating a neighbourhood context. It also considers some economic

matters including energy and material cost, buildability and serviceability.

Table 3.9: Summary of CEPAS (2006)

Scale Whole building
Development basis Based on LEED, BREEAM and HK-BEAM
Approach Performance benchmark
Weighting Applied to category level
categories IEQ, building amenities, resources use, environmental
loadings, site amenities, neighbourhood amenities, site
impacts, and neighbourhood impacts
Complexity Relatively complex
Result display Four levels
Application Hong Kong China
Addressing social concerns? Partial
Addressing economic concerns? Partial

3.3 Findings of Evaluating Individual Building Rating Systems

It is a challenging task to put these systems side by side and conduct comparisons between

them. Many systems have generally similar assessment categories (e.g., energy, water,

building materials, sites, neighborhoods, indoor air quality) but the number of indicators and

benchmarks included within each category varies widely across systems. Different systems

61
also often classify similar indicators and benchmarks under different categories (Retzlaff

2008). Moreover, they also have different development approaches, strategic choices,

structure and local benchmarks, which lead to an evident heterogeneity (Ali-Toudert 2008).

Nevertheless, such an effort is useful in understanding how the building assessment systems

work and how they may be applied at larger scales of the urban built environment. The

findings of the evaluation concentrate on five aspects - overall structure, scope, scale,

adaptability and the rating system’s capacity to address neighbourhood sustainability.

3.3.1 Overall structure

All seven rating systems reviewed adopt multi-level (i.e. categories, indicators and

benchmarks) to evaluate building environmental performance. They have established

weighting systems, implicitly or explicitly, for example, CASBEE gives weights to all

assessment levels while LEED relies on the number of points attached to each criterion.

Figure 3.1 gives an example of assessment category Transport in BREEAM, which consists

of four assessment indicators. Each indicator includes a few benchmarks (criteria). Weights

may be applied to the indicator and category level.

It is apparent that all the systems reviewed evaluate building performance by þcountingÿ the

number of ‘green measures’ that are incorporated, and not by the actual environmental impact

the buildings have on the environment. Building performance is represented by scores it earns

from the accomplishment of the requirements given by the assessment criteria. These systems

do not directly address the actual environmental load in real measurable units.

In summary, the methodology behind these assessment systems is fundamentally subjective

which leads to one of the major criticisms of current building rating systems in the literature,

as noted in the previous section. However, compared to MEA methods such as LCA and

Eco-footprint, building rating systems provide relatively easy and comprehensive ways of

instructing the assessment process. In addition, buildings are human-related and many social
62
 issues, especially those related to people’s ‘feeling’ and ‘views’ are hardly quantitatively

evaluated.

80% development within 1000m of a

public transport service

Public transport

80% of the development within 500m of

a public transport service

50% dwellings have storage facilities

Cycle storage

95% dwellings have storage facilities

Transport

Food shop and post box within 500m

Banks, schools and community centres

Local amenities
within 1000m

Providing safe pedestrian routes to the

local amenities

Providing a space and service which

Home office
allow working at home

Figure 3.1: Assessment structure using category Transport in BREEAM as an example

3.3.2 Scope

Scope comparisons between different building rating systems have been conducted by some

researchers, e.g. Retzlaff (2008), Lowe and Ponce (2008), Sinou and Kyvelou (2006), and

Ali-Toudert (2008). These studies reveals that many rating systems take a relatively

constrained view of sustainability, limited mostly to concern for environmental issues.

Basically, the seven systems reviewed here handle the major environmental issues

experienced within a building site boundary including energy, water, materials, wastes and
63
indoor environment. However, opinions diverge on what aspects of the issues should be

examined and how much weighting should be given to them. For example, regarding the

assessment category of transport, four points, or 5% are given in LEED, eight points, or 7%

are given in BREEAM and 14 points or 10% of the total in Green Star. The percentages of

points falling under each category of each system are shown in Table 3.10:

Table 3.10: Scope comparison of the seven building rating systems reviewed
Major LEED BREEAM Green SBTool CASBEE CEPAS GOBAS
Categories Star
Site 14% 8% 7% √ √ √ √
Water 7% 5% 8% √ √ √ √
Energy & 25% 32% 28% √ √ √ √
Emissions
Material & 19% 29% 18% √ √ √ √
Waste
Indoor 22% 7% 14% √ √ √ √
environmental
quality
Transport 6% 7% 9% √ No √ √
Building 7% 10% 15% √ √ √ √
service,
innovation, and
management
Socio-economic 0% 0% 0% √ No √ No
dimension
Note: (1) The percentages in LEED, BREEAM and GreenStar are the ratios of available points of each category to the total
available points. Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
(2) Tick means the category is addressed. It is not possible to calculate the value of each category in SBTool, CASBEE,
CEBAS and GOBAS due to their scoring structures.

It is apparent from the above table that the majority of the assessment categories covered by

the systems are either classified as environmental (e.g. those relating to greenhouse gas

emissions, and water consumption) or could be considered quasi-environmental (e.g. those

relating to building user comfort) in that they have a combined social and environmental

impact (see also Lowe and Ponce 2008).

64
A few observations are presented as follows:

z Site ecology, energy consumption, water use, and indoor environmental quality are

common to all the systems. These environmental concerns constitute 87%, 81% and 75%

of the total available credits respectively in LEED, BREEAM and Green Star.

z Compared to other systems, SBTool, which is exclusively academic and not

commercial, has developed a relatively comprehensive view with consideration for the

human dimension. However, one should be aware that SBTool is a generic framework

providing many criteria that users can choose from. It needs adaptation before being

applied to a particular region.

z It shows that a holistic view on economic, social and environmental dimensions is not

captured in the assessment process. Socio-economic considerations, such as housing

affordability and access for physically handicapped people, are still marginal or absent

in the systems.

z Even for those non-environmental issues addressed in the systems, as observed by

Retzlaff (2008), they normally also relate to an underlying environmental concern. For

example, access to transit facilities is important for social and economic reasons, but

also provides environmental advantages. Another example is locally sourced materials

that help to reduce transport usage but also provides economic benefits for the local

community.

z Many of these systems claim a life cycle view (e.g. CASBEE, CEPAS, and GOBAS).

However, impacts related to the pre-occupation stage such as embodied energy are

neglected. BREEAM is the only system that addresses the life-cycle issues by linking

the material selection criteria to the Envest program that assesses the life-cycle impacts

of building materials and elements (see detailed discussion in Chapter 4). However,

there are no parameters used to directly measure the life-cycle environmental impacts of

the whole building, let alone those impacts related to users’ activities.

The comparative analysis demonstrates that the systems reviewed have been predominantly

developed to assess environmental issues and none of them have the capacity to adequately

assess the full range of neighbourhood sustainability. These systems also lack the capacity to
65
examine the building over the long-term.

A valid question is “how broad should a building rating system be”? Sinou and Kyvelou

(2006) and Retzlaff (2008) stress that the expectation of assessing the whole socio-economic,

technical and environmental system is not realistic. Nevertheless, there is evidence that

building assessment systems have begun to move towards a broader scope (Retzlaff 2008,

Cole 2005).

3.3.3 Scale

Visually, there are different spatial scales of the built environment. These physical

boundaries may be visualized as a building site, a building block, a district or a whole city.

Buildings, together with support facilities and services, are developed to form residential

neighborhoods that are organized within cities (regulated by an urban master plan for

example). Thus a building is one space within an interconnected social and spatial network

formed by the urban context the building sits within.

The sustainability of a building has internal dimensions and is also affected by outside

factors in its surrounding environment. Retzlaff (2008) uses a scaling system of five

hierarchies to examine different systems and concludes that most building rating systems

assess performance at a fairly small scale. Again, a comparative evaluation of the 7 selected

assessment systems is conducted for issues of scale and the results illustrated in Table 3.11.

It is apparent that the reviewed systems are site limited. These systems tend to assess the

building in isolation from the rest of the world (that is, the urban context). On average, 74%

of the total assessment criteria refer to either building level or site level. The CEPAS has 79%

of its operational criteria within the site boundary while Green Star has the smallest

percentage of 66%. In regard to the offsite impacts, SBTool and CASBEE have the greatest

percentage (24%) of their criteria addressing offsite impacts, while LEED has only 11%.

There is no attempt to address how buildings perform vis-à-vis other human activities or
66
what type of urban context they stand in.

Table 3.11: Scale Comparison of the seven building rating systems reviewed
Scale LEED BREEAM Green Star SBTool CASBEE CEPAS GOBAS
Building 54% 42% 50% 47% 67% 50% ─
Site 22% 27% 16% 28% 10% 29% ─
Community& 11% 12% 11% 20% 19% 18% ─
Regional
Global 0% 6% 5% 4% 5% 3% ─
Other 14% 12% 18% 0% 0% 0% ─
Note: (1) The percentages are the ratios of the number of criteria in each scale to the total number of criteria, regardless of the
number of points assigned to each. GOBAS divides the whole assessment into four stages and each stage use different criteria so
a classification is not possible. Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding.
(2): Definitions of scale elements (Retzlaff 2008):
Building level: criteria relate to attributes of a building or types of building materials;
Site level: site-specific attributes such as landscaping, site design, site preservation, and site impacts;
Community & Regional level: impacts on the neighborhood, community, and region, such as offsite transport, neighborhood
design, and neighborhood density;
Global level: global impacts such as GHG emissions and ozone depletion potential; Only direct criteria that are related to the
measure of carbon emissions are included. Energy-related criteria are classified into building scale.
Other: attributes that do not fit the above classification, usually administrative criteria.

It should be noted that this only provides a rough indication of the criteria falling in each

scale element since some criteria also can be referenced to another scale. For example,

building energy consumption also implies the GHG emission. However, this comparison

indeed provides evidence that current building rating systems are more focusing on building

performance rather than examining the interwoven relationships with outside environments.

In general, these systems are obviously limited to building sites and are focused on building

environmental performance. The spatial issues addressed in these systems mainly include

transport-related issues and accessibility to facilities (schools, hospitals, etc). Many other

spatial issues such as open space, urban infrastructure, and spatial configuration are largely

ignored.

67
3.3.4 Adaptability

Building rating systems vary significantly in how they were developed and how they are

applied to buildings (Retzlaff 2008). For example, LEED is based on US building guidelines

and therefore it assumes every building has air conditioning (Vreenegoor et al 2008). All the

systems (except SBTool) are developed for a specific country.

Regarding adaptability, LEED may surpass other systems. It is the most commonly used

whole-building rating system around the world (Low 2009). LEED is already used in 24

countries including China (Yudelson 2008:73). In 2006, there were 513 projects certificated

by LEED with a construction area around 53 million sq. ft. (Yudelson 2008:5). In the UK

there are over 115,000 buildings certificated by BREEAM and over 700,000 homes and

buildings currently registered for assessment (BREEAM-Communities 2009). BREEAM has

been applied in countries including the USA, France, Germany, Italy, Turkey and Hungary

(BREEAM website 2009).

Green Star is used in South Africa, New Zealand, as well as Australia (Slavid 2009). The

adaptation of SBTool to local context is found in the literature such as Shari (2007) and

CASBEE has influenced the development of Chinese systems such as GOBAS (Jiangyi et al

2003). GOBAS and CEPAS do not seem to have been applied outside their region of origin.

It is interesting to note that vastly different results would be produced when different rating

systems are applied to the same building. Slavid (2009) discusses an empirical case study

conducted by a Glasgow-based simulation company IES. The purpose of this study was to

conduct a comparison between LEED, CASBEE, and Green Star. However, only the energy

components within these systems are compared. A hypothetical eight-storey commercial

building in Dubai is used as the case study. The case study building failed its LEED

assessment. Under BREEAM, the building fell into category B for its energy rating, which

gave it 2 out of a maximum of 15 points available. In contrast, under Green Star, the building

scored 11 points out of a potential 20. As explained by the research leader, Green Star was
68
designed for a hot climate, and LEED covers all the very diverse US climate zones.

Kawazu et al. (2005) also conducted a similar comparative study. Four high performance

office buildings in Japan and 1 fictitious low performance building were evaluated using

LEED, BREEAM, GBTool and CASBEE. The assessment results showed that BREEAM and

CASBEE scored higher than LEED and GBTool.

Variation may occur in the same country across different climate zones. Some criteria are

relatively easy to achieve in one location but not in another. Cidell and Beata (2009) have

demonstrated that spatial variation in the implementation of the LEED assessment does exist

across the US. Variability across criteria and across space underscores the intuitive fact that

designers, architects, and builders take advantage of the flexibility allowed in the LEED

certification process, and that they apply the criteria that best fit the budget, resource

constraints, and human and physical environments of specific projects (Cidell and Beata

2009).

In general, the strength of adaptation may depend on factors such as cost, complexity,

language, market promotion, time consumed in the rating systems’ use and flexibility within

different climates. Assessment tools are all designed for internal comparison between

buildings scored under the system, rather than comparisons of buildings appraised under

different systems.

3.4 Emergence of Neighbourhood Level Building Rating Systems

3.4.1 Incentives

The review of the rating systems at individual building level reveals that they are building site

limited and mostly concentrate on environmental issues. However, in practice, groups of

buildings often need to be addressed rather than individual buildings. It is increasingly

recognized that “while the improvement of individual buildings is important, a potentially

69
greater set of performance gains lie in synergies between buildings and between systems,

together with the consequences for urban infrastructure systems” (Cole 2010:273). Buildings

are built within neighbourhoods and Saville-Smith et al. (2005) argue that the spatial

arrangements of neighbourhoods have significant impacts on the environmental performance

of buildings and incur direct, as well as indirect, costs to households.

Sustainable buildings are closely associated with sustainable neighbourhoods, but,

individually, sustainable buildings do not make sustainable neighbourhoods (Saville-Smith et

al. 2005). The efforts to reduce the environmental impact of individual buildings will be more

or less successful depending on the opportunities and constraints of their neighbourhood’s

development form. For example, a mixed use neighbourhood development can greatly reduce

the use of private cars.

Thus there are incentives to expand building level rating systems to neighbourhood scale

while at the same time, keeping the original assessment structure unchanged. Among the 7

building level rating systems examined in the previous section, 3 of them have released a

neighbourhood version in the last a few years including LEED-Neighborhood Development

(LEED-ND), CASSBEE-Urban Development (CASBEE-UD) and BREEAM-Communities.

Green Star Precinct is currently under development. The purpose of such expansion can be

stated as “assessment [that] can go beyond the environmental design of each building, to

identify new or expanded environmental measures, and their effects, that are made possible

by the building group, and thereby contribute to the comprehensive improvement of

environmental performance in urban renewal” (CASBEE-UD 2007).

3.4.2 Overview of neighbourhood rating systems

As discussed in Chapter 2, a neighborhood physically encompasses multiple buildings and

their sites, and the public environment such as roads, open spaces, and landscaping features

which exist in between those sites. Neighbourhoods also embrace socio-economic features

such as social interactions that are generally more intensive at this spatial scale. It is obvious
70
from the foregoing discussion that, without modification, the current single building

assessments are not capable of dealing with the neighbourhood BE of merged sites and

complex socio-economic environment.

Though different names are adopted for these neighbourhood systems, respectively

“neighborhood development”, “urban development” and “communities”, they all represent a

larger scale of the BE beyond single building sites. There are no confines on their

application to different spatial scales. As defined in CASBEE-UD (2007), building groups

evaluated may be a few buildings on two or three adjoining plots, but they also can combine

tens, hundreds or thousands of building plots and land not built up, such as roads and parks.

LEED-ND also defines a wide range of development that may constitute whole

neighborhoods, fractions of neighborhoods or multiple neighborhoods. There is no minimum

or maximum for project size and no strict definition for what would comprise a

neighborhood (LEED-ND 2007). The current pilot projects under LEED-ND program are

range from 0.17 acres to over 12,000 acres (USGBC website 2009). The

BREEAM-Communities defines the size of developments that fall into its jurisdiction as

small (up to 10 units), medium (between 10 and 500 units), and large. These scale

definitions actually are open-end in terms of spatial levels of the BE. They can be applied to

any ‘organized urban area’ that is beyond a single building site and are universally subject to

laws, planning regulations and urban master plans.

3.4.3 Neighbourhood sustainability labeling

The majority of eco-labels in the building industry cover building materials or elements rather

than whole buildings (Scheuer and Keoleian 2002). However, with the wide application of the

building rating system, labeling for the whole building has greatly increased in the market, as

discussed in previous sections. Like their building counterparts, the main objective of

neighbourhood rating systems is to “provide a credible and holistic environmental, social and

economic sustainability label for development projects in the built environment”

(BREEAM-Communities 2009:4). It is interesting to note that they aim at providing a

71
‘sustainability’ label for neighbourhoods rather than an ‘environmental’ label for individual

buildings.

The neighbourhood labeling process is also akin to the certification process at building level.

Neighbourhood development projects need to be evaluated against the assessment criteria

structured in the systems. The scores achieved will be aggregated to an overall rating score by

multiplying the weights assigned to each level of the assessment (except LEED-ND that has

no formal weighting system), which will determine the final certification level of the

neighbourhood. The evaluation is conducted by third-party assessors. However, since

neighbourhood projects may have a significant longer construction period than single

buildings, the whole labeling process could be split into stages. For example, LEED-ND

allows some form of approval issued to the projects at different stages, which may include:

z Optional Pre-review: a letter is issued by USGBC stating that if the project is built as

proposed, it will be able to achieve LEED-ND certification.

z Certification of an Approved Plan: USGBC will issue a certificate stating that the

approved plan is a LEED-ND Certified Plan and will list it as such on the USGBC

website.

z Certification of a Completed Neighborhood Development: USGBC will issue plaques or

similar awards for public display at the project site and will list it as such on the USGBC

website.

3.5 Review of Neighbourhood Rating Systems

In this section, LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD and BREEAM-Communities will be reviewed.

Beside them, the China Eco-housing Assessment Technical Manual (CEATM) that is

focusing on the SRD level is also reviewed. One distinction between the CEATM and the

other systems is that it is not developed from the building version. However, they have

similar function, i.e. labeling neighbourhoods based on a scoring system.

3.5.1 LEED-Neighborhood Development

72
3.5.1.1 Development background

In the early years of the 21st century, Americans are beginning to realize that the urban

development model of suburban sprawl, which is heavily dependent on the automobile, is

unhealthy and damaging to the natural environment (Yudelson 2008). The concept of

mixed-use development is proposed as a solution. As concluded in an US Green Building

Council (USGBC) 2006 report, increased density and greater proximity to various services

will increase walking, bicycling, and public transit use as well as reduce vehicle travel and

emissions, and improve public health (Ewing and Kreutzer 2006:122). LEED-ND was

developed to reflect this trend (USGBC website 2009) and tried to define what constitutes

‘green development’ on a broader scale than just one building (Yudelson 2008:139).

The USGBC, together with the Congress for New Urbanism (CNU), and the Natural

Resources Defense Council (NRDC), launched the LEED-ND pilot program in 2007. There

are about 238 projects currently participating in the pilot program (USGBC website 2009)

and LEED-ND is seeking recognition of an American National Standard.

The USGBC has examined the notable features of 205 out of 238 LEED-ND pilot projects.

Some initial findings include (USGBC website 2009):

z The pilot projects are primarily located in dense, urban areas with more compact

development forms and where alternative transportation modes, such as transit or

walking, are viable.

z There are more multiple family buildings within the projects.

z Residents in the pilot projects’ zip codes are 2.5 times more likely to use public

transportation than residents in all zip codes. Furthermore, they are more than twice as

likely to bicycle or walk to and from work.

z While the average project size is 298 acres, the median project size is 30 acres. The

smallest project size is 0.17 acres, while the largest is approximately 12,800 acres.

LEED-ND is principally developed to evaluate the sustainability of the urban built

73
environment in the context of the US. LEED-ND was tested in some existing neighborhoods

in New Zealand and it was found to be unsuitable for NZ conditions (Lietz et al 2008). It

seemed to be very labour intensive, less useful in relation to existing neighbourhoods, and

generated some quite contradictory outcomes (Lietz et al 2008). For instance, the NZ test

neighbourhoods against which the draft LEED-ND was applied had good surveillance

features although none had the characteristics that would generate a good LEED-ND score

in relation to surveillance (Lietz et al 2008). Therefore LEED-ND needs some adaptation to

make it relevant to the NZ context by replacing US standards and laws with New Zealand

equivalents (Bijoux 2008).

3.5.1.2 Assessment scope

LEED-ND maintains the same assessment structure as the previous building level systems.

It consists of four main issue categories, namely Smart Location & Linkage, Neighborhood

Pattern & Design, Green Construction & Technology, and Innovation & Design Process.

Each category encompasses a few prerequisites and many credits (LEED-ND 2007). In

order to be certificated, a project must meet each prerequisite. Each credit is optional, but

achievement of each credit contributes to the project’s point total. There are 106 total

possible points. A minimum point total (40-49) is required for certification, and higher point

scores are required for silver (50-59), gold (60-79), and platinum (80-106). There is no

formal weighting system. The number of points assigned to each assessment criterion

actually gives a de-facto weighting, and as argued by Retzlaff (2008), it also provides

flexibility for developers to choose suitable strategies according to their budget and time and

the local context.

Compared to the criteria in LEED-New Construction (LEED-NC), it is apparent that

LEED-ND is mainly focusing on location, neighborhood pattern, and urban layout with less

consideration on individual building performance, and it almost totally ignores indoor

environment. Looking at its mandatory prerequisites, six of the nine are concerned with site

selection & location, two refer to neighborhood layout and one reflects construction
74
pollution. Accessibility to existing urban services and employment (job, school, amenities,

public space etc) seems to be predominant. There are six criteria directly addressing this

issue with possible scores of 11, 10% of the total possible scores. Table 3.12 indicates the

percentages of each theme in the content of LEED-NC and LEED-ND. A few observations

are:

z The importance of resource consumption in terms of energy, water and materials is

significantly decreased in LEED-ND (17%) compared to that in LEED-NC (51%).

z There is not one criterion directly addressing indoor environmental quality in

LEED-ND, though it is indirectly addressed by examination of the use of materials and

waste disposal.

z Offsite issues in terms of transport, location, site impact and neighbourhood fabric are

significantly increased in LEED-ND (75%) compared to 20% in LEED-NC.

Table 3.12: Scope comparison between LEED-ND and LEED-NC

Rating Energy Water Material Indoor Transport Location Neighbourhood Innovation
system/ & environment &Site fabric &Green
Theme Waste Impact Certificate
LEED-NC 25% 7% 19% 22% 6% 14% 0% 7%
LEED-ND 8% 3% 6% 0% 11% 30% 34% 8%
Note: The percentages are the ratios of possible points of each theme to the total possible points. Rows may not add to 100% due
to rounding. ND: neighbourhood development; NC: new construction.

Like its building counterparts, LEED-ND provides a way to measure environmental impact

without clearly addressing each stage of the neighbourhood life span because it is not

designed as a life-cycle assessment tool. However, it is clear that LEED-ND gives greater

consideration to socio-economic matters and urban context issues compared to its building

version.

75
3.5.2 BREEAM-Communities

3.5.2.1 Development Background

The newest product of the BREEAM family, BREEAM-Communities, was launched in June

2009 with the purpose of assessing the overall sustainability of a proposed development at the

planning stage. This scheme has been piloted on projects in nine regions in the United

Kingdom including the Athletes’ Village for the London 2012 Olympics which includes

approximately 2800 dwellings and associated support infrastructure (BREEAM website

2009).

BREEAM-Communities was developed based on BREEAM building assessment and the

existing Regional Sustainability Checklist for each of the nine English regions. The Checklists

cover regionally specific sustainability and planning issues, emphasizing those of higher

priority. Each can also be adapted to reflect locally significant concerns.

BREEAM-Communities is an independent, third party assessment and certification standard

based on the established BREEAM building systems. The current version of BREEAM

Communities is only focused on the statutory planning (developer application) stage of the

development process. It will be expanded to include follow-up assessment stages, such as

post-construction review and post-occupancy evaluation in the future (BREEAM

Communities 2009).

The assessment process of BREEAM-Communities is not as straightforward as that of

LEED-ND. It can be generally divided into three phases. First, the developer, subject to

agreement by the local planning authority, selects the most appropriate “compliant assessment

methodology” (e.g. the Regional Sustainability Checklists) to assist in determining the final

assessment criteria for the specific development. Second, based on the compliant assessment

methodology, a compliant assessment framework is created, which addresses the specific

development and local area requirements. Finally, through an independent and qualified
76
BREEAM assessor, the compliant assessment framework is certificated against the

BREEAM-Communities standard (BREEAM Communities 2009).

Scoring and weighting are also regionally specific. First, applicable credit issues that apply to

the specific development in its defined region are selected from a comprehensive issue list.

Mandatory issues must be consistent throughout each of the regions. Second, each individual

issue has a maximum of three credits available. This is then multiplied against the

corresponding regional weighting to the score available for that particular issue. Third, the

section scores are added together to give the overall BREEAM Communities score which is

then compared to the benchmarks. Providing all mandatory requirements have been met, the

relevant rating is achieved. Fourth, an additional 1% can be added to the final BREEAM

Communities score for each innovation credit achieved (up to a maximum of 10%)

(BREEAM Communities 2009). The final score is presented in percentage of achieved scores

to total available scores. A minimum percentage (25%-40%) is required for certification of

PASS, and higher point percentages are required for Good (40%-55%), Very Good

(55%-70%), Excellence (70%-85%) and Outstanding (above 85%).

3.5.2.2 Assessment scope

There are eight main categories in the current BREEAM-Communities framework. They

include Climate and Energy, Community, Place Shaping, Ecology and Biodiversity, Transport,

Resource, Business and Economy and Buildings. Each of them comprises of a number of

assessment criteria covering the environmental, social and economic impact of a development

project. In order to score, they need to meet the requirements of the benchmarks designated.

Where a performance benchmark has been achieved the number of available BREEAM

credits can be awarded.

Similar to the LEED-ND framework, BREEAM-Communities stresses socio-economic

matters and urban context issues such as location, transport, community connectivity, and

urban layout. Compared to LEED-ND, it takes a broader view of economic sustainability that
77
not only includes housing affordability but also addresses the economic benefits that

developments may bring to communities. Building performance is a part of assessment

though it is not as significant as in BREEAM building assessments. Indoor environmental

quality also is ignored in BREEAM Communities. It does not directly address GHG

emissions instead embracing outcomes of climate change such as increased flood risk. The

scope of BREEAM-Communities and BREEAM-EcoHomes is compared in Table 3.13.

Table3.13: Scope comparison between BREEAM-Communities and BREEAM-EcoHomes

Rating Site & Water Energy Material Indoor Transport Neighbourod Economy Management&

system/ Location & environment & Green

Theme Waste Community Certificate

Ecohomes 8% 5% 32% 29% 7% 7% 0% 0% 10%

Community 22% 8% 6% 10% 0% 18% 20% 10% 8%
Note: (1) The percentages in BREEAM-Ecohomes are the ratios of available points of each category to the total available points.
(2) The percentages in BREEAM-Communities are the ratios of the number of criteria within each theme to the total
number of criteria regardless of the number of credits assigned to each. It is not possible to calculate the value of each theme due
to the different regional weightings given to them.
(3) The rows may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

From this table it is clear that there is a significant increase in the number of criteria

addressing issues of site, transport, community, and economy while emphasis on individual

building performance and environmental dimensions is reduced. There are 24% of the total

criteria examining water, energy and material & waste compared to 66% in Ecohomes. Issues

beyond building site such as transport, location, community and economy are significantly

increased in BREEAM-Communities, taking up 70% of the total criteria. Again,

BREEAM-Communities addresses many more social, economic and urban layout issues than

building level assessment. It is worth noting that BREEAM-Communities examines Road

Construction independently which may constitute a significant part of energy & resource

consumption when building a large scale development.

78
3.5.3 CASBEE-Urban Development

3.5.3.1 Development Background

CASBEE for Urban Development (CASBEE-UD) has been developed by the Japan

Sustainable Building Consortium (JSBC) and was announced on July 2006. According to

CASBEE-UD (2007), it is an environmental performance assessment tool for whole groups of

buildings at urban scale, focusing on the phenomena that can accompany the conglomeration

of buildings, and the outdoor spaces around the buildings. CASBEE-UD deliberately excludes

the interior of buildings from assessment (although there are exceptions in some assessment

items) because it focuses on ‘collective effects’. Therefore, the function of CASBEE-UD and

CASBEE building assessment is clearly different. CASBEE-UD evaluates an area of

development as a whole, while CASBEE building version evaluates the environmental

performance of individual buildings within the designated area.

It is also mentioned in the CASBEE-UD (2007) that further work is required in future to

develop an assessment framework which integrates both methods. There is currently a version

called ‘CASBEE-Urban Area + Buildings’ that assess the urban fabric as a whole, including

buildings. In ‘CASBEE-Urban Area + Buildings’ framework, each of the buildings needs to

be evaluated separately against the CASBEE building version and aggregated to the whole

area, while the area as a whole must also be examined against CASBEE-UD. Since the

assessment process of ‘CASBEE-Urban Area + Buildings’ is complicated and laborious,

‘CASBEE-Urban Area + Buildings’ is recommended to be applied only to projects which are

individual buildings but which have high levels of public interests (CASBEE-UD 2007).

Generally, CASBEE-UD is applied to a ‘designated area’ which may comprise multiple

buildings varying from a few to hundreds or even thousands. Thus the scale and composition

of the development evaluated is very diverse, but there are two basic types to be assessed.

One is the city-center type (high usage development with standard floor-area ratios of 500%

or more). The second type is general development with a standard floor-area ratio below
79
500%. These two types use basically the same system and a common approach but may differ

in their weightings (CASBEE-UD 2007).

3.5.3.2 Assessment scope

CASBEE-UD maintains the same assessment structure as the CASBEE building version

which examines both environmental quality (Q = Quality) and the environmental load on the

exterior of the building (L = Load), and uses the function Q/L to calculate Building

Environmental Efficiency (BEE) as a comprehensive evaluation indicator. Both

CASBEE-UD and its building version address similar themes in their assessment

frameworks but there are great divergences in terms of scope and scale. For example, both

address Service Quality, but CASBEE building assessment examines the building service

functions such as durability and flexibility while CASBEE-UD concentrates on urban

services provided to the development such as waste treatment system, information systems,

and crime prevention.

The current framework of CASBEE-UD, includes three categories in its ‘Q’ section,

respectively, Natural Environment (microclimates and ecosystems), Service Functions for

the Designated Area, and Contribution to the Local Community (history, culture, scenery,

and revitalization). The ‘L’ section also comprises of three categories, namely,

Environmental Impact on Microclimates, Façade, and Landscape, Social Infrastructure, and

Management of the Local Environment. Each of the categories encompasses a number of

issues and each issue comprises of a number of assessment criteria. Weightings are applied

to each level of the assessment structure. In order to score, it needs to meet the requirements

of the benchmarks allocated to the criteria. Certificated buildings are ranked in five grades:

Excellent (S), Very Good (A), Good (B+), Fairly Poor (B-) and Poor (C). Table 3.14

indicates the scope differing between CASBEE-UD and CASBEE-NC.

Again, this table indicates there is a trend towards large scale building assessments which

are designed to emphasize the whole area with much less consideration of individual
80
buildings. There is no criterion directly addressing buildings and their interior environment

in CASBEE-UD (though a few criteria may indirectly examine it). The emphasis is placed

on community and local environment beyond the individual site scale which takes up 45%

of the total number of criteria.

Table 3.14: Scope comparison between CASBEE-UD and CASBEE-NC

Rating system/ Building Site Community & Global Others
Theme Regional
CASBEE-NC 67% 10% 19% 5% 0%
CASBEE-UD 0% 39% 45% 4% 12%
Note: The percentages are the ratios of the number of criteria in each scale to the total number of criteria, regardless of the
number of points assigned to each. UD: urban development; ND: new construction
Other: attributes that do not fit the above classification, usually administrative criteria

3.5.4 China Eco-housing Assessment Technical Manual (CEATM)

3.5.4.1 Development background

CEATM was developed by a group of building experts from diverse research organizations

led by the Chinese Society for Housing Industry in 2001. The latest version was issued in

2007 (updated from 2003). It focuses on the planning, design and management of China’s

Small residential district (SRD). It was developed on the basis of a number of international

building level rating systems such as LEED, BREEAM, GBTool, CASBEE, and NABERS

(Nie et al. 2003).

The assessment process of CEATM is also based on an organized scoring structure. It is

divided into two stages: a planning and design stage, and a completion and operation stage.

Both stages consist of a limited number of assessment categories. Each category constitutes

issues and criteria. There are two types of criteria in the categories: compulsory and optional.

The compulsory criteria are those required by building laws, regulations and standards. The

optional criteria are a number of ‘green’ measures. The compulsory criteria must be met

before the development is allowed to enter the formal assessment procedure. No formal

81
weighting system is established. Scores are given if these measures are realized. Each

assessment category is given a maximum 100 points. Therefore, the maximum points for the

whole assessment is 1000 (each stage has 5 categories).

CEATM emphasizes its application to different parts of China. There are two issues related

to the specific climate zones (Nie et al 2003):

z Heating and cooling load, both reflecting building energy consumption and the

coefficients for specific climate zones.

z The assessment for the indoor thermal environment which also refers to different

climate zones.

From the above description of the working of CEATM, it is very akin to LEED in terms of

structure and scoring approach. However, its application is neither as wide as LEED, even in

China, nor is there third-party certification, nor are accredited assessors required.

3.5.4.2 Assessment scope

CEATM comprises 5 assessment categories: environmental plan and design, energy and

environment, indoor environmental quality, water environment, and materials and resources.

Each of them includes a number of issues:

z Environmental plan and design: site selection, transport, green space, air quality, noise

reduction, lighting.

z Energy and environment: building energy saving, optimization of energy system, use of

renewable energy, emissions from energy consumption in buildings.

z Indoor environment: indoor air quality, indoor thermal environment, indoor lighting

environment, indoor sound environment.

z Water environment: water consumption planning, supply and discharge systems,

wastewater treatment and reuse of wastewater, reuse of rainwater, water use for

vegetation and landscape, water saving facilities.

z Materials and resources: use of green materials, materials obtained locally, recycling of
82
 resources, indoor renovation, and treatment of solid waste.

Compared to the other three systems aforementioned, CEATM has traversed the scales of

neighbourhood and individual buildings. The reason may be because it was not developed

from individual building assessment and so it intentionally tries to cover both

neighbourhood and building scales. However, the competing demands between maintaining

a working number of assessment criteria and addressing both neighbourhood and building

issues may be not practical. CEATM has 29 assessment issues, addressed repeatedly in each

of the two stages and 389 criteria (including both compulsory and optional criteria). The

large number of criteria makes the assessment time-consuming and laborious. In addition,

sometimes assessors need to make subjective judgments due to the ambiguous statements of

the criteria. For example, one criterion requires that ‘the development must be reasonably

planned and has sound connection to the public service facilities’, but there is no explanation

on what is a ‘reasonable plan’ or ‘sound connection’. These could be a reason why CEATM

is not robust in the market and lacks the capacity to develop third-party based assessment.

Furthermore, its assessment scope is akin to the individual building level tool, LEED-New

Construction (LEED-NC) (see Table 3.15).

Table 3.15: Comparison between CEATM and LEED-NC

Rating systems Assessment categories
LEED-New Sustainable site, energy & atmosphere, water efficiency, material & resource, indoor
Construction environmental quality, innovation & design
CEATM Environmental planning, energy & environment, water environment, material & resource,
indoor environmental quality

Table 3.15 indicates that, with the solitary exception of LEED-NC addressing additional

‘innovation & design’, other assessment categories are the same. It is obvious that it largely

focuses on environmental issues and lacks a social and economic dimension. Its assessment

focuses are placed on the individual buildings rather than the neighbourhood as a whole. It

seems to extend the assessment of individual building by incorporating some off-site

environmental issues such as transport, green space, and local air quality. Overall, CEATM

83
looks more suitable if operated at building level than neighbourhood level, according to the

description of neighbourhood characteristics in Chapter 2.

3.6 Findings of Evaluating Neighbourhood Rating Systems

3.6.1 Expansion of assessment scale

Table 3.16 shows the spatial scales the assessment criteria address in different rating systems.

It is apparent that the building level systems assess performance at fairly small scale. On

average, 54% of the total assessment criteria refer to building level while only 20% are

concerned with site level. Only 14% of the total criteria are addressing issues at community

& City level. Predictably, the neighbourhood rating systems (exclude CEATM) have broader

scales than their building versions. On average, 55% of the total criteria examine community

and urban issues and 32% address development level. Only 9% of the total criteria refer to

building level. CEATM is more akin to the building level assessment systems. It has 43% of

the total assessment criteria relating to the building level and 48% addressing the site level.

Only 9% of its criteria address social and economic issues like the community, urban context

and public transport.

Table 3.16: Percentage of assessment criteria at different scales in different systems

Scale/System LEED-NC BREEAM- CASBEE- LEED-ND BREEAM- CASBEE-UD CEATM
EcoHome NC Communities
Building 54% 42% 67% 9% 16% 2% 43%
Site 22% 27% 10% 45% 25% 26% 48%
Community 11% 12% 19% 43% 55% 67% 8%
&Urban
Global 0% 6% 5% 0% 0% 2% 1%
Other 14% 12% 0% 3% 4% 4% 0%
Note: The percentages are the ratios of the number of criteria in each scale to the total number of criteria, regardless of the
number of points assigned to each. The total number of criteria includes both of the mandatory and optional criteria. Columns
may not add to 100% due to rounding. The definitions of scales are referred to Table 3.11.

84
3.6.2 Contrasts and common factors

This section compares LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, BREEAM-Communities and CEATM in

order to generate an overall view as well as identify the common factors they address. A few

observations can be summarized as follows.

First, resource and energy consumption including land, energy, renewable energy, water and

materials, are addressed by all systems, as they are common environmental challenges

facing the BE in different countries. However, LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, and

BREEAM-Communities focus on the whole neighbourhood development with little

emphasis placed on individual building performance. Only a few criteria such as building

energy efficiency and green building certification directly address building performance.

The interior of buildings such as indoor environmental quality is largely ignored. CEATM,

on the other hand, tends to evaluate the environmental performance of individual buildings.

The building performance, including indoor environmental quality, is still an important part

of its assessment.

Second, most criteria in LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, and BREEAM-Communities examine

site preservation, project location, neighbourhood design, and transport. The most frequently

addressed issues in LEED-UD are Conservation of wetland and water body within site, and

Access to local amenities and facilities. Both have four criteria relating to them. In

CASBEE-UD, the most frequently addressed issues are Conservation of site ecology and

Heat island reduction with four related criteria, followed by Access to local amenities,

Urban Integrity, Disaster facilities, and a few others, with three related criteria. In

BREEAM-Communities Safety is the most frequently examined issue with four criteria

related, followed by Renewable energy and walkable streets with three.

Third, LEED-ND gives more emphasis to mixed-use development such as compactness,

accessibility and walkability with relatively less consideration given to local and global

environmental impact, urban infrastructure capacity and economic dimension. Density is now
85
considered a critical component in sustainable urban development in North America and is

central to many of the credits within LEED-ND (Cole 2010:280). The weight of this issue

seems not as significant as in CASBEE-UD. This reflects the fact that many Japanese cities

are already built at high urban density. In such high-rise and high-density compact cities, the

questions could be more concerned with air and noise pollution, limited access to daylight and

natural ventilation, and limited space for vegetation (Cole 2010:280). Thus, CASBEE-UD is

more concerned with environmental issues such as site ecology, local environmental impact,

urban infrastructure performance and construction management. It places relatively less

attention on issues such as project location, street layout, and housing affordability which are

emphasized in both BREEAM-Communities and LEED-ND. BREEAM-Communities seems

to be comprehensive in the categories of resources & energy consumption, neighbourhood

layout, transport and economics & costs with less reference to local environmental impact and

urban infrastructure. It is the only rating system that puts economic dimension as an

independent category. Since CEATM emphasizes environmental performance of individual

buildings, it is not surprising that energy performance and water conservation are the most

addressed issues.

Fourth, there are 15 common issues that are covered by LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, and

BREEAM-Communities, including Conservation of site ecology, Reviewable energy,

Reducing water use, Reuse of rainwater and greywater, Access to local amenities and

facilities, Universal accessibility, Urban integrity, Community involvement, Stormwater

management, Access to public transport, Public transport capacity, Use of bicycle and

electronic vehicles, Transport planning and management, Waste disposal facilities, and

Construction code and green building certification.

Overall, compared to their building versions, neighbourhood rating systems are more focused

on urban issues, particularly on three aspects: open space, social interaction and spatial

features (e.g. location, accessibility, urban infrastructure, etc). However, they also lack

capacity to examine the whole neighbourhood from a life-cycle perspective. Only

BREEAM-Communities presents a few criteria relating to the selection of materials for the
86
construction of open space through the use of the LCA tool Envest, but other neighbourhood

components, i.e. residential buildings, community buildings and users’ activities, are not

examined. Generally, the neighbourhood as a whole is not evaluated in a long-term temporal

frame.

3.7 Summary

The review indicates that building rating systems operating at both individual building level

and neighbourhood level cannot comprehensively address the neighbourhood assessment

issues proposed. The individual building level systems are limited to the building sites and do

not address social and economic dimensions adequately. On the other hand, the

neighbourhood level systems cannot address the long-term temporal frame.

The major advantage of qualitatively based building rating systems is that they are capable to

address many socio-economic matters and spatial issues that are often hard to quantify.

Besides, they provide a subjectively based assessment method that is easy to use which is low

cost and saves time, and their relatively simple structure and the score-based results are

appealing for marketing purposes.

Compared to LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD, and BREEAM-Communities, CEATM has simply

added some urban issues (e.g. location and transport) to the building performance based

assessment. Criticisms towards CEATM can be summarized as follows:

z It has not addressed the socio-economic activities that are naturally intensive at

neighbourhood level.

z It has not fully addressed the interrelationship between neighbourhood and the city such

as infrastructure, connection and integration.

z Its attempt to cover environmental issues at both building and neighbourhood scale

hinders the operation of the assessment process.

87
It seems that both building and neighbourhood level assessment should be applied to a

neighbourhood development because they each focus on a different scale that exists in the

neighbourhood, i.e. the individual building assessment concentrates on issues such as indoor

environmental quality, thermal insulation and ventilation while the neighbourhood dimension

of the tool emphasizes issues such as location, transport and community. However,

considering a neighbourhood development may involve dozens to hundreds of buildings and

public areas and the cost of applying both of them (neighbourhood as a whole and each of the

buildings) could be prohibitive to developers. NEMC (2003) estimates that combining

incremental design cost, commissioning fees, documenting compliance with the various

criteria selected, energy modeling, and application fees may incur an increase of 1.5% to 3.1%

over the total construction cost of a building if applying for a LEED certification. The

commissioning fees alone may incur 0.5% to 1.5% of the construction cost.

Beside the increased cost, neighbourhood developers may also lack an incentive to adopt a

building level assessment in their development. In LEED-ND, LEED Certificate Green

Building gives one point to the development in which 20-30% construction area of individual

buildings are certificated by a building level assessment system, two points for 30-40%, and

three points (the maximum) for above 40%. Given the whole LEED-ND assessment has 106

points assigned, it is unlikely many neighbourhood developers and designers would seek such

building level certificates at a cost incommensurate with the outcome. In this case, LCA

material & energy accounting could be an alternative because it addresses the material and

energy flows of both individual buildings and open space.

In addition, the systems at both spatial levels cannot address the temporal frame, which

constitute a major shortcoming of such assessment. Therefore they cannot deliver information

about the environmental impacts at different life stages. The neglect of life-cycle

consideration (e.g. the additive embodied energy and carbon emissions) may lead to

unsustainability.

Furthermore, an inherent characteristic of this kind of assessment is that it cannot describe the
88
actual impacts in recognizable measurement units, e.g. tons of CO2 emission per capita, per

m2, per m3 and for housing purposes, per annum. They concentrate on the introducing of

‘green measures’. In other words, they cannot deliver information about the actual

environmental outputs produced by the original planning and designs. Planners and designers

cannot obtain appropriate information about the consequences of their decisions on the

environment (Olgyay and Herdt 2004, Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2006). The increasing number

of ‘green certificated neighbourhoods’ does not allow decision-makers to identify the ‘hot

points’ of their concerns. For example, based on such scoring systems, it is difficult to

determine what measure could have the maximum effect in reducing carbon emissions at

neighbourhood level, and identify which type of neighbourhood should be given more

emphasis.

Finally, the scoring-based systems cannot use qualitative assessment results for aggregation

purposes at another spatial level (e.g. city building stock) (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2006).

They cannot address the BE in a dynamic and consecutive way.

Thus, in order to provide more information to decision-makers, parallel assessment methods

that can provide absolute values of environmental impact and address the temporal concern

should be considered. In the next chapter, another primary BE assessment approach, material

and energy accounting, will be discussed in detail.

89
 Chapter 4: Review of Material and Energy Accounting
Methods

In the previous chapter, the building rating systems operating at individual building level and

neighbourhood level have been evaluated. Another primary approach relating to building

environmental assessment is Material & Energy Accounting (MEA). MEA methods are

defined as primarily seeking to quantify and represent flows of material and energy used in a

production or development process as indicative of the level of environmental impact (Moore

and Brunner, 1996). The main MEA methods include Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), Ecological

Footprint (EF), Carbon Footprint (CF), and Stock Aggregation. Material Flux Analysis (MFA)

underlies all these MEA methods. Compared to the increasing application of BE rating

systems, MEA methods still largely exist in the research community. In this chapter, detailed

reviews of the current MEA methods will be conducted and their strengths and inadequacies

in addressing neighbourhood sustainability are also explored.

4.1 Material Flux Analysis

The MFA approach was introduced by Baccini and Brunner in 1991. It originated in system

ecology through “its applications in urban and industrial metabolism, in thermodynamics, in

process engineering, in energy calculation and finally in economy in the form of

environmental accounting” (Kohler 2007:348). Baccini and Brunner (1991:10-11) point out

the combination of anthroposphere and environment forms a geographically defined open

system. The subsystem environment comprises the compartments soil, water and air, while

anthroposphere consists of agriculture, industry, trade and commerce, households and waste

management. The anthroposphere actively acquires additional material and energy from

external sources to sustain it. The environmental compartments serve not only as source

provider, but also are sinks for the residual fluxes in a certain time frame. The calculation of

material fluxes between the anthroposphere and the environment involves three basic

‘processes’: transformation, transport and storage. Transformation refers to the process that
90
goods are changed into - new products with new qualities and usually new chemical

composition. Transportation is included because it requires energy and other goods and

materials (electricity, fuel oil, steel, etc). Storage involves the material and energy fluxes

relating to the treatment of the residuals (e.g. energy and material investment in the treatment

facilities) (Baccini and Brunner 1991:48-70).

Overall, MFA is an approach of investigating flows of specific materials through an economic

system in a specific geographic area during a certain period of time (Kytzia 2003). MFA is

often used in modelling for large scale regional studies. MFA quantifies the flows of specified

materials through a nominated region or industrial process and maps the principal material,

energy, and waste systems, including key linkages, over a given period (Blair et al. 2003).

The output typically uses a flux diagram, showing the quantity of a material flow which is

used as a surrogate for potential environmental impact (Blair et al. 2003).

Kytzia (2003) describes a general system for models of the BE in MFA research (Figure 4.1).

The system consists of the process’s extraction of resources, construction industries,

maintenance, repair and overhaul (MRO) of the BE, usage of the BE, waste

treatment/recycling, deposition (landfill) and energy supply. The system also corresponds

with the remaining national economy via inputs and outputs of money, material and energy.

Figure 4.1: General MFA system for models of the BE

Source: Kytzia (2003)
91
MFA usually consists of a number of analytical steps (Kytzia 2003), which include:

z System analysis: system boundaries, processes, materials and the choice of indicators;

z Measurement /assessment: data collection based on technical processes (bottom-up

approach) as well as on national statistics (top-down approach);

z Mathematical description and calculation of the material flows: calculating a material

and energy balance for the processes identified;

z Schematic presentation and interpretation of the results: flow diagrams;

z Evaluation of future resource management strategies: sensitivity analysis, scenario

calculations.

(Kytzia 2003)

MFA provides a system methodology to calculate the absolute values of material flows for a

product or an industrial process. Material flux is one of the fundamental dynamics between

the anthroposphere and the environment. Other MEA methods, more or less, use it as a

conceptual underpinning to calculate the physical flows, though different methods are

adopted and different outcomes are presented. For example, the EF is in general not based on

actual land use or land cover data, but starts from the resource consumption of a specific

population in terms of mass units and transforms this mass (including CO2) into land

appropriation.

4.2 Building related life-cycle assessment methods

4.2.1 Overview of building LCA methods

LCA is probably the most developed and widely used material accounting technique (Blair et

al. 2003). LCA is a method for the analysis of the environmental burden of products (goods

and services) from cradle to grave, including extraction of raw materials, production of

materials, product parts and discards, either by recycling, reuse or final disposal (Guineé

2002). This method is now widely used for building materials accounting and is emerging at

92
the level of whole buildings (Popovici and Peuportier 2004). Building LCA encompasses the

analysis and assessment of the environmental impact of building materials, components and

assemblies throughout the entire life of the building construction, use and demolition (Cole

2010:274). A conceptualized building LCA process is shown in Figure 4.2.

From Nature To Nature

Energy
Heat Recovery/ Sink

Raw
Pre-occupation Post-occupation Demolishment

Material

Waste

Recycling

GHG Emissions

Figure 4.2: Conceptualized building LCA process

Source: Adapted based on IEA (2004b:1)

Building life cycle can be generally classified into three phases: pre-occupation,

post-occupation and demolishment. Each phase involves material & energy inputs and waste

outputs. Pre-occupation often refers to embodied energy, which involves the energy used for

material extracting, manufacturing and assembling, conveyance of materials from plants to

construction sites, and energy used for the construction process. The post-occupancy phase

involves operation of the building, i.e. heating, cooling and maintaining it. It should be noted

that it is also related to the users’ activities such as individual transportation and household

daily consumption. Therefore, it is argued by Treloar et al (2000) there is a need for

considering not only the life cycle energy of a building but also the life cycle energy

attributable to activities being undertaken by the actual users of the building. The

demolishment phase involves the demolishment of the building and the rate of material

recycling.
93
 Building LCA analysis is more complex than for many other industrial products because it

requires the aggregate effects of a host of life cycles of their constituent materials,

components, assemblies and systems. The International Energy Agency (IEA 2004b) points

out some difficulties in building LCA assessment including:

z The life expectancy of a building is both long and unknown which causes imprecision.

z buildings are site specific and many of the impacts are local – something not normally

considered in LCA;

z Buildings and their components / products are heterogeneous in their composition.

Therefore much data is needed and the associated product manufacturing processes can

vary greatly from one site to another;

z In the use phase, the behaviour of the users and of the services operators or facilities

managers has a significant influence on energy consumption.

z A building is highly multi-functional, which makes it difficult to choose an appropriate

functional unit;

z Buildings are closely integrated with other elements in the building environment,

particularly urban infrastructure like roads, pipes, wires, green space and treatment

facilities. Because building design characteristics affect the demand for these other

systems, it can be highly misleading to conduct LCA on a building in isolation.

(IEA 2004b)

Thus, LCA in the construction industry is less developed today than in other industries

(Scheuer and Keoleian 2002). Recent studies have tried to use LCA to document the impacts

of a whole building, considering all building materials and operation. Several recent computer

programs incorporate LCA methods into tools for design and analysis of buildings such as

BEES, Athena and Envest. However, “because of data limitations, the large range of

construction techniques, material and system choices in buildings, none of these tools are

currently capable of modeling an entire building, or computing environmental impacts for all

phases or processes” (Cole 2010:274)

LCA has been generally accepted within the environmental research community as the only
94
legitimate basis on which to compare alternative materials, components and services (Cole

2010:274). This constitutes one of the most prominent advantages of this type of assessment

because they can provide quantitative comparisons, for example, international indicators of

CO2 emissions are common and can potentially enable comparison between different scales of

the built environment and various contexts (Cole 2005). Such comparison is unrealistic based

on a BE rating system that is qualitatively based and contextually diverse. LCA methods also

enable aggregation from small spatial scale to larger scale, for example, material use at the

whole building level can be aggregated to the whole neighbourhood.

However, as summarized by Blair et al. (2003), building LCA is trenchantly criticised for a

combination of relying on inadequate scientific knowledge, its huge data research

requirements, a somewhat arbitrary method for setting study scope, and the way

environmental impacts are weighted for their significance.

IEA (2004b) points out that LCA method is powerless in evaluating the linkages between a

building and its environment and is typically beyond the capacity of LCA practitioners, for

example, the interaction between a building and the local environment such as noise, glare

and other factors. It is also incapable to deal with the occupant behaviour in the use phase,

transportation inputs, and the processes (and related flows) linked to the infrastructure of the

building (in particular water supply, sewage, and solid waste processing). These services

emphasize the fact that a building is an active ‘processor’ during the use phase, and that a

building is only one dependant element within a broader and much more complex urban

system.

Keeler and Burke (2009:250-252) summarize the main limitations of the current building LCA

practice. First, LCA is a time-consuming and complex evaluation tool; second, LCA does not

consider sociological implications, such as the issues of social justice that are encountered

when resources are extracted from developing countries, altering patterns of living and habitat;

third, LCA does not adequately calculate human-health impacts mainly attributable to the

uncertainty about calculating human toxicity impacts.

95
Scheuer and Keoleian (2002) explore the potential of LCA by using it to test LEED criteria. It

was found that only five criteria could be addressed or partially addressed by LCA. They were

MR2 (Construction Waste Management), MR4 (Recycled Materials), EA1 (Optimize Energy

Performance), EA2 (Renewable Energy), and EA6 (Green Power). These criteria are all about

material and energy flows. For many other LEED credits, LCA method cannot be applied.

In summary, building LCA analysis provides a way to quantify and compare material &

energy flows and the related emissions of the built environment at different spatial scales and

in different contexts. However, LCA methods are currently focusing on material and energy

flows and the tool has not been adapted to assess many sustainability issues such as social and

spatial concerns and site-specific impacts. Some studies have suggested responses to the

limitations of LCA methods. For example, IEA (2004b) suggests that the best alternative may

be to combine LCA with more passive and qualitative evaluation tools.

4.2.2 LCA based building decision support tools

There are already several LCA-based building-oriented decision support tools in use or under

development such as Building for Environmental and Economic Sustainability (BEES),

Envest, and ATHENA. Keeler and Burke (2009:252) classify the current building related LCA

methods into three levels: the first level such as BEES that is only evaluating the environmental

performance of building products. The second level is represented by Envest and ATHENA that

can deal with the whole building. The third level refers to the building environmental

assessment systems (e.g. BREEAM) that incorporate the methods at the second level into their

assessments. This section will give a brief review of the working of BEES, Envest and

ATHENA with focus on their assessment scale and scope.

96
4.2.2.1 BEES

BEES is a software tool developed by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology

(NIST) via its Building Fire and Research Laboratory. This tool uses inventory and impact

analysis to normalize and weight data and sum them into a single score (NIST website 2010).

The current Model 4.0 comprises ten categories of environmental impacts: acid rain,

ecological toxicity, eutrophication, global warming, human toxicity, indoor air quality, ozone

depletion, resource depletion, smog and solid waste (see Figure 4.3). These environmental

factors are aggregated into an Environmental Performance Score. In addition, the initial

investment of a construction project and further costs including replacement, operation,

maintenance, repair, and disposal are also evaluated and summed into an Economic

Performance Score. The environmental score and the economic score will be further

aggregated into an overall score for the building.

BEES adopts the LCA approach specified in the International Standards Organization (ISO)

14040 series of standards. The life stages include raw material acquisition, manufacture,

transportation, installation, use, and waste management. Economic performance is measured

using the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) standard life-cycle cost

method. The technique examines costs over a given study period of initial investment,

replacement, operation, maintenance and repair, and disposal (Lippiat and Boyles 2001).

BEES is only used for evaluating the environmental performance of building products and

cannot deal with the whole building.

97
 Figure 4.3 Screen clip of BEES 4.0 demonstration
Source: NIST website (2010)

4.2.2.2 Envest

Envest is a software program that allows estimation and identification of environmental

impacts attributed to the construction materials and the energy and resources consumed at the

whole building level and throughout the building life cycle. The current version of Envest 2

addresses the categories of environmental impacts including climate change, fossil fuel

depletion, ozone depletion, water disposal, human toxicity to air, ozone creation, human

toxicity to water, waste disposal, water extraction, acid deposition, ecotoxicity to water,

eutrophication, and mineral extraction (BRE Envest website 2010).

Envest measures the abovementioned environmental impacts in terms of Ecopoints. Ecopoints

are a measure of overall environmental impact developed by BRE. Ecopoints are normalized

scores, obtained by dividing the total environmental impact of UK by its population. One

hundred Ecopoints are equivalent to the environmental impact of the average UK citizen in

one year. More Ecopoints indicate higher environmental impact (Vijayan and Kumar 2005).

Vijayan and Kumar (2005) summarize the Envest evaluation process. The first stage of the

tool requires input of the building details that include physical details and structural
98
characteristics. These details constitute the preliminary information on the project to be

analyzed. Varied building shapes are made available on the tool with their corresponding

Whole Life Costs (WLC) and Ecopoints. This facilitates the comparison of the user’s building

shape to that provided in the tool, and an opportunity to the user to select a different building

shape with better Life Cycle Costs (LCC) compared to that of the original (Vijayan and

Kumar 2005).

Building Fabric and Structure is the next area of analysis in the tool. This carries out a

detailed analysis on the different elements of structure and fabric and presents the Ecopoints

and WLC for each element. The elements involved in this part of analysis include: structure

and cement, external wall, internal wall, floors at different levels, external openings (windows,

roof lights), ceiling, and roof. The tool also analyzes the various services in a building that

include heating, lighting, water, ventilation, cooling, lifts, catering, office equipment and

humidification and discusses heat losses through walls, roofs, windows, and flooring (Vijayan

and Kumar 2005).

The final results of the analysis are supplied in the form of a number of reports and graphs

that compare the environmental and economic impacts of the various designs. The user has

the option of choosing the reports on Ecopoints or Ecopoints/sq-m and LCC or LCC/sq-m

(Vijayan and Kumar 2005). The reports and graphs can reflect various details about the

Ecopoint performance of various building parts as well as different building life stages, e.g.

embodied ecopoints vs. operational ecopoints. Figure 4.4 and 4.5 show the screen clips of

Envest 2 Demonstation programs that indicate the embodied ecopoints and the operational

ecopoints, and the breakdown of the whole building impact by different environmental issues

during its life span.

99
 Figure 4.4: Screen clip of BRE Envest demonstration: embodied vs operational energy
Source: BRE Envest website (2010)

Figure 4.5: Screen clip of BRE Envest demonstration: building impact by different
environmental issues
Source: BRE Envest website (2010)

Comparisons can be made on a building-to-building level, or on a meter square basis.

Because this tool deals with the environmental impact, the user has an opportunity to assess

the different impacts an element can produce when replaced with another – a sensitity

analysis. Results are interpreted in terms of environmental impacts. This feature highlights the

software because it enables the user to analyze a building’s impact under different types and

usage of building material in various sections (Vijayan and Kumar 2005).

100
4.2.2.3 ATHENA

ATHENA has been developed in the Athena Sustainable Material Institute in Canada which

offers two tools for the LCA assessment of whole buildings and assemblies (assemblies are

complete systems, such as a wall or roof system, composed of individual products and/or

pre-assembled building components): ATHENA® Impact Estimator for Buildings and

ATHENA® EcoCalculator for Assemblies. The Impact Estimator is considered as an

LCA-based decision support tool focused at the level of whole building, while the

EcoCalculator is working on the level of complete building assemblies. The EcoCalculator for

Assemblies can evaluate more than 400 commonly used building structure and envelope

assemblies (ATHENA website 2010).

The Impact Estimator applies to industrial, institutional, office, and residential buildings and

captures the systems implications of product selections related to a building’s structure and

envelope, taking into account the environmental effects of the following (Trusty undated):

z material manufacturing, including resource extraction and recycled content;

z related transportation;

z on-site construction;

z regional variation in energy use, transportation and other factors;

z building type and assumed lifespan, which can be varied to allow users to assess relative

durability effects;

z maintenance, repair and replacement effects, distinguishing between owner-occupied and

rental facilities where relevant; and

z Demolition and disposal.

The software also includes a calculator to convert operating energy to primary energy and

generate emissions to allow users to compare the environmental effects of embodied and

operating energy over the building’s life. The operating energy calculator requires a separate

estimate of operating energy as an input to the model.

101
Regarding results reporting, the software provides a detailed environmental life cycle

inventory of the embodied effects associated with the building as well as a set of six summary

measures. These summary measures include primary (embodied) energy, raw material use,

greenhouse gas potential (both fuel and process related), measures of air and water pollution,

and solid waste.

Embodied primary energy is reported in Gigajoules (GJ). Embodied energy includes all

non-renewable energy, direct and indirect, used to transform and transport materials into

products and buildings. Solid waste is reported on a mass basis in kilograms and includes all

solid waste generated during manufacturing, construction, replacement, and demolition that is

destined for the landfill. Global warming potential is a reference measure. Carbon dioxide is

the common reference standard for global warming or greenhouse gas effect. All other

greenhouse gases are referred to as having a ‘CO2 equivalent effect’ which is a multiple of the

greenhouse potential of each non-carbon dioxide gas, e.g. CH4.

The air and water pollution measures are similarly intended to capture the pollution or human

health effects of groups of substances emitted in different life stages. It calculates and reports

these critical volume measurements based on the worst offender, i.e. the substances requiring

the largest volume of air and water to dilution to acceptable level (Carmody et al 2007:336).

Figure 4.6 illustrates a results report of embodied energy consumption in gigajoules.

102
 Figure 4.6: Example of the results report in ATHENA
Source: Trusty (undated)

By reviewing the above building LCA methods, it is clear that they only measure

environmental or economic impacts (through life-cycle expenditure on materials replacement)

from a material consumption perspective. They do not address social and spatial issues such

as users’ consumption patterns, social cohesion, neighbourhood layout and transport network.

Furthermore, they work at the whole building level by aggregating the environmental impacts

from materials to assemblies of materials, and then to the whole building. The current Envest

and ATHENA have not incorporated the open space between buildings into their models. In

order to produce a holistic LCA analysis at neighbourhood level, it is important to address the

open space as well as the life-cycle energy attributable to activities being undertaken by the

actual users of the neighbourhood.

However, Trusty and Horst (2002) argue that LCA methods such as Envest and ATHENA

establish a much better basis for informed environmental choices and therefore for assessing

103
the relative merits of a building from a materials use perspective. In summary, LCA methods

can calculate the ‘real values’ of materials & energy flows through a building’s life span. By

using LCA methods, building planners and designers can make comparison between different

solutions.

4.2.3 The use of LCA in the existing building rating systems

Some studies argue the need to integrate LCA methods into building rating systems. Trusty

and Horst (2002) point out that the credit points assigned for building material selections in

many building rating systems have typically evolved from “an aura of conventional

environmental wisdom that does not always stand up to objective analysis”. For example,

LEED offers substantial credit for the use of recycled materials, the presumption being that

recycled materials will automatically result in reduced environmental burdens. However, this

may not always be the case, and recycling in any given situation may be good or bad. For

instance, recycling can save landfill space, but the process of recycling a given product may

take more energy and adversely affect air quality more profoundly than would production

from virgin resources (Trusty and Horst 2002). Trusty and Horst argue that the focus on

recycling in LEED ignores this possibility and implicitly gives more weight to solid waste

and resource depletion issues than to global warming or other measures.

There are two ways to integrate LCA methods into current building environmental rating

systems (Cole 2010:276). First, existing LCA-based tools such as Athena Impact Estimator

and Envest can be used as the basis for evaluating materials, components and assemblies, and

can generate a ranked dataset. The building rating systems then give credits for selecting

highly ranked products or assemblies based on this dataset. Second, credits can be given to

decisions based on the use of an LCA tool by the design. For example, the Canadian building

rating tool, Green GlobeTM, offers credit for selecting materials that reflect the results of a

“best-run” life cycle assessment for foundation and floor assembly and materials, and many

other envelope assembly materials (Cole 2010:276).

104
BREEAM could be a good example to further explore the working of the LCA in current

building rating systems. First, the major building elements would be assessed by the Envest

program that produces a single score, referred to as an Ecopoint. According to the ecopoints

scored, these building elements then are classified into category A-C in the BRE’s Green

Guide for Housing Specification where ‘A’ represents the least environmental impact. Finally,

the relevant credits are allocated to a particular BREEAM criterion. For example, the Mat 1 in

BREEAM-Ecohomes, Environmental Impact of Materials, requires ‘Credits are achieved by

obtaining an ‘A’ rating from the Green Guide for Housing Specification, for 80% by area of

the element, for each of the following elements (roof, walls, window, flooring, etc)’.

However, many building environmental assessment systems are still reluctant to provide LCA

input, e.g. the LEED system. The reasons could be the time and cost increase that is less

acceptable for systems functioning in a commercial market (Trusty and Horst 2002), and the

need to compile and keep up to date the life-cycle inventory database. In 2004, the USGBC’s

Life Cycle Assessment Working Group began an “LCA into LEED” project commissioned by

the LEED steering committee, and released a report in 2006 containing recommendations on

how best to achieve that (Keeler and Burke 2009:253). The proposed pre-approved list of

environmental impacts of building materials and assemblies would be based on the running of

ATHENA EcoCalculator (USGBC website 2009). The results of EcoCalculator would be then

translated into LEED LCA Credit Calculator to create LEED LCA impact scores. It was

expected to be incorporated into the LEED 2009 version (Keeler and Burke 2009:253) or

LEED V3. However, it did not happen. So far, the LEED is still lacking an LCA module.

From the above review, it is obvious that LCA is only used in the current building assessment

systems to select the building materials and components. It cannot give a full picture of the

building life-cycle environmental profile that should be much broader than materials selection.

Furthermore, since LCA analysis is integrated into the scoring system (e.g. BREEAM) and

presented as some standard measures (e.g. percentage of materials selected from a ‘green’

materials category), the ‘relative’ rating score covers much information that could help the

decision-making process. For example, designers cannot obtain information about the
105
‘absolute’ values of material and energy flows, thus cannot conduct in-depth analysis of the

environmental outcomes of the original designs. In addition, such integration occurs in the

assessment at whole building level, which itself can not deal with multiple buildings with

large open spaces. Finally, this integration is only focusing on the performance of building

without considering the users’ activities such as transport during the post-occupancy phase.

4.3 Ecological Footprint Approach

4.3.1 Overview of ecological footprint

Ecological Footprint (EF) quantifies the amount of land area required to sustain the lifestyle

of a population at any size, from an individual, household, community, city, country or the

world. For example, if we divide the amount of productive land available on the planet

(approximately 13.6 billion hectares) by the world population then we would have 2.1

hectares each to provide us with all our resources and absorb all our waste (WWF 2008).

Therefore, if an individual is to be ecologically sustainable then their ecological footprint

would have to be 2.1 hectares or less. This number can be seen as a target for ecological

sustainability globally.

The calculation of EF can be applied to different spatial scales. The World Wildlife Fund’s

Living Planet Report (WWF 2008) calculates EFs for 152 countries. This report indicates that

individuals in industrialized countries often have footprint as large as 4-10 hectares compared

to the world average of 2.7 hectares in 2005. EFs have been also calculated at region (e.g.

Rees and Wackernagle 1996), city (e.g. Wackernagel, 1998), neighbourhood (e.g. McLean

and Korol, undated), household (e.g. Høyer and Holden 2003) and product level (e.g.

Huijbregts et al. 2008).

On a larger scale the use of the EF has been more widespread (Barrett and Simmons 2003).

The EF analysis is primarily conducted at the national level where EF generalizations are

106
reasonably accurate and where sufficient data are available to allow calculations of total

apparent national consumption (McLean and Korol, undated). Generally there are two

methods to calculate EFs (Kumar 2006:65): the compound approach and the component

approach. The compound approach is applied to a whole country and it uses national

statistical data such as energy consumption and agricultural and forestry production. The aim

is to footprint the amount of various goods consumed by the country’s citizens. It depends on

a national input-output analysis that maps the total inflows and outflows of materials and

energy on annual basis. To do this, exports are subtracted from imports and added to domestic

production (Kumar 2006:65). For example, in order to calculate the EF of grain consumption,

the total domestic production will be added to total imports and total exports subtracted to get

an apparent national consumption. This is divided by the average yield of grain per hectare in

a specific country to get the total area of land required to provide grain. Dividing this by the

country’s human population provides the per capita EF of the average utilization of grain

(McLean and Korol, undated). WWF’s Living Planet Report is also an example of this

approach.

The component approach, on the other hand, analyses data on a life cycle basis (Kumar

2006:65). The unit quantity of products and activities is pre-calculated. It is then multiplied

by the total quantity (such as population, or number of items, as the case may be) to get the

gross ecological footprint. It is akin to a kind of bottom-up approach. This makes it possible

to calculate the sub-EFs in different life stages of a man-made product such as a building or a

mobile phone and aggregate them to the total EF.

There is very little information found in the literature about the calculation of EF for

neighbourhoods. McLean and Korol (undated) suggest that there is insufficient data

availability. No data are available on how much food residents of a particular neighbourhood

consume, or on what types of food they prefer, or on what distance that food may have

traveled to the households. Generally these consumption data are not collected at

neighbourhood level. It is also difficult to manage the scale of land use for a specific

neighbourhood (McLean and Korol, undated). McLean and Korol give an example about the
107
land used for EF calculation. 20% of the land in neighbourhood A may be devoted to a large

shopping mall and only 2% set aside for commercial uses in neighbourhood B but it does not

necessarily mean that the residents in neighbourhood A are consuming much more land for

their commercial activities.

4.3.2 Example of EF calculation at the urban BE level: ISET

The Integrated Spatially Enable Tool (ISET) has been developed by Kumar and Prasad

(Kumar 2006) at the University of New South Wales, Australia. It provides a framework for

the environmental assessment of study areas at various scales, from individual building to

entire city. The ISET basically is union of a GIS-based urban spatial model and an assessment

scenario. This framework is useful to quantify indicators with spatial meaning by aggregating

basic units to a certain spatial scale. This tool has been applied to part of the Sydney CBD.

The ISET uses four tangible indicators that can be quantified and aggregated to represent the

four key areas of sustainability. The four indicators include: return on investment representing

affluence, proximity to facilities representing social wellbeing, eco-footprint representing

environmental impact, and embodied energy representing resource consumption. IEST uses

Stock Aggregation methods (see details in 4.5) to aggregate data from individual buildings to

urban scale BE. In assessment of Sydney CBD area, building data are aggregated into Census

Collection District level (typically each has 225 households), then further grouped into 5

customized zones.

ISET suggests a hybrid method to compute the EF. The analysis focuses on the built

environment (i.e. buildings, roads, parking lots etc) without consideration on the users’

activities such as the consumption of clothing, food and consumables. Thus, it is assumed that

buildings and the related infrastructure do not appropriate crop land, pasture land, and marine

or inland water for their construction and operation. The land use categories involved include

only energy land, degraded land, garden land and forest land. The scope of this study is

shown in Figure 4.7. The methodology for EF calculation adopts a bottom-up method. Each
108
of the land uses and related building characteristics such as building type, gross floor area

(GFA), and transport data are investigated. Some coefficients are used to calculate the total

quantity, for example, timber quantities are estimated using “GFA to Timber” coefficients

according to the types of buildings. Based on the calculation of individual buildings and the

related infrastructure, the EFs can be aggregated to the census districts, customized zones and

the whole CBD area. The results are illustrated in GIS maps.

At present, most EF studies are being used for educational and awareness-raising purposes

(Barrett and Simmons 2003). It can clearly delineate the ecological deficits of countries,

regions and cities. For example, the total EF in China, as a measure of the total demand on

nature that is required to sustain China’s total economic production, including the production

of exports, was 1.78 global hectares per capita in 2001 (Hubacek et al. 2009). The figure is a

bit less than the world’s average of 2.1 global hectares per capita, and about 40% of the

Japanese level. However, this national average cannot describe the whole picture of China.

Due to the polarized economic development in China, the EFs of different regions vary

greatly. For example, the total use of EFs in Beijing was 4.99 global hectare per capita, which

was 2.8 times greater than the national average (Hubacek et al. 2009), and even larger than

the EFs of the average Japanese citizen. This indicates that Beijing residents have a much

more resource intensive lifestyles than the rest of the population in China.

Figure 4.7: Assessment scope of EF analysis in ISET

Source: Kumar (2006:180)

109
Based on the analysis and results of EF, it is possible to gain a general understanding of the

state of sustainability in a particular area. However, there are some criticisms of the

technique:

z The concept of EF ignores many other dimensions of sustainability. EF has been

developed on the analysis of resource input (organic or inorganic materials, water,

energy) and waste output (GHG emission, land degrading). This over-simplification of

sustainability neglects other factors such as the entire socio-economic dimension.

z The highly aggregated EF score may hide much information during the process of

aggregation. For example, it is impossible to segregate EF for sequestrating carbon

emissions from an overall EF score.

z The conversion of measurement unit from real impact values (e.g. tonnes of CO2

emissions) to global land area needs a variety of assumptions thereby increasing the

generality, uncertainties and errors associated with a particular estimate (Wiedmann and

Minx 2008).

z The calculation of EF at sub-national levels is laborious and suffers from data

inadequacies.

4.4 Carbon Footprint Approach

4.4.1 Overview of carbon footprint

With the concern of global warming gradually taking up the center of political debate,

calculation of carbon emissions have been applied to various aspects of society. A number of

carbon emission trading schemes (ETS) have been introduced in European countries, NSW in

Australia, New Zealand and some states of the US. These schemes are administrative

instruments in order to control emissions by providing economic incentives for achieving

reduction targets. Under the ETS of the European Union, large emitters must monitor and

annually report their CO2 emissions, and they are obliged every year to return an amount of

emission allowances to the government that is equivalent to their CO2 emissions in that year.
110
There are more radical emission control measures currently under discussion. For example,

Personal Carbon Allowance Program, suggested by the Institute of Public Policy Research in

UK, may be the next step in tackling carbon emissions (Guardian website, 2009). Under this

program, every individual would be given a set allocation of carbon credits, which they could

use to ‘pay’ for purchases like home energy usage and petrol. Those with low carbon usage

would be able to sell their surplus credits on a carbon market, whilst those with high carbon

consumption levels would have to buy credits. Therefore, carbon emission calculation or

“carbon footprint” (CF), as an indicator representing the carbon responsibility of an individual,

a company, an organization or an area, can influence various aspects of society like lifestyle

and behaviour. CF has become a widely used term and concept in the public debate on

responsibility and abatement action against the threat of global climate change (Wiedmann

and Minx 2008).

The CF is a measure of the total amount of CO2 emissions that are directly and indirectly

caused by human activity. It measures the CO2 emissions associated with the domestic energy

we use and the way we travel as well as what we eat and what we buy and use. Most emission

protocols involve a tier structure (Matthews et al. 2008). The “Tier 1” definition consists of

the direct emissions (e.g. the CO2 emissions coming out of a firm’s factories and vehicles by

using primary energy types such as coal and petrol). Tier 2 expands the boundary to include

the carbon emissions from the use of secondary energy types (e.g. electricity and LPG in

homes). Tier 3 may involve ‘other indirect activities’ such as the embodied energy for

manufacturing various materials, semi-products and final products (Matthews et al. 2008).

There is no consensus on how to measure or quantify a carbon footprint (Wiedmann and

Minx 2008, Matthews et al. 2008). Wiedmann and Minx (2008) found that there are a large

variety of definitions that differ in which gases are accounted for, where boundaries of

analysis are drawn, and several other criteria. The spectrum of definitions ranges from direct

CO2 emissions to full life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions and even the units of measurement

are not clear. For example, Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) uses the total amount of

CO2 emissions per capita to measure the carbon footprint for the city of York (Haq and Owen
111
2009). Some definitions involve the total amount of CO2 equivalent emissions by

incorporating other greenhouse gas substances. Others argue that CF is a part of the

Ecological Footprint and it is measured in terms of “CO2 land” that is the amount of

“unharvested forests, needed to absorb that fraction of fossil CO2 that is not absorbed by the

ocean” (Wiedmann and Minx 2008 ).

Life-cycle thinking has been developed into one characteristic of CF estimates (Matthews et

al. 2008). For example, Haven (2007) mentions the CF analysis of an office chair is a

life-cycle assessment which took into account materials, manufacture, transport, use and

disposal at every stage of development (cited in Wiedmann and Minx 2008). Dadd (2007)

also uses LCA methods to measure the CF of a material recycling facility. Dadd’s analysis

involves the initial embodied energy for construction of buildings and roads, direct energy use

for operation, and off-site transportation.

4.4.2 Example of CF calculation: Neighbourhood CF in York

Currently, there is very little research regarding the CF calculation at neighbourhood level

mainly because the data required are not available at this spatial level.

However, a study conducted by Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) focusing on carbon

footprints of neighbourhoods in York, UK, disassembles the assessment scope into six

categories including housing (e.g. energy used in the home), transport (e.g. private vehicle,

public transport), food (e.g. food, drink), consumables (e.g. clothing, household appliances),

services (e.g. financial advice, private education), and government spending (e.g. roads,

schools, hospitals) (Haq and Owen 2009). Compared to other studies that concentrate on

national input-output analysis, SEI’s study indicates how the CF can be calculated and

displayed at smaller levels of geography. The census based Super Output Area is considered

to be an approximation of “neighbourhood” as well as the smallest reporting area. There are

118 Super Output Areas in the City of York and on average, each contains around 1600

residents.
112
By calculating the carbon footprint associated with people’s everyday lives, it helps relate

climate change to local needs and priorities. Also it can be used as an educational and

management tool to illustrate the characteristics of different neighbourhoods. For example,

SEI’s research found that the top ten York neighbourhoods which have the highest footprints

tend to be in commuter areas, urban centres or rural areas. Conversely, the ten

neighbourhoods with the lowest footprints tend to be in areas described as ‘disadvantaged

urban communities’ or areas with high concentrations of students. This kind of information

can help urban managers identify their policy priorities to reduce carbon emissions. This

research also shows that the average York resident has a carbon footprint of 12.58 tonnes of

CO2 per year. The breakdown by the categories of calculation is shown in Figure 4.8. It is

clear that the construction and running of houses, and the use of vehicles make up 57% of the

total carbon footprint, followed by the individual share of the public environment (hospitals,

schools, roads, etc) that constitutes 17%. The combination of consumables and food takes up

20% of the total carbon footprint. Considering only housing and transport, the average York

resident has a carbon footprint of 7.16 tonnes annually, and the range varies between 4.68 and

8.48 tonnes in different neighbourhoods.

Figure 4.8: The breakdown of the carbon footprint of an average York resident
Source: Haq and Owen (2009:6)

113
A similar suburb scale study is conducted by Troy et al (2003) in Adelaide, Australia,

focusing on energy consumption and the related CO2 equivalent emissions. This study has

addressed both embodied energy estimates (buildings, roads, water supply network, sewerage

system, and vehicle fleet) and operational energy (electricity, gas and transport). Excluding

the embodied energy estimates for infrastructure and vehicles, the estimated annual CO2

equivalent per capita of Adelaide is between 4.7 and 6.7 tonnes. Troy et al (2003) also find

that operational (including transport) energy accounted for 72-83% of the total annualized

emissions, and embodied energy contributed 17-28%.

4.5 Stock Aggregation Approach

4.5.1 Overview of stock aggregation

Stock Aggregation is “the process of evaluating the performance of a building stock using

environmental assessments of components of the stock” (IEA 2004c:1). For example, total

consumption of a resource like water in a building stock can be estimated by aggregating the

estimates of all the individual buildings in the stock. The consumption of resources and

energy directly depends on the dynamic relationships between a building’s structure and

equipment, systems and operations involved. Therefore, stock aggregation is frequently

proposed as the best method available for analyzing stock performance because “it can

capture the dynamic relationships within buildings that significantly affect energy and mass

flows” (IEA 2004c:1).

As stock aggregation begins with the analysis of individual buildings, it is referred to as a

‘bottom up’ approach. Any performance issues that can be assessed at the ‘bottom’ – for an

individual building or specific technology - can be aggregated upwards and used to evaluate

the performance of a building stock (IEA 2004b). A sketch of the working of the stock

aggregation technique is shown in Figure 4.9. The scale of stock aggregation can vary, from a

small housing stock within a single project, all the way to national building stocks for the
114
residential, commercial, and institutional sectors. It also can show the breakdown of energy

and resource use by each end-use (e.g. heating, cooling, lighting, equipment) and by each

building type (e.g. office, school, apartment, and retail). Thus, stock aggregation is a powerful

analytical instrument for analysis of the dynamics of the built environment at large scale.

Stock aggregation methods can contribute to decision-making in two ways: (IEA 2004b)

z by assisting designers of individual buildings to understand how their design choices

might affect – or be affected by - the overall stock performance, and

z by providing planners and policy-makers at varying scales (local to national) with a

richer, more powerful database on building costs, energy and resource use, and

environmental effects.

Figure 4.9: Stock Aggregation technique

Source: Kumar (2006:99)

At present no commercially available tools exist specifically for stock aggregation purposes

(IEA 2004c). However the evolution of micro models suggests that it should soon be possible

to create dynamic urban scale models of the stock. A number of Geographical Information

System (GIS) applications are currently available which used the results from micro models
115
to populate layers of data on houses and commercial buildings, and to provide easy

aggregation of data within user-defined spatial boundaries. Such tools can provide planners

with aggregated data on the performance of building stocks, and with rudimentary forecasts

(IEA 2004c).

Recently a number of tools have been developed to assist with the modeling and aggregating

of buildings. These tools tend to be based upon urban models created from GIS applications,

and contain layers of information on buildings and resource use. In order to better understand

the working of stock aggregation, the Energy and Environment Prediction (EEP) model is

given detailed review in the following section.

4.5.2 Example of stock aggregation: the EEP model

The computer based Energy and Environmental Prediction (EEP) model has been developed

in the UK by the University of Wales, Cardiff, and has been used in some local authorities in

the UK and Australia to help in energy management and environmental planning (Jones et al.

2007, Snow et al. 2000). The current version of EEP has five principle sub-models to analyze

energy performance and related CO2 emissions in different sectors at city scale, which include

housing energy use, traffic flow, non-domestic energy use, industry and BE-related public

health (see Figure 4.10). The inclusion of the health problems related to the built environment

takes this tool beyond considerations of energy and environment. The current health

sub-model encompasses mental health, home injury and cardio-respiratory disease.

Figure 4.10: EEP Model Framework and its sub-models

Source: Jones et al. (2007)
116
The user can access the tool via a primary user interface. The interface can call on a range of

sub-models as mentioned above. The selection of sub-models is flexible according to the

user’s needs, and the results are presented simultaneously through the associated GIS which

contains an Ordinance Survey (OS) map of the city describing the buildings and roads.

Sub-models exchange data through a data highway, making all data available to all

sub-models (Jones et al. 2007).

The individual building is the starting point for area aggregation. Postcode units, consisting of

30 dwellings or so, are considered a suitable spatial level of detail for displaying results in the

assessment of a town. The user therefore can pinpoint excessive energy use and associated

carbon emission “hotspots” on a thematic map at postcode level in a city (Jones et al 2007).

However, for larger spatial levels, such as a whole local authority area, postcode units are

considered to be too detailed with too many areas to be displayed (may be up to 3500

postcode units). Thus, the data need to be aggregated to a higher level, which would enable

the identification of larger problem areas, before focusing on the more localised ‘hot spots’.

Ward areas, each of them typically include 65 postcode units or 1300 houses, are chosen for

the analysis of larger spatial scales. Similarly, those postcode groups or ward areas with

unusual occurrence of BE-related health problems can be also identified on such a GIS-based

thematic map (Jones et al. 2007). Figure 4.11 illustrates the variation in CO2 emissions of

postcode units for a village area.

Figure 4.11: EEP model for a village illustrating variation in CO2 emissions of postcode units.
Source: Jones et al. (2007)

117
It is a very challenging, sometimes impossible, task to survey each of the buildings of a city

or a local authority. It is estimated by Mitchell (2005) that it took 15 person months to

complete data collection and input for application to the Neath Port Talbot town which

includes 60,000 domestic and 4,000 non-domestic properties. In order to reduce time and

resource costs, the EEP model uses “house types” representing dwellings with similar

performance characteristics to avoid investigating each of the dwellings. As explained in

Jones et al. (2007), if all houses within an area can be reduced to 100 types, then subsequent

calculations only have to deal with 100 house types and not every house in the area. Then the

buildings in the area can be assigned to one of the 100 building classes by a ‘drive by’ survey.

A cluster analysis technique is developed to identify buildings with similar energy

consumption and carbon emissions. The cluster analysis procedure ‘forces’ dwellings into a

specified number of ‘clusters’ based on selected built form characteristics and the age of the

dwelling. The five characteristics of individual buildings used to create clusters and which are

considered to have the greatest influence on energy and emission performance are as follows:

z Heated ground floor area (m2)

z Façade (m2)

z Window to wall ratio

z Exposed end area (m2)

z Property age

By this means, it would considerably speed up the access and acquisition of data and make it

possible to quickly model whole regions containing many properties.

Overall, the EEP model enables city planners and managers to calculate, identify and present

energy use and carbon dioxide emissions at urban scale by aggregating data from single

buildings to postcode units, ward areas and the whole city. It can be used as a planning and

policy tool that will allow local government to select sites for development and improve the

building stock that is already present (Jones et al. 2001). It can also assist planners in making

comparisons between energy efficiency measures (e.g. double glazing, installing condensing

boilers, improving U-values of walls etc) for a group of buildings or urban area (Mitchell

2005).
118
However, there are some inadequacies in the current version of EEP. First, it is focusing on

buildings without consideration of the public environment such as roads, open space and

landscaping that exists between the building sites and also constitutes a significant part of

energy consumption and carbon emissions. Second, it does not take into account the

embodied energy of the BE, which is substantial and has significant impact on the total

resource consumption of any city. Third, the current models are labour intensive, time

consuming, and expensive to apply (Kumar 2006:57), and appear to offer few opportunities

for assessing the energy implications of city scale designs tested using strategic land use

models (Mitchell 2005).

Since Stock Aggregation begins with the analysis of individual buildings, and can aggregate

upwards to a certain spatial level of the built environment, it can facilitate the identification of

sensitive variables that may be especially important to the overall performance (IEA 2004c).

It is a useful tool to evaluate the material & energy flows of an area, e.g. a neighbourhood.

However, it should be noted that the open space of a neighbourhood should be also added to

the model to generate a more holistic profile.

The review of current MEA methods indicates that they are potent in quantifying material &

energy flows and related emissions, particularly in a long-term temporal frame. This is mainly

attributable to the intrinsic nature of such methods, i.e. they measure the absolute values of

environmental impacts, which facilitates the estimation of future material & energy intake by

adding time considerations such as replacement factors of building materials and expected

building lifespan.

However, these methods are weak in addressing many spatial issues, and site-specific

environmental impacts as well as social aspects of neighbourhood. Issues such as accessibility

to urban services (e.g. transport, shopping, etc) and community cohesion are largely

qualitatively based and in any event, it is hard to link these issues to the flows of material and

energy. Moreover, site-specific environmental impacts such as noise, urban heat island and

light pollution, as well as impacts relating to site ecology (e.g. habitat loss, local water bodies)
119
cannot be properly addressed.

4.6. Summary

This chapter has reviewed the major material & energy accounting methods available and the

current practices of these methods. The MEAs’ strength in sustainability assessment is “their

capability to take long time frames both in the past and in the future into account and to be

applicable at different levels from individual buildings to urban systems” (Kohler 2007:348).

First, they provide quantitative and objective assessment in term of GJs of energy

consumption and tonnes of carbon emissions or other equivalent proxies, e.g. ecopoints in

Envest. These absolute values can spur planners and designers to envisage the environmental

outcomes of their work. They also facilitate in-depth analysis of various design options, for

example, designers can use Envest and ATHENA to evaluate different design alternatives

based on their real environmental impacts. Furthermore, some of these methods, such as EF

and CF, can be used for management and educational purposes so that lay people can easy

grasp the environmental implications of their daily activities.

Second, MEA-based methods can facilitate life cycle thinking. Building is a particular

product that has a life span often over one hundred years. Cole (2005) argues that building

environmental assessment would be significantly enhanced if LCA methodologies were

deployed as underpinnings of relevant performance criteria. Zhang et al (2006) also suggest

that LCA-based methods, compared with the scoring methods, demonstrate an in-depth

coverage of environmental impacts associated with design and building materials. By

demonstrating how energy and mass flows or carbon emissions are caused through individual

actors’ decisions and actions, LCA-based tools will potentially increase actors’ motivation as

well as their willingness and ability to take self responsibility. For example, as discussed in

Chapter 10 of this thesis, housing buyers’ decision could be influenced by a neighbourhood

carbon profile.

120
Third, MEA-based methods can facilitate comparison and aggregation between different

buildings or building stocks in different contexts on a common basis. For example, tonnes of

carbon emissions per m2 or per capita can be used to compare the environmental impact of

different neighbourhoods that may be greatly diverse in terms of housing sizes, open space,

travel patterns, and so on. Thus material and energy accounting methods can help to generate

the best practices and benchmarks. By using stock aggregation methods, material and energy

flows can be summed up to different scales of the built environment, from building materials

to building assemblies, then to whole building and groups of buildings at neighbourhood

level.

However, existing MEA methods have been solely focused on the assessment of new

buildings at the design and planning phase or shortly after completion. Methodological

problems exist in connection with the assessment of existing buildings (e.g. the treatment of

embodied energy) (Cole 2010:280). They also suffer from huge data requirements that

hamper the use of these methods, especially at neighbourhood level because data typically are

not collected at this level. Thus, many assumptions have to be made or large scale surveys

have to be conducted. Beyond these technical limitations, a critical shortcoming is that MEA

methods do not comprehensively assess social (e.g. community involvement) and spatial

issues (e.g. accessibility to local amenities), as well as site-specific environmental impacts

(e.g. noise, habitat). Thus parallel analyses (e.g. socio-economic analysis) would be needed.

It seems that MEA methods and building assessment systems are mutually complementary.

The former can provide objective and quantitative values about real environmental impacts

but fail to address broad sustainability issues (e.g. social and spatial). The latter can address

sustainability holistically on a qualitative basis but cannot effectively evaluate the BE in a

long-term time frame and cannot provide quantitative environmental outcomes. Therefore, a

hypothesis is proposed in this research that the union of them in the assessment could

generate better decision-making, especially in the case of the Chinese SRD which is suitable

for both MEA and building assessment systems in tandem.

121
 Chapter 5: Conceptual Framework for Assessing
Neighbourhood Sustainability

This chapter follows from a review of the literature on the major BE assessment approaches.

The review indicates that both building rating systems and MEA methods can only partially

address the neighbourhood sustainability. It is not realistic to expect a single approach to

address the question of sustainability comprehensively. However, progress can be seen if an

assessment provides relatively more decision-making opportunities by involving multiple

approaches.

In this chapter, the research gap identified in Chapter 3 and 4 will be recapitulated, which

leads to a hypothesis that using both quantitative and qualitative approaches in tandem may

generate more decision-making information. Based on this hypothesis, a new assessment

framework including a regionally specific neighbourhood rating system and LCA energy &

carbon accounting is proposed.

5.1 Recapitulation of Research Gap

There are two primary approaches currently in the literature dealing with the environmental

assessment of the built environment, respectively qualitatively based building rating systems,

and quantitatively based material & energy accounting methods. Through the review of these

systems and methods, the dynamics of the neighbourhood BE systems impacting on

sustainability performance have only partially been captured. Building rating systems take a

snapshot of the sustainability state for a neighbourhood at a particular time point but cannot

describe the actual resource flows over its life cycle. Material and energy accounting methods

calculate life-cycle physical flows from a material and energy perspective but cannot address

the full range of sustainability issues.

The market prefers tools that are predominantly based on qualitative information because of
122
their ease of use (which saves cost and time) and because their assessment results can be

easily applied for marketing and analytic purposes (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2006). Building

rating systems are compatible with these market demands and thus have been the most

widespread tools in the BE assessment. In addition, these systems can accommodate

socio-economic and spatial issues because of their qualitative nature and open structure.

However, their main disadvantage is that they do not provide building related stakeholders

with appropriate information on the impacts of their actions on the environment. This

“restricts the possibility of increasing the actors’ motivation as well as their willingness and

ability to take individual responsibility” (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz 2006).

In contrast, MEA methods are capable of potentially increasing actors’ willingness to take

responsibility by providing the actual environmental values behind their decisions. In addition,

this type of assessment can provide quantitative comparison at different spatial levels by

using the stock aggregation methods, for example, LCA energy and carbon accounting can

encourage comparisons between different scales of the built environment and various contexts.

Such comparison cannot be conducted based on scoring based assessments that are regionally

and contextually diverse. However, a major weakness of such methods is that they cannot

appropriately address and aggregate social and spatial issues, as well as site specific

environmental impacts. As noted earlier, solely focusing on material and energy concerns

may ignore many other problems and lead to unsustainability. It is worth reiterating here the

overall principle guiding the design of BedZED development:

“It is insufficient for a development to contribute towards reductions in global carbon

emissions, if residents feel excluded and isolated, suffer from poor health, will not go out for

fear of crime, and have nowhere to meet their friends or watch their children play in safety”

(BRE 2002b:26).

One of the key questions within the building-related assessment debate is how to provide

various decision-makers with the information required so that they can address their concerns

appropriately (Lutzkendorf and Lorenz, 2006). This means that decision-makers need more
123
decision information to improve the quality of their decisions. Since the assessment purposes

are greatly diverse among different users, an assessment framework that is flexible to

accommodate different assessment methods, as well as provide an integrated outcome would

be highly beneficial.

In many cases, mixed information is needed to better understand the sustainability state of a

neighbourhood. For example, property buyers may like to know the LEED rating of a

neighbourhood development as well as the actual CO2 emissions implied by their buying

decisions. The need to employ both qualitative and quantitative assessment approaches is

implied by Lutzkendorf and Lorenz (2006) as follows:

“The use of the [building assessment] 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-based assessment tools”.

Cole (2010:280) also states the following:

“It is increasingly understood that single [building] tools cannot be expected to serve all the

different conditions and requirements needed to infuse sustainability considerations into the

market. Indeed, a meaningful infusion of sustainability thinking into the building process

cannot, as Kaata et al. (2004) suggest, be effectively achieved through stand-alone methods

and tools, and ad hoc assessments”.

Other studies have also addressed this need. Pearce (undated) concludes that use of LEED

based analysis together with systems-based analysis can result in more recommendations than

either approach used independently. The complementary aspects of the two techniques may

help to identify issues missed by one or the other. Blair et al. (2003) suggests parallel analyses

should be conducted along with LCA methods because they cannot comprehensively assess

social and economic issues. IEA (2004b) concludes that since the LCA methods are currently
124
unable to predict most of the site-specific impacts of the BE, the best alternative may be to

combine LCA with more passive and qualitative evaluation tools. Liu et al. (2006) argue that

any single building evaluation tool, functionally and temporally, could hardly satisfy the

many different conditions and requirements in this area. Kumar (2006:247) suggests a similar

point that a single assessment technique probably cannot serve as the ultimate method for

assessing the sustainability of the built environment because a single technique cannot suit all

occasions.

In summary, studies comparing qualitatively-based building rating systems and the

quantitatively based MEA methods are often found in the literature, and, to an extent, the

need to employ both approaches has been implicitly or explicitly addressed. However,

empirical analysis is not used to support these inferences and there are no studies found in the

literature that attempt to apply both approaches to the same case study neighbourhoods. This

research will provide this empirical analysis by combining two assessment approaches, the

neighbourhood rating system and LCA based material, energy and carbon accounting, to the

same case studies. The basic objective is to understand what additional decision-making

information can be generated by using both approaches at the neighbourhood built

environment.

5.2 Conceptual Framework for Neighbourhood Assessment

5.2.1 Conceptualizing the assessment framework

No single BE assessment method could satisfy the many different conditions and

requirements in the sustainable BE area. This is reflected in two dimensions: the contextual

and functional (Liu et al. 2006). In the contextual dimension, a single method cannot be

universally applied to different locations. Lietz et al. (2006) demonstrates that LEED-ND

cannot be used in New Zealand without modification. Cidell and Beata (2009) prove that

spatial variation in the implementation of LEED standards does exist across the United States.

125
Prasad and Hall (2003) observe that LCA practice appears to be a luxury in many developing

countries due to the high operating costs and intensive data requirements. Thus it is pivotal

that a method is adapted to the local context in terms of prevailing socio-economic conditions.

In the functional dimension, different functions are required by various users for different

purposes such as education, design support, and performance assessment. The fundamental

factor underpinning these functions is how much information the assessment can provide to

the decision-makers. Some effort has been made to combine several or all of these functions

into the overall building performance assessment tools (Liu et al. 2006). For example,

Lutzkendorf and Lorenz (2006) propose a suite approach, consisting of different tools, to suit

different time phases of a building life span.

The critical review of the building rating systems and the MEA methods indicates that both on

their own are insufficient basis for decisions intended to optimize neighbourhood

sustainability performance. This research proposes an assessment framework including a

regionally specific neighbourhood rating system and an LCA energy and carbon accounting

for neighbourhood sustainability assessment (Figure 5.1). As discussed in Chapter 3, a rating

system usually can qualitatively address a full range of sustainability themes in a regionally

specific context. Its application will create a neighbourhood sustainability profile. On the

other hand, application of LCA-based energy and carbon accounting will generate a

neighbourhood energy & carbon profile which represents the real flows of materials and

energy from a life-cycle perspective. By evaluating the two profiles, it is inferred that they

can provide more decision-making information for various users such as planners, designers,

urban managers and housing buyers.

126
 LCA Energy and Neighbourhood
Carbon Accounting Energy and Carbon
Profile

Is additional
decision
information
provided?

Neighbourhood Neighbourhood
Rating Assessment Sustainability Profile

Figure 5.1: The proposed assessment framework

The above proposed assessment framework is not to generate a unified assessment outcome,

such as an index, an overall score or an absolute value. Instead, it tends to generate two sets of

data from the mutually complementary assessment methods which are supposed to facilitate

better decision making opportunities than using only a single assessment method. The LCA

Energy and Carbon Accounting can provide objective and quantitative values of energy

consumption and carbon emission throughout the life span of a neighbourhood development,

but fail to address broad sustainability issues (e.g. social and spatial). The Neighbourhood

Rating System can address sustainability issues holistically on a qualitative basis but cannot

effectively evaluate the BE in a long-term time frame and cannot provide quantitative

information. The application of the proposed framework will be provided later in this thesis,

which will demonstrate what additional decision-making information can be generated in an

empirical context. Also, the two methods are implemented separately and thus may be not

weighted against each other.

The loose structure of the framework, which is the absence of a rigid hierarchy which dictates

how a component method is to interact with the others, allows for flexibility, and makes

combinations and permutations possible, limited only by the user’s imagination. The

framework can be programmed to use any number of different assessment approaches, in

accordance with different assessment purposes. For example, if transport concern is a high

priority, a transport assessment method can be added to the framework. The framework can
127
be used to get different types of output depending on the assessment approaches and

environmental criteria used. This would help users to contrast different priorities. For

example, given quantitative value of carbon emission and qualitative value of social

sustainability (e.g. public area, parking and community facility), designers can make tradeoff

between sometimes conflicting priorities, which will finally enhance the quality of

decision-making.

5.2.2 LCA energy and carbon accounting

The suggestion of using LCA energy and carbon accounting is based on the following

reasons:

z It calculates physical material & energy flows and the related CO2 emissions of a

neighbourhood, thus it represents the working of MFA methodology.

z It addresses physical material & energy flows and the related CO2 emissions of a

neighbourhood in different life stages, e.g. pre-occupancy phase and post-occupancy

phase, thus it is an LCA tool.

z It can also be aggregated from building material level, to whole building, then to

neighbourhood level; therefore it uses the stock aggregation method.

z Carbon accounting is actually an aggregated indicator that is associated with material

consumption and energy use, which can provide more information than use of a single

calculation for material or energy flows.

z Compared to the ecological footprint, which presents environmental impact as required

“ecologically productive land”, energy and carbon accounting can present the impact in

absolute values such as “energy consumption per resident”, and “CO2 emission per

construction area”. This can facilitate the comparison between different SRDs.

Overall, LCA energy and carbon accounting can present the fundamentals of the MEA

concept. More importantly, since the success of building assessment methods is dependent on

the extent to which they can reference absolute metrics to climate stabilization (Cole 2010),

evaluating energy and carbon performance can help stakeholders such as residents and
128
designers move towards climatically friendly neighbourhoods.

5.2.3 Regionally specific neighbourhood rating system

All neighbourhoods are dynamic and unique in relation to their developmental histories, their

built environments, their populations, and their geographical and socio-economic positioning

within the broader settlement (Saville-Smith et al. 2005:14). A key problem of customizing

existing tools from other countries is that they are unlikely to be fully applicable or

compatible with all regionally specific conditions (Liu et al. 2006). There are no standard

versions of assessment that can be applied universally. As pointed by Hardi and Pinter

(1995:3):

“An important point to make is that the methodology of measuring 'sustainability' or

'sustainable development performance' is not standardized, there is no textbook version

available, one that is generally accepted and applicable across regions and sectors of the

economy”.

The adaptation to the local context has been addressed in many research papers and

evaluation tools. The SBTool has set up an indicator database with eight issues, twenty-nine

categories and 125 criteria. Based on this generic framework, users can design their own

assessment indicator suite in line with the local context (see section 3.2.5).

BREEAM-Communities has classified the whole English region into nine sub-regions by

adopting regionally-specific sustainability checklists (see section 3.5.2). The original

BREEAM-Communities assessment indicators (including scoring and weights) need to be

tailored to meet specific planning requirements and local conditions in different sub-regions.

It also requires creation of bespoke assessment standards when it is applied to other regions or

countries.

Liu et al (2006) argue that building rating tools should consider both generic issues and

specific issues. They suggest that the generic indicators at the international level would need

to be established first; then nationally, regionally and locally specific indicators need to be
129
added separately and consecutively at each spatial level (Figure 5.2).

The hierarchic structure shown in Figure 5.2 indicates the transmission process from generic

issues to specific issues. In this research, generic issues are those universally applied to

neighbourhoods around the world. They may be developed by inferring a sustainability

definition (see for examples Aall 2001, Charlot-Valdieu and Outrequin 2003, Saville-Smith et

al. 2005), or by identifying the commonalities from a number of international systems and

tools (see for examples Liu 2005, Fahy and Cinnéide 2007, López-Ridaura et al. 2002).

So far, this research has identified nine neighbourhood sustainability principles that were

developed on the basis of the sustainability core values (see details in section 2.5). These

principles represent the original sustainability values, as well as the common threads of

current sustainable neighbourhood programs. These principles will be used as assessment

categories in the proposed neighbourhood rating system (see details in Chapter 7) and be

further transmitted into the local context by proposing a set of initial indicators generated

from the neighbourhood assessment systems reviewed in Chapter 3, which will be then

examined by a local survey to identify specific indicators in line with the local conditions.

The methodological description of developing a regionally specific neighbourhood rating

system for the case studies will be given in Chapter 7.

Figure 5.2: A hierarchic structure of developing locally adapted indicators

Source: Liu et al. (2006)

The suggestion of using a regional neighbourhood rating system is based on the following
130
reasons:

z Since it is qualitatively based, it can address many social, spatial and site-specific issues

that are hard to quantify and aggregate. Thus it complements gaps in the LCA energy and

carbon accounting method.

z The current neighbourhood rating systems (e.g. LEED-ND) cannot be universally

applied, thus a system that can adequately address the local context needs to be prepared.

In summary, LCA energy and carbon accounting can generate quantitative information of

material and energy flows and related emissions, particularly in a long-term temporal frame.

The qualitatively based neighbourhood rating system, on the other hand, strongly addresses

many other social, spatial and site-specific issues that cannot be properly addressed by MEA

methods.

5.3 Summary

The critical review of the building rating systems and the MEA methods indicates that both on

their own are insufficient basis for decisions intended to optimize neighbourhood

sustainability performance. Based on this, this research hypothesizes that using both

approaches in tandem could generate better and more decision-making information for

various stakeholders. This hypothesis is further visualized by a conceptual assessment

framework, in which the application of the two approaches will lead to two profiles for the

neighbourhood investigated: a sustainability profile and an LCA energy & carbon profile.

China’s small residential district (SRD) will be used as the case study to validate the

robustness of the proposed framework. Case study research cannot generate universally

applicable results, but it is indicative of how well the proposed framework functions. In the

next chapter, the Chinese built environment in general, the SRD, and the case study SRDs

will be discussed in detail, which enables establishment of a contextual understanding of the

case study areas.

131
Chapter 6: Contextual Description: China, Small residential
district and the Case Studies

6.1. Overview of China’s Urban Built Environment

6.1.1 Historic trace of China’s urbanization

Historically, the process of urbanization has experienced three phases: centripetal

urbanization, de-urbanization or suburbanization, and urban renaissance. Centripetal

urbanization represents a net population movement from hinterlands to towns and cities, and

from small towns to larger cities. Suburbanization mainly occurs in developed countries,

which manifests as movement of people from urban central areas to satellite towns in the

region, attributable to the wide use of private vehicles and increasing environmental problems

and working pressures in compacted city centers. The phase urban renaissance refers to a

process that aims to attract people back to central urban areas via reconstruction to establish a

friendly and sociable life style.

In general, Chinese cities are undergoing a rapid centripetal urbanization. Population in cities,

especially in big cities like Beijing and Shanghai, has experienced explosive growth in the last

several decades. The urbanization is the result of natural increase, transformation of rural

areas into urban areas, and continuing rural-urban migration. Migration is the most important

factor (Sicular et al. 2007), and the reason behind this phenomenon largely accounts for the

urban-rural income gap.

In less than thirty years, China’s urban population has increased from 179 million to 593

million, or 17.9% to 44.9% in percentage terms (Figure 6.1). It can be seen from the chart that

between 1978 and 2007 the total population of China increased 25% while urban population

doubled. An even more radical increase may be expected since urbanization is used as a major

132
development strategy by governments to maintain long term economic growth. The

urbanization rate in China is projected by the Unite Nations Population Fund (UNPF) to be

almost 2% per year over the period to 2030 (UNPF 2007). According to UNPF projections,

the rural population will drop to 40% by 2030. That implies another 250 million people will

move into cities in the coming two decades. The International Energy Agency (IEA 2007:257)

projects an annual increase of urban population of 14 million if urbanization levels are to rise

from 40% to 60%. Even at that time, China will be less urbanized than many areas in 2007

including European countries (72.2%), Latin America countries (78.3%), and North America

countries (81.3%) (UNPF 2007).

Evolution of Chinese population and urbanizationlevel

50 1.4 national total population (billion

45
urbanization rate (%)

1.2
40
35 1 total population
30 0.8
25 urbanization rate
20 0.6
persons)

15 0.4
10
5 0.2
0 0

year

Figure 6.1: Evolution of Chinese population and urbanization level

Source: Synthesis based on the China Statistic Yearbook (2008), Table 3-1

Urbanization will generate a huge demand for infrastructure, housing and services. Between

1978 and 2007, 400 million people were provided with urban housing. Urbanization also

affects energy use. Energy consumption per person in cities is much higher than in rural areas,

mainly because of higher incomes (IEA 2007:258).

This huge demand driven by rapid urbanization gives China confidence to maintain economic

growth in the foreseeable future. It is estimated that an annual addition to building stock in

China of 1.5 billion to 2 billion m2 is probable until 2020 (Fernandez 2007). Alongside

buildings, infrastructure such as massive power plants, highways, rail, water and wastewater
133
treatment plants need to be established to provide services to the added population in the

urban areas.

6.1.2 China’s urban building stock

China’s volume of existing building stock is huge. In 2006, the existing urban building stock

had reached 17.4 billion m2, an almost triple jump from 1997 which was around 6.5 billion m2

(Figure 6.2). The increase of buildings in the housing sector is even more striking, leaping

from 3.62 billion m2 in 1997 to 11.3 billion m2 in 2006, increasing more than threefold.

As illustrated by the Building Energy Conservation Center (BECC) of Tsinghua University,

the annual rate of new construction in China equals the total amount of new building in all

developed countries (BECC 2009). In 2005 Shanghai alone added more space in the form of

residential and commercial towers than exists in all of New York City (Fernandez 2007).

Taking the annual addition to the residential building stock, the number has soared from 0.4

billion m2 to approximately 0.7 billion m2, a growth rate of 69% in the last 10 years. Fernandez

(2007) estimates that the construction of housing space constitutes approximately 80% of all

new space added to China’s building stock.

The growth trend of Chinese urban building stock 1997-2006

200 7
building stock (100 million m2)

urban population (100 million

6 total urban building stock

150 5
4 urban residential building
100
3 stock
persons)

50 2 urban population
1
0 0

year

Figure 6.2: The growth rate of Chinese urban building stock 1997-2006
Source: Synthesis based on the China Statistic Yearbook (2008), Table 10-6

134
Taylor et al. (2001) have attributed this huge boom in the construction of urban residential

buildings to several factors, which include:

z Steady urbanization, causing high population growth in large and medium-sized cities;

z High growth in household incomes, and corresponding increases in residential floor area

per capita; and

z Especially rapid growth of services in the economy.

The International Energy Agency (IEA 2007:306) also noted decreasing average household

size in China. It dropped from 4.5 people in 1985 to 3.5 in 2005 and is projected to continue to

diminish to 3.0 in 2030. IEA suggested decreasing household size as an important a factor

influencing future housing demand.

Together with the growth of household income, per capita residential floor area has increased

rapidly. It has increased from 17.8 m2 in 1997 to 27.1 m2 in 2006 in urban China (Figure 6.3), an

average annual growth rate of 5% in the last 10 years. The Ministry of Construction has set a

target of 35 m2 per capita for urban residents and 40 m2 for rural residents for 2020 – official

benchmarks for achieving a “well-off society”. These targets are expected to be met (IEA

2007:306).

Annually added urban and rural residential stocks and per capita
housing area

9 35
annually newly built urban
newly added housing area

8
per capita housing area

30 residential buildings
7
6 25
5 20 annually newly built rural
4 15 residential buildings
3 10
2
1 5 per capita urban housing
0 0 space

"per capita rural housing

year space"

Figure 6.3: Annually added urban and rural residential stock and per capita housing area
Source: Synthesis based on the China Statistic Yearbook (2008), Table 9-35

135
6.2 Building Related Material and Energy Consumption in China

6.2.1 Material consumption

There is little research regarding material consumption in the current and future Chinese

construction industry. One research paper from the Tsinghua University (Chen and Zhang,

2005) analyzed material input-output flow of construction and demolition materials for

residential buildings in Beijing 2002. In order to build 26 million m2 of residential

accommodation and dismantle 2.3 million m2 area in Beijing in 2002, the total volume of

input was 7253 x 104 tonnes (materials, energy and air), while the output volume is 4137 x 104

tonnes (solid waste, CO2, and other air pollutants). The balance of 3115 x 104 tonnes material

is transformed to various types of residential buildings. However, this paper did not give

details on some key assumptions such as material intensity and energy use for the

construction process. It also does not consider the reuse of demolished building materials.

A survey of more than 50 buildings conducted in the Building Technology Program at the

Massachusetts Institute of Technology has revealed that housing consumes more material

than other building types (Fernandez 2007). For example, a six-floor residential building will

consume approximately five to eight times the volume of materials used in an industrial

building of comparable floor area. This is due to the more demanding needs of users in

residential buildings requiring greater volumes of materials for interior partitions, ceilings,

floor and wall finish materials, water and electrical fixtures and distribution devices, lighting,

heating and air conditioning, and other space-defining and service-providing elements. In

contrast, most industrial buildings consist of relatively large and open spaces of relatively

light material content (Fernandez 2007).

Figure 6.4 shows the material content of 3 building types (Fernandez 2007). Assuming that

residential buildings are 100% and that the same floor area is enclosed, commercial and

industrial buildings respectively will require 62% and 13% of the bulk volume of the material

136
required by residential buildings.

Figure 6.4: Material content per area of different building types

Source: Fernandez (2007)

By analyzing the data from the China Statistic Yearbooks, housing constitutes 72%, 73% and

84% of the total national construction area in 2005, 2006 and 2007 respectively. Thus it is

clear that recent construction boom in China not only has progressed at an unprecedented

pace but has been focused on the building type of greatest material density per m2 of floor

space (see also Fernandez 2007).

Fernandez (2007) examines 16 Chinese construction documents of housing, commercial and

industrial buildings with the assumption that construction technology to produce these

buildings is of limited diversity. It is found that material volume totals for each building type

are 0.36 m3 for per m2 residential floor area, 0.28 m3 for commercial, and 0.06 m3 for

industrial (Figure 6.5). Again, it is clear that residential construction in China is more material

intensive than either commercial or industrial construction: 6 times and 1.3 times more

respectively.
137
 Figure 6.5: Material intensity of different building types in China
Source: Fernandez (2007)

Given assumptions of 2 billion m2 new construction annually in China and housing

constituting 80% of that total, Fernandez (2007) estimates that housing alone will consume

512 million m3 concrete yearly. This volume is equal to 1.24 billion tonnes of Portland

concrete. In contrast to China’s total production of concrete in 2005 (1.06 billion tonnes,

nearly half of the world total production), there is a net import of 18 million tonnes of

concrete to only meet the demand of residential construction in China. This huge import

requirement will expose China to risks associated with global shortage and varying

transportation and fuel costs which also require substantial import of energy and associated

materials (Fernandez 2007).

138
6.2.2 Life cycle energy consumption

Estimating life cycle energy consumption in the Chinese building sector is an even more

difficult task. It is difficult to assess accurately the total volume of energy consumption in

buildings owing to deficiencies in China’s statistical collection system and the lack of national

survey (Yang and Kohler 2008). However, there is an increasing number of studies conducted

by some organizations and individual researchers that either focus on the assumption of

existing building energy use or projection of future consumption. Table 6.1 summarizes some

of these studies which present assumptions of China’s existing building energy consumption

and projections for various time scales.

Table 6.1: China’s building energy consumption and projections

Source Coverage Current consumption Projection

World Energy Outlook (IEA Residential buildings in 30% of the national total Not applicable
2007:305, 314) operation
Building Energy Residential and public 23.1% of the national total 14% and 270% increase in
Conservation Annual buildings in operation 2030 based on the best and
Report (BEEC 2009:5, 69) worst conservative scenario
Synthesis in Yang and Various buildings in 17.7%, 20%, and 27.09% Not applicable
*
Kohler (2008) operation of the national total

Yang and Kohler (2008) Various buildings in 16% of the national total Not applicable
operation
Note: * Three references are synthesized in Yang and Kohler (2008) which give different assumptions of the proportions of
building operation energy consumption to the national total. The three references include: (1) Li, Zh.J. and Jiang, Y. (2006)
Pondering over the situation of domestic generalized building energy consumption. Architectural Journal, 7, 30–33. (2) Long, W.D.
(2006) How to achieve the national goal of ‘the energy use per unit of GDP must be reduced by 20%’ in civil buildings. Heating
Ventilating and Air Conditioning, 36(6), 35–41. (3) Jiang, Y. and Yang, X. (2006) Chinese building energy situation and the energy
saving approaches. Paper presented at the Green City Development Mechanisms (GCDM): Proceedings of the Chinese–German
Conference on Urban Sustainability, 11–13 October, Beijing, China, pp. 169–173.

It can be seen again from this table that estimations of China’s building energy use vary

across sources. Building operational consumption varies between 16% and 30% of the total

national consumption owing to the research scope and different methods used. If embodied

energy used for manufacturing building materials is taken into account, the total building

energy consumption may be around 40% of the national total (Li and Jiang 2006, cited in

139
Yang and Kohler 2008).

Though there are widely differing assumptions in the literature, a rapid growth in building

energy consumption is undoubted. The projection of the Building Energy Conservation

Centre (BEEC) in Tsinghua University is based on the trends of three variables, respectively,

floor area per capita, life-style and technology evolution. The combined effects of these three

factors would determine building operation consumption in 2030 varying from an increase of

only 14% (the best scenario) to 270% (the worst scenario). This implies there is huge

potential to reduce energy use in building sector in China (BECC 2009).

6.2.3 International comparison

According to International Energy Outlook 2008 (EIA 2008), USA and China are the top two

countries in either total energy consumption or total building operation energy consumption

(BECC 2009:77). However, if looking at average consumption levels, China’s consumption in

the building operation sector is much lower than that of developed countries (Figure 6.6 and

Figure 6.7). China’s per area consumption is only one third in urban areas and one-sixth

nation-wide of that in the USA. Per capita consumption is even smaller, less than 5% of the per

capita consumption in the USA or slightly more than a quarter of world average level. This is

mainly because of the difference in per capita floor area, number of end-use appliances and

lifestyle between China and developed countries (BECC 2009:77).

,QWHUQDWLRQDOFRPSDULVRQRIEXLOGLQJHQHUJ\FRQVXPSWLRQSHU
IORRUDUHD

 
 
N:KP\HDU



 


86$ &DQDGD -DSDQ :HVW(XURSH 8UEDQ&KLQD &KLQD

Figure 6.6: International comparison of building energy consumption per unit of floor area
Source: BEEC (2007:7)

140
 ,QWHUQDWLRQDOFRPSDULVRQRIEXLOGLQJHQHUJ\FRQVXPSWLRQSHU
FDSLWDIRURSHUDWLRQ
 


N:KP\HDU

 


  
 

86$ &DQDGD -DSDQ &KLQD ,QGLD $IULFD %UD]LO (XURSH :RUOG

Figure 6.7: International comparison of building operational consumption per capita

Source: BEEC (2007:7)

However, on the other hand, energy waste in housing operation is also significant. The

average annual urban residential heating energy consumption per unit of floor area is about 20

kgce/m2-year (kg coal equivalent, or kgce, is an energy measurement unit) which is about

twice that of many developed countries under similar climate zones such as the USA and

western European countries (Yang and Kohler 2008, Fernandez 2007, Liu et al. 2006, Taylor

et al. 2001). This is mainly attributable to the low efficiency of the building service system

and poor quality of building insulation (Yang and Kohler 2008).

Building codes and standards were established in 1986 and revised in 1995 by the Ministry of

Construction. However, implementation of these construction standards is limited. Many new

Chinese buildings do not meet the energy requirements (Fernandez 2007, IEA 2007, Taylor et

al. 2001, Yang and Kohler 2008). The reasons can be attributed to the lack of implementation

system and financial incentive (BEEC 2009). As estimated by the International Energy Agency,

compliance rates with building standards in new buildings are around 60% in the northern

region, 20% in the central region and 8% in the southern region. (IEA 2007:306). If looking at

existing buildings, only 0.5% of the existing residential buildings in China met energy

efficiency design codes by 2002 (Yang and Kohler 2008).

Yang and Kohler (2008) identifies another important factor that influences material and

energy consumption in Chinese buildings: relatively short building life span. The assumed
141
standard service life time of buildings is generally 50 years. However, China experts estimate

the average real life time of the existing buildings in China is only about 25-30 years on

average, reported by China Daily (China Daily 2010). The major causes are the low quality of

building materials and construction techniques, the inappropriate demolition of buildings in

urban development projects, and the lack of regular maintenance and refurbishment.

In summary, China has already been the top construction market in the world and will retain

this place for the foreseeable future. Since residential housing constitutes the largest part of

the national total construction volume and consumes more resources and energy than other

building types, it is a top priority for the application of energy conservation plans if any are

implemented.

6.3 China’s Small residential district

6.3.1 Description of the SRD

As neighourhoods in other countries, the Chinese SRD appears to be the interface of urban

and building scales. It is an emerging urban phenomenon accompanying China’s new

economic reform policies in 1978, especially after the Housing Reform in 1998, which

established the Chinese real estate industry.

Bray (2006) observes that the appearance of huge numbers of SRDs in recent years is the key

feature of China’s urban transformation. The concept of the SRD was developed in the late

1980s and has gradually become the model for residential development throughout China

(Bray 2005:177). The reason for the booming of SRDs in urban China can be attributable to

the scarcity of land and population pressure that has influenced planning authorities to

promote high-rise and high-density development (Bray 2005:176) and security considerations

(Miao 2003). This type of residential development has dramatically changed and redefined

Chinese new urban space. As estimated by Sun (2004), between 1991 and 2000, 83% of
142
housing development in Shanghai is in this form and 80% of Guangdong’s population is

living in SRDs. While national statistics are not available, these figures give a rough picture

of how extensively the SRDs have influenced both the urban form and people’s lives. It is

safe to say that the SRD is “the housing form for the majority of Chinese residents” (Miao

2003:49).

The concept of SRD, sanctioned by national planning codes, has become the basic unit in

planning and developing residential construction in China (Miao 2003:47, Bray 2005). It is

designed by professional planners and architects. It is a planned neighbourhood where

housing is integrated with communal facilities like kindergartens, clinics, restaurants,

convenience shops, and communication infrastructure (Sun 2004, Bray 2005:176-177, Read

2003) all under the control of a professional property management company. The public

space within the neighbourhoods is very diverse. Depending on the price range of the flats, it

ranges from “a mere concentrated green space as the minimum to a variety of extras such as

playgrounds, a clubhouse, and swimming pools” (Miao 2003:47).

The SRD is often bounded by major roads and natural boundaries, characterized by a close

perimeter of walls and fences. It usually consists of small residential streets within the sites.

For large communities, it may be possible for residents to stay within the community for most

day-to-day activities (Sun 2004). Most SRD have some kind of barrier-walls, or fence, and

may have security guards monitoring the entire site (Sun 2004), as well as gates which are

staffed (Bray 2006) to prevent unauthorized entering.

Most SRDs have similar residential building types, primarily high- (10 or more stories) and

mid-rise (6-storey walk-ups) (Miao 2003:48).The SRD normally has buildings from a few to

dozens. But for some so-called “super-blocks” they may constitute hundreds of buildings. The

sketch of a typical Chinese SRD is illustrated in Figure 6.8.

143
 Figure 6.8: A typical Chinese small residential district
Source: Miao (2003: 48)
6.3.2 SRD system model

The SRD system model and the interaction between the sub-systems are shown in Figure 6.9.

Before the construction of an SRD development, compliance is required with various policies

and regulations, mainly including city master plans (zoning and land use type), various

planning and design codes (connection to urban infrastructure and SRD configuration) and

environmental codes (A Environmental Impact Report is required in order to get construction

approval). Within the boundary residential buildings are integrated with open space and

communal facilities, and interactions between users of the SRD and the environment occur.

Beyond its boundary, the SRD is connected to the broad urban context through its location as

well as various urban infrastructures such as transport, water supply, and wastewater

treatment. In order to construct and operate the SRD, resource and energy input is needed and

consequently emissions are produced.

In general, the elements illustrated in Figure 6.9 can be classified into three categories: SRD

components, urban context and resources & emissions. The SRD components include:

z Residential buildings: typology, size, unit price, and interior decoration.

z Community buildings: community centers, gyms, onsite management offices, etc.

z Commercial buildings: convenience shops, food markets, banks, etc.

z Open space: roads, parking area, green space, landscaped area, etc.

z Residents: environmental awareness, income, life style, etc.

z SRD Management Company: maintaining the operation of the public area.

144
 POLICIES

ΦLocal Zoning ΦLand Use Plans ΦDesign Codes ΦEnvironmental Codes

Regulate

LANDS
INFRASTRUCTURE
Services Services URBAN SERVICES
Φ
Transport ΦSewer
ΦGreenfield ΦBrownfield
Φ Bank Φ Schools Φ Hospital
ΦWater ΦEnergy
ΦRedeveloped Land ΦInfill Land
ΦShopping ΦFood Market

Occupy Occupy

RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS
HOUSEHOLDS Occupy COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS

ΦTypology ΦSize ΦAffordability

ΦStructure ΦSize Φ Income ΦBusiness ΦEmployment
ΦInterior Decoration

Contain

Interact COMMUNITY BUILDINGS

RESIDENTS

ΦCommunity Club ΦGym Manage

ΦEnvironmental Awareness
ΦLibrary ΦOnsite Office
Φ Life Style
SRD MANAGEMENT

ΦStaff ΦDuty ΦCharge

OPEN SPACE
Interact Manage

Φ Roads Φ Parking Φ Green Space

ΦLandscaping area

Consume

RESOURCES Consume
Provide
ΦEnergyΦWater ΦMaterials

Produce EMISSIONS Produce

ΦCarbonΦ
ΦNOX ΦSO2

Figure 6.9: SRD system and the interactions between the subsystems

145
The urban context consists of:

z Policies: local zoning, land use plans, building codes and environmental impact

assessment.

z Infrastructure: transport, water, sewer, energy, waste, information.

z Urban services: supermarkets, schools, hospitals.

The context for assessment of life-cycle resources and energy flows consists of:

z Land: Greenfield, brownfield, and redeveloped land and infill land.

z Resources and Energy: energy, water and materials use in different life stages and with

different SRD physical components.

z Emissions: CO2, SO2, NOx emissions in different life stages and with different SRD

physical components.

6.3.3 SRD Characteristics

Open neighbourhood or open community is the major residential form in many countries. In

this residential form, neighbourhood area is a concept largely defined by the individual’s

perception towards the immediate environment beyond his home. As Saville-Smith et al.

(2005:13) observe, neighbourhood boundaries are loosely defined although those boundaries

will typically go beyond a household’s directly adjacent neighbours.

The most distinctive feature of Chinese SRDs is that they are well-defined by enclosed walls

and gates. Thus it is a neighbourhood with clear physical boundaries. Furthermore, Clause 73

of China’s Real Right Law stipulates that the roads, green lands, common facilities and

houses, and other public place are commonly owned by all the property owners of the SRD.

This means that residents are not only the owner of their apartments, but also the joint owners

of the public area (public area hereafter refers to the collection of open space and community

facilities and buildings).

146
This has significant environmental implications. Since the residents of a particular SRD are

the owners or joint owners of the SRD, they presumably ‘own or jointly own’ the

environmental outcomes during the construction and operation of the SRD. In other words,

the environmental auditing of an SRD resident (or a household) should not only include the

energy and emissions attributable to the construction and operation of his/her apartment, but

also take into account the individual shares of the environmental outcomes generated by the

construction and operation of the public area. In many cases, the calculation of an individual’s

carbon accountability is very difficult at neighbourhood level because data (e.g. energy use in

public facilities) are not collected at this level. In the case of China’s SRD, since its boundary

is clear and the property rights of the whole SRD are well-defined, it could be possible to

establish an individual’s carbon profile by combining the emissions from his home and the

due share of the public area.

Miao (2003) has conducted comparisons between the gated SRD in China and the ‘gated

community’ in the US. Some findings are:

First, a Chinese gated community tends to be much larger in population and land area, and

more standardized in its layout than an American one. It usually covers 12-20-plus hectares of

land and holds 2000-3000 families (assuming 3.2–3.5 persons each family). In contrast,

nearly half of all gated communities in the US have less than 150 units each, and they have

far more varied forms and organizational structures.

Second, China’s SRD is at much higher density. While the mainstay in US urban housing

types is the low-rise, single-family home with about 12–15 families per hectare, the buildings

in a Chinese residential quarter are primarily high- (10 or more stories) and mid-rise (6-storey

walk-ups), with 120-180 families per hectare and a floor area ratio of 1.2-1.5. Developments

in the central city could demand even higher densities. In such a dense city, hardly any

residential development can find itself surrounded by green fields. This is often the opposite

at a US suburban gated community.

147
Third, Chinese urban residents are heavily reliant on walking and public transportation due to

relatively low car ownership rates. Even the car ownership will be increased in the future, cars

will probably not be used for trips within the urban area due to structural congestion, as can

be inferred from the current situation in Tokyo, Hong Kong and similar Asian cities.

Fourth, the gated community in the US caters mainly for the needs of the rich and the middle

class. On the other hand it is the major housing form in China’s urban area for lower, middle

and even upper income people seeking shelter. Gating in the US serves to prevent outsiders

from using privatized public amenities, and to ensure prestige. The primary reason for gating

in China currently, however, is security.

(Miao 2003)

Based on Miao’s study and the other literature mentioned in the previous sections, the

physical characteristics of the Chinese SRD can be summarized as follows:

z The SRD is the basic and compulsory planning level in Chinese urban development.

z As the major residential form in urban China, the SRD can be located in any part of the

city, e.g. city center or suburban.

z It is a type of ‘gated or walled or enclosed neighbourhood’ that gives it a defined and

organized physical boundary. This is different to other neighbourhood concepts with

loose spatial boundaries (e.g. a ward or a school district)

z The residents of an SRD not only own their apartments, but also a share of the public

area. If equipped with appropriate information, they can exert influence on the

management of the public area.

z The size and variety of publicly shared open area and buildings vary greatly across SRDs

depending on their unit prices. Some SRDs may have larger public areas and various

facilities (e.g. playgrounds and shops) within the SRD boundaries while others may only

have a central green area.

z The residential building type of SRD concentrates on either medium rise or high rise

buildings.

z SRDs are under the supervision of a professional housing management company that is
148
 nominated by the resident committee. It is responsible for maintaining, cleaning,

guarding, gardening and other public duties.

6.3.4 Functions of the Housing Management Company

Most residential SRDs are managed by commercial housing management companies, paid for

by residents, usually through a fixed charge based on floor area. These companies perform

various duties, including general maintenance and grounds work, community security, and

management of other publicly-shared services. While the developer often may determine

which housing management companies will receive initial contracts, the business has become

increasingly competitive. In cities where home-owner associations are more developed, a

resident committee with fixed tenure may be elected by ballot of all households in the SRD.

This committee, as representative of all residents, is responsible for selecting the housing

management company. Sometimes, a referendum could be held in order to select the housing

company. The housing management companies could play an important role in facilitating

building energy management, especially in space heating, because of their direct and

contractual relationships with residents (Bray 2005). Since they need to communicate with the

residents day by day, they are also a suitable body to promote the environmental profile of the

SRD if equipped with proper environmental knowledge and tools.

6.4. Sustainability Concerns of China’s Small Residential District

One of the fundamental characteristics of China’s SRDs is that they have a defined and

organized physical boundary, and the SRD buyers are not only the owners of their apartments

but also the joint owners of the open space and community buildings, legally and in practice.

In other words, a Chinese housing buyer purchases an apartment and at the same time he

purchases part of the public area of the SRD. It is argued in this thesis that SRDs should be

evaluated as a whole rather than at individual building level, because:

z The SRD is an integrated planning unit thus assessment should be conducted on the

149
 whole rather than on its constituent elements, in order to generate a holistic picture and

aid decision-making at the planning stage.

z Cole (2010:280) observes that the current building environmental assessment methods

cover those performance issues over which owners and the design team excise some

level of control. Thus public space is not typically accounted for in current methods. The

SRD, on the contrary, is fully controlled by the planning and design team and assessment

can successfully examine both buildings and the public area in an integrated way.

z Evaluation at individual building level cannot reveal the environmental outcomes

generated by the construction and running of the public area. Thus, the full range of

individual residents’ environmental accountability is not reflected.

The life style of residents in different SRDs may also be diverse, mainly attributable to the

fact that the estate is created as an ‘enclave’ of those with similar socio-economic status by

affordability filtration (Wu 2005: 241). This is confirmed by researchers like Golley et al.

(2008) who indicate the top 10 percentile income group in China consumes 86% more energy

than the lowest 10 percentile income group. Wang and Shi (2009) suggest a greater margin

than the study of Golley et al. (2008) by estimating 7.5 times difference between the top 10

percentile income households and the lowest 10 percentile, mainly attributable to the larger

housing area and the use of private cars. If the difference in size and variety of public area

across different SRDs is considered, the gap would be even larger. Thus, the environmental

profiles of different SRDs can vary greatly.

The extent of sustainability may also vary greatly between SRDs. Some affluent SRDs may

have better social facilities and landscaped areas, but are often located on the city fringe

where the residents have to rely heavily on private cars. Some locate in the city center with

better public transport infrastructure but suffer from noise and air pollution. To develop a

comprehensive understanding of their sustainability performance, an overall sustainability

profile is needed, which covers all the neighbourhood sustainability principles mentioned in

Chapter 2. It is interesting to note that the environmental profile and the sustainability profile

of an SRD may not be on the same track. For example, an SRD with a bigger housing area,
150
larger public area and higher private car usage, will lead to relatively poor environmental

performance, but it may also have better natural environmental quality, more social facilities

and better safety, which will increase the overall sustainability rating. In some cases, a more

‘sustainable’ SRD, may contribute more, for instance, to climate change in terms of per capita

CO2 emissions.

Another concern is about the physical form of neighbourhoods. These walled and gated

residential neighbourhoods, as argued by Landman (2000), may give some advantages to their

residents such as a stronger feeling of community and crime reduction within community.

These are also the priorities of Chinese SRD designers. According to Zou (2001), the SRD

designers focus particularly on the communal spaces of the compound, striving to promote

attributes like social cohesion, neighborliness, and feeling of security and belonging. Miao

(2003) points out that security is the top consideration for the wide occurrence of this type of

residence. The more affluent the SRD, the better the security - higher wall, more guards, and

more sophisticated electronic surveillance and entry systems (Wu 2002:177). However, they

may also exert negative impacts on urban sustainability in the long run. These impacts may

include social exclusion, urban fragmentation and separation, traffic congestion, increase of

car-based residential sprawl, and increase of vehicle ownership (Landman 2000). It is also

pointed out by Pow (2007) that gated neighbourhoods may lead to residential segregation by

class and income. The facilities locked inside the gates cannot generate social connections

among people with enough variety in income level and cultural background due to the limited

number of users in one community and the possible homogeneity among them. (Miao 2003).

6.5 Case Study City: Guilin

The city of Guilin, located in the south of China, is selected as the case study city to develop

the regionally specific neighbourhood rating system. The choice is guided primarily by the

reason that the author has been working in this city which facilitates accessibility to the

relevant organisations and various data sources.

151
6.5.1 Terminology

The term ‘regional’ and the way it is used require clarification within the context of this

research. First, ‘regional’ is used here in contrast to the terms ‘international’, ‘national’ and

‘local’. ‘International’ relates to the global context, and ‘national’ refers to a whole country.

The term ‘regional’ refers to a larger geographical or administrative area (e.g. a municipality)

with relatively unified characteristics, and ‘local’ represents a small geographical or

administrative area (e.g. an urban district, a community) with basically unified characteristics.

Considering China is a country with greatly varied conditions, it is not realistic to develop an

indicator suite that is universally applied to the whole country. Also, the community or

neighbourhood level is the basic planning unit in Chinese cities (Bray 2006) but it has no

legal right to propose and implement its own planning and design regulations. It is likely to

act as an analysis unit in urban context rather than prepare and apply its own assessment

indicators.

China has four province-level municipalities and 29 provinces, many of them with a

population greater than Australia, and a land area larger than Germany. China also has a

number of municipalities or cities under the provincial level. Very importantly, the city

master plans, which greatly affect the neighbourhood operations are developed and

implemented by the governments of municipalities. The municipal governments in China

also have the legal authority to propose and implement building related laws and regulations.

Many municipalities have their own design standards and planning regulations that are

developed on the basis of national guidelines and incorporate local considerations. Thus, it

seems suitable to develop the proposed regionally specific neighbourhood rating system at

municipality level.

152
6.5.2 Regionally specific conditions of Guilin

6.5.2.1 Natural and Environmental Conditions

Guilin is one of the most internationally renowned cities in China. This city is praised with

two ‘crowns’, an ‘international scenic tourism city’, and a ‘national historic cultural city’ for

its city scenes blending with mountains, lakes and rivers, and its historic and cultural remains

from two thousand years ago.

Guilin’s environmental quality is generally acceptable in terms of achieving various national

and local environmental standards and codes. By summarizing The Gazette of Environmental

State of Guilin (Guilin EPA 2009), the city’s environmental features in 2008 can be stated as

follows:

z Overall air quality was acceptable. The Air Pollution Index (API) is an index reporting

on a daily basis by synthesizing the atmospheric concentrations of Sulfur Dioxide,

Nitrogen Dioxide, and Inhaled Particles. The API met the national air quality standard of

Level 1 (the best air quality) for 265 days and Level 2 for 101 days.

z Water environmental quality was generally acceptable. The major rivers, especially the

Lijiang River that is the major tourist attraction of the city, and the main water resource

and the final river to carry the discharges from the city, met the national water

environmental standards of Level 3 or above. However, the urban sections of some

tributaries of the Lijiang River did not meet the national standards because discharges

from some urban settlements are not piped to the wastewater treatment plants.

z Noise pollution was getting worse. Fifty percent of the urban area exceeded the

requirements of the local noise control ordinance, mainly attributable to the increased

ownership of private vehicles and the growth of the entertainment industry (night clubs,

bars, karaoke clubs, etc) which were often mixed with residential areas.

153
6.5.2.2 Urban conditions

Guilin had a total population of about 5.08 million, including an urban population of 1.22

million (Guilin Statistical Yearbook 2007:47). The total number of households of the city was

about 1.34 million with an average household size of 2.93 persons in the urban area. It was

one of the most important tourist destinations in China. Guilin attracted 13.4 million domestic

and international tourists in 2006 (Guilin Statistical Yearbook 2007:426), a number tenfold

higher than its urban population. It has a total territory of 27,809 km2 with an urban built-up

area of 565 km2. Usually, urban plans are revised every 5 years. Urban planning is critical to

achieving sustainable urban development.

The comparison of the use of urban infrastructure in Guilin and the average Chinese city is

shown in Table 6.2. It indicates that Guilin has more energy and water consumption per capita

than the average levels of all Chinese cities and less green space on average. However, in

regard to wastewater treatment, it has much better performance than the average Chinese city

because the water environment is a key environmental and economic issue for the city. The

conservation of Lijiang River that is a symbol of the country’s tourism industry has attracted

investment both from the central and the provincial governments.

Table 6.2: Comparison of urban conditions in Guilin and the average Chinese city
Criteria Guilin China average

Road area per capita (m2) 8.56 9.01

Annual water consumption per capita (m3) 83.30 48.68
2
Green Space Area per capita (m ) 28.87 39.81
Number of public buses per 10000 residents 7.61 8.05
Annual electricity consumption per capita (kWh) 616 524
Domestic wastewater treatment ratio (%) 67.16 15

Source: The Statistical Yearbook of Chinese Cities 2008. The national average wastewater
treatment ratio is based on Tian and Liu (2009)

154
6.6 Case Study Small Residential Districts

Two case study SRDs have been selected to test the proposed framework and both are located

in the case study city, Guilin. Two case study SRDs have been selected to test the proposed

framework and both are located in the case study city, Guilin. They are completed at a similar

time and it is not surprising that they have employed the similar construction technologies and

complied with the same planning, construction and environment regulations. This common

ground can facilitate comparison between their sustainability performances. It should be

noted that the results from the case studies cannot be generalised universally. However, the

intention of this research is not to develop a faultless neighbourhood rating system or an

accurate LCA tool (if does, identification of typical SRD must be conducted), but to indicate

that the conceptual assessment framework is working and demonstrate how the simultaneous

use of the two approaches can generate additional decision-making information in an

empirical context.

6.6.1 Case study SRD 1

SRD 1 was completed in 2007, with 462 households. The average floor area per household is

116 m2. It has a site area of 3.35 ha with a total residential construction area of 53,592 m2. It

comprises 16 seven-storied (walk-up) residential buildings, internal walkways and roads

(14,00m2), walls (concrete base with steel bars on the top), parking lots with permeable

pavement (812m2), and a landscaped area (about 1,000m2, green area with paved alley)

(Figure 6.10). There is no indoor communication space such as a gym, residential hall or

playground. SRD 1 is reconstructed on a land that was originally occupied by some old

residential buildings built in the early 1980s.

This SRD is being managed by a company that maintains an onsite office with 17 staff

working on cleaning, guarding, gardening and other public duties. The SRD is located in the

developed area of the city with existing facilities such as shops, hospital and schools. Thus

155
there are no facilities in the development. The walking distances from its main entrance to the

nearest services are: 100m (bus stop), 700m (food market), 1,300m (park), 1,500m (hospital),

and 1,600m (primary school).

Figure 6.10: The layout and configuration of case study SRD 1

SRD 1 is located in a traditional residential area mixed with some lightly-polluting industrial

plants. The average housing price per m2 residential construction area is about 3,000 RMB.

The average housing price in Guilin in 2008 is 3,567 RMB (Sina website, 2010). Assuming a

10% increase in price between 2007 (the year the SRD was placed on the market) and 2008, it

implies that SRD 1 might be a residential neighbourhood for the residents with medium social
156
status.

6.6.2 Case Study SRD 2

The SRD 2 is located on the left bank of the Lijiang River, which is one of the most

well-known rivers in China because the water and mountains form picturesque scenes.

Unsurprisingly, the location close to the river became the major selling point of the SRD.

This SRD was completed in 2008, with 350 households. It has a site area of 3.68 ha with a

total residential construction area of 44,030 m2. The average floor area per household is 125.8

m2. It comprises 5 three-storied townhouse style residential buildings, 10 six-storied

medium-rise residential buildings (without elevators) and 4 twelve-storied high-rise

residential buildings (with elevators installed). It has internal walkways and roads (2,600m2),

walls (concrete base with steel bars on the top), parking lots with permeable pavement

(830m2), an underground car parking area (4,300m2) and landscaping in the form of green

area, fountain, pavilions. It also has a kindergarten (500m2), a management office area

(300m2), a community social club (450m2) and a badminton court. There are about 1,100 m2

commercial area that is built on the interval space between buildings (Figure 6.11). Compared

to SRD 1, it has a bigger site area with fewer residential households, and the variety of the

public open area is also greater.

The SRD management company maintains an onsite office with 21 staff working on cleaning,

guarding, gardening and other public duties. Security cameras have been installed throughout

the SRD. The SRD is located on the edge of the traditional urban area and developed on land

originally occupied by some low-rise village houses mixed with vegetable plots. Thus many

of the facilities are not within walking distance of the SRD. The walking distance from its

main entrance to the nearest facilities and services are: bus stop (800m), food market (1200),

park (within the SRD), hospital (2000m), and primary school (2500m). Another problem is

that the residents need to walk about 400m along the river bank before they can get onto the

urban road and then to other attractions. Safety might be a concern because not many people
157
come down to this area at night. The SRD may rely more on the use of private cars than SRD

1. Figure 6.11 illustrates the SRD’s configuration, which shows that SRD 2 has a more

diverse public area.

The average housing price per m2 residential construction area is about 4,800 RMB for

medium and high-rise apartments, and 11,000 RMB for townhouse style apartments. These

townhouse style apartments are closest to the river. Compared to the average housing price of

3,567 RMB in the city in 2008, the average prices in SRD 2 imply that it is in the medium-top

band of the city’s housing market.

158
 Figure 6.11: The layout and configuration of case study SRD 2

6.7. Summary

This chapter has given a contextual description of the case study research. China has been

experiencing rapid urbanization in the last few decades, which led it to be the top construction

market in the world. Residential housing constitutes the largest part of the national total

construction volume and it consumes more materials and energy compared to other building

types of comparable floor area.

159
The SRD, as the major housing form in Chinese cities, is the basic planning unit and a type of

‘gated neighbourhood’, which has a defined and organized physical boundary. It often has

residential buildings, public open space, commercial facilities and community buildings

within its boundary. However, the size and variety of the public area in different SRDs vary

greatly. The residents of a particular SRD may be socially homogeneous due to the highly

stratified nature of apartment prices. Residents are not only the owners of their apartments,

but also the joint owners of the open space and other public facilities and amenities enclosed

by the gates and walls.

A particular SRD is physically different from other SRDs in terms of average housing size,

community amenity, open space and configuration, and the lifestyles of residents of different

SRDs can vary greatly. Therefore, it is possible that a more ‘sustainable’ SRD in a

neighbourhood sustainability rating system may be less ‘environmentally friendly’ in a

Materials and Energy Accounting (MEA) analysis. First, an SRD that has better community

facilities and open space will perform better on the social sustainability scale but possibly at

the cost of increased material and energy inputs and carbon outputs. Second, from a life-cycle

view, since SRDs with larger housing sizes, open space and community facilities often have

greater car ownership and need more material and energy inputs to operate, their energy and

carbon values could be even larger than those with smaller public areas.

Therefore, the residents of a particular SRD are obligated, at least morally, to react to the

environmental consequences generated by the construction and running of the SRD as a

whole. To facilitate their reactions, appropriate assessments that can pinpoint the

sustainability position of the SRD as a whole, as well as the individual shares of the

environmental outcomes, would be needed. However, the current building assessment

systems for individual building level and neighbourhood level in China such as GOBAS and

CEATM are not addressing this significant feature of the SRD.

The proposed framework, including a neighbourhood sustainability rating system and an LCA

energy & carbon accounting, will be applied to the two case study SRDs in Guilin. Compared
160
to SRD 1, SRD 2 has larger site area with lower residential density and the greater variety in

the public area.

The next chapter will discuss the research methods relating to the application of the

framework to the two case study SRDs in Guilin.

161
 Chapter 7: Case Study Research Methods

As noted earlier, the proposed framework will be tested using China’s SRD as case study,

which involves the combination of a material & energy accounting and neighbourhood rating

system. The description of the two case study SRDs is given in Chapter 6. Once the

assessment methods and the case study SRDs are decided upon, the data required to inform

the framework have to be collected. Since material and energy data are not available at SRD

level, nor is there an existing neighbourhood rating system which can be applied to the case

studies, this research involves several methods to collect the data required to calculate LCA

material & energy consumption, and develop the neighbourhood rating system. In this chapter,

the case study research methods will be discussed in detail.

7.1 Methods for Material and Energy Accounting

7.1.1 Evaluating data availability

Currently, there is no universally accepted data on material and energy consumption in

building operation in China, let alone energy use for building materials and construction. A

report from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Fridley et al. 2007) has reviewed the

existing major literature in English and Chinese to determine type, nature, and scope of

energy use data available in the Chinese building sector. Some of the report’s general findings

are:

z Overall, China’s building sector is very poorly characterized in the national statistics and

the academic literature. Data sources and series are sparse, the national statistical system

only reporting a few series of relevance, including new construction floor area of

residential buildings, new construction floor area of non-residential buildings, average

per-capita living space in urban and rural area, and some statistics on household

expenditure for energy.

z The national series on industrial energy use include consumption by fuel in 39 industrial
162
 sub-sectors, but the sub-sectors are presented at a level at which is impossible to equate

energy use with individual building materials.

z There is no national series on energy end-use, such as lighting, cooling, or refrigeration

within buildings.

z Almost completely lacking are the ‘upstream’ components of building energy use in the

production and construction phase. No information was found concerning material

intensity of buildings, average materials use per construction type, or building

construction energy use.

z Data on average building lifetime are also lacking.

(Fridley et al. 2007:25-26)

Therefore, this research needs to find appropriate data to calculate life-cycle material &

energy consumption and the related emissions for the SRDs investigated. Two basic methods

are used: Bill of Quantities (BQ) and household survey.

7.1.2 Bill of Quantities: embodied material and energy consumption

A Bill of Quantities (BQ) is a detailed description of the items that make up the component

parts of a building. The primary function of a BQ is to assist the builder in the preparation of

the tender price and facilitate management of the construction cost. The submission of BQ is

required by the Code of Valuation with the Bill of Quantity of Construction Works

(GB50500-2008) that is issued by the Chinese Ministry of Construction. The BQs must be

prepared by certificated engineering cost professionals. The Code sets out the rules and

procedures to regulate the preparation of BQs on the basis of drawings, specifications and

other requirements and site conditions. The BQ contains sections of work items and these are

generally to be priced by ‘All-In-Rates’ which have to be inclusive of all costs of labour,

materials, plant, management, risks plus profit and taxes etc (Ho 2008).

Thus, based on the specifications of the BQs, it is possible to aggregate the total quantity of

each materials consumed by the construction of an SRD. It should be noted that the BQ in the
163
tendering preparation is an estimation of the quantity of the engineering works, while the BQ

in the final settlement report is more accurate because some modifications may be made to the

preliminary BQ. Besides materials consumption, direct energy use and water consumption in

the construction process are also often reflected in the BQ.

7.1.3 Household survey: operational material and energy consumption

Since operational energy and water consumption data are not collected at SRD level, and the

city average data cannot be applied to different SRDs, a survey of the households in the case

study SRDs was conducted to collect data such as material and energy use for maintaining the

public areas in the SRD, electricity, gas and water use in homes and residents’ travel patterns.

Sampling error can occur when researchers survey only a subset or sample of all people in the

population instead of conducting a census. Minimizing sampling error involves representative

sample and random sampling (Salant and Dillman 1994:15). Considering households from a

particular SRD is highly homogeneous (see discussion in section 6.4) in terms of ownership

of household appliances and life style, a sample of at least 10% of the total households is

considered to be acceptable. In addition, the sampling is conducted randomly. All home

owners will be invited to fill the questionnaire if they are passing the SRD management office,

which means they have the equal opportunity to be sampled. Again, the purpose of this

research is not to conduct an accurate LCA analysis, but to prove the robustness of the

proposed framework by using actual household energy consumption data.

The whole survey can be briefly described as follows:

z First, questionnaires were designed and given to the SRD management companies for

approval. There are two types of questionnaires (see appendix 1 and 2). One is for the

management company’s use that includes questions about the energy and water

consumption in the public area and other information about the SRD (e.g. household

number and car ownership). Another is for household use that includes questions related

to the energy and water usage in homes, flooring decoration materials, household
164
 residential area, household size, and transport means.

z Second, the SRD management companies agreed with the survey and issued a Support

Letter to the researcher.

z Third, the survey was conducted on Saturdays and Sundays in December 2009. The staff

from the SRD management companies introduced the researcher to the residents passing

by their onsite management office and allowed the researcher to use this office to

communicate with the residents. In this way it became much easier to solicit the residents

to fill in the questionnaires. The questionnaires do not ask the residents to expose their

names, contact numbers or flat numbers. Nobody can track their personal identities based

on the questionnaires. They could also choose to fill the questionnaire in the office or

take it home and return to the office later.

The detailed description of material and energy accounting for the case study SRDs is given

in Chapter 8.

7.2 Methods for Developing Neighbourhood Rating Indicators

7.2.1 Overall methodology

The discussion in Chapter 3 indicates that international neighbourhood rating systems, such as

LEED-ND and BREEAM-Communities, are unlikely to be applicable or compatible with the

specific conditions in China, and the current version of Chinese building rating systems

including GOBAS and CEATM, cannot effectively evaluate sustainability performance at

neighbourhood level. Since China is a huge country with diverse climate zones and different

regional priorities, a nation-wide assessment system might be also unrealistic. A rating system

fully responding to the regional context should be more achievable.

The core part of a rating system involves identification of assessment categories and

individual indicators. In practice, they are usually identified and validated through a “focused

165
exercise either using a public hearing/public consultation process or working with

representatives of major stakeholders from government, NGOs, the private sector, academia

and the general public” (Hardi and Pinter 1995:3).

In the literature, a pragmatic method of developing indicators is to derive a model set of

indicators from existing indicator systems and modify them to suit local circumstances. These

initial indicators will be examined against the local context to ensure the selection of the most

appropriate indicators and the allocation of the suitable weights. The examination is often

conducted by groups of local researchers and practitioners. During the examination, new

indicators that are absent in the initial indicator set can also be added. Examples of such an

approach include Cui et al. (2004), Blair et al. (2004), Rao and Rogers (2006), Liu et al. (2006)

and Lin and Lee (2005).

Similarly, the methods used in this research to develop the neighbourhood rating indicators

involve three steps (Figure 7.1). First, based on the review of the current building rating

systems, an initial model set of indicators will be generated (see details in 7.3). Second, the

initial indicators will be examined by groups of local practitioners and researchers from the

case study city. Third, based on the survey results, assessment indicators and the related

weights for each of the indicators can be developed.

Ste p One :
Identifying initial indicators from the existing systems

Ste p Two:
Initial indicators examined by loccal researchers and
practitioners

Ste p Thre e :
Determining indicators and the related weights

Figure 7.1: Steps of developing the neighbourhood rating indicators for the case study city

7.2.2 Structuring the neighbourhood rating system

Charlot-Valdieu and Outrequin (2003) suggest that the point of departure for any
166
sustainability approach must follow the universal principles rooted in Bruntland definition.

Chapter 2 of this thesis identified three sustainability core values based on the Brundland

Report, and further proposed nine neighbourhood sustainability principles that interpreted the

sustainability values and guided this research in a practical way to address the sustainability at

neighbourhood level.

The review of the current building rating systems in Chapter 3 also reveals that hierarchical

layers are used to structure all these systems. They usually comprise two weighted layers:

individual indicators and indicator categories (or assessment categories). Each indicator

includes several measures, which are used to assign points to the indicator. The weighted

indicators are aggregated to assessment categories, and further aggregated to an overall score.

The overall score is often given a certain grade to denote the performance of a particular

building or neighbourhood.

Figure 7.2 shows the hierarchical structure of the neighbourhood rating system in this

research. The nine neighbourhood sustainability principles, proposed in Chapter 2, have a root

in the sustainability core values and represent some common characteristics that recur across

international efforts at improving neighbourhood sustainability. These principles are

reiterated as follows:

z Providing livable environmental quality.

z Providing needed infrastructure.

z Providing efficient public transport.

z Improving resource and energy efficiency.

z Reducing environmental impact on local and global environment.

z Maintaining site ecology.

z Providing social neighbourhood layout and facilities.

z Improving housing affordability and local economy.

z Providing sustainability management

Each of the principles represents an assessment category that should be manifested in the

assessment of urban neighbourhood sustainability. Each assessment category consists of a

167
number of individual indicators that serve as the ‘engine’ to translate general neighbourhood

sustainability principles into the local context. Each individual indicator also includes several

measures so that performance can be evaluated. Weights will be given to indicators and

principles in order to reach an overall rating score (see section 7.4.3).

7.3 The Initial Set of Indicators

7.3.1 Definition

The initial set of indicators in this research refers to a ‘long-list’ of indicators that are

extracted from the existing neighbourhood indicator systems, including LEED-ND,

CASBEE-UD, BREEAM-Communities and CEATM. It is a common method that develops

locally relevant indicators by learning from the experience of other indicator systems.

Using an initial indicator set and refining it for local circumstances has been used to select

sustainability assessment indicators in China. For example, Dijka and Zhang (2005) derived

22 individual indicators in evaluation of China’s urban sustainability from a sustainability

indicator database of 387 indicators through three rounds of consultation of experts using

pre-coded questionnaires. Fan (2006) reduced the initial indicator set of 64 to the final

number of 30 in selection of China’s urban life quality indicators by using one round of

expert survey and follow-up statistical analysis.

168
 Measure X (1a)

Indicator X 1

Measure X (1n)

Principle X

Measure X (na)

Indicator X n

Measure X (nn)

Overall Score

Measure Y (1a)

Indicator Y 1

Measure Y (1n)

Pinciple Y

Measure Y (na)

Indicator Y n

Measure Y (nn)

Figure 7.2: Hierarchical structure of the neighbourhood rating system

7.3.2 Developing the initial set of indicators and their measures

In this research, an initial set of 44 indicators is compiled based on the review of the current

neighbourhood rating systems, including LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD and

BREEAM-Communities and CEATM (see Appendix 3). It covers all the common issues

identified in section 3.6, and many other issues that are not addressed in all the systems but

judged by the author to be included for the later expert survey. An important principle

underpinning the selection of the initial indicators is that indicators from the existing rating

systems are chosen unless it is obvious that they are not applicable to the context of Chinese

SRD.

However, it should be noted that detailed building performance indicators (e.g. thermal design,

indoor ventilation) in CEATM are excluded from the initial indicator set since the assessment

focus is on the whole SRD rather than individual buildings. Open Community is a compulsory
169
criterion in LEED-ND, which requires “all streets and sidewalks that are built as part of the

project or serving the project directly are available for general public use and not gated”. This

requirement directly challenges the basis of Chinese SRD development that places security as

the top priority. The research in this dissertation does not intend to discuss the advantages and

disadvantages of ‘gated’ and ‘open’ neighbourhoods. It focuses on the existing form of SRD

which is driven by the Chinese urban socio-economic context. Thus, Open Community is not

included in the initial indicator list. Another example is Car Pool addressed by

BREEAM-Communities. Considering car ownership is not high in China and owning a

private car is still a luxury for many Chinese households, Car pool seems irrelevant to the

Chinese context.

The 44 initial indicators are classified into the nine sustainability principles (assessment

categories). In order to evaluate the performance of an indicator, each of the indicators

consists of one to several measures (in total there are 101 measures, see the survey

questionnaire in Appendix 4). Measurement involves the use of universally accepted

benchmarks. However, there are no existing benchmarks in China for many of the indicators

proposed and international benchmarks cannot apply to the Chinese context, especially in the

social and economic arena. This research has recognized the difficulty of establishing such a

suite of benchmarks since it is systematic work typically requiring many rounds of large scale

participation by various stakeholders covering the public service sector, building sector,

research sector, and general public. Establishing a suite of benchmarks for each of the 44

indicators needs to answer a serial of questions, such as ‘what percentages of renewable

energy generation onsite represent the effort toward the best practice, 5% or 10%’ and ‘what

proportions of housing priced for households with medium income should be given the

maximum credits, 15% or 20%’. These questions, which often involve a range of

performance achievement, are hardly to be answered by a group of local stakeholders through

a few panel discussions and interviews. Further study is needed to reform the rating system

for the case study city based on the findings of this research.

The purpose of developing a neighbourhood sustainability rating system is to validate the

170
working of the proposed assessment framework so a critical factor is to ensure the

comparison between different SRDs is based on common ground. Several factors are taken

into account in order to evaluate the performance of the indicators, as follows:

z If quantitative benchmarks can be found in Chinese CEATM (many of its measures are

qualitatively based), they will be used as measures for a particular indicator. For example,

CEATM requires public transport should be within 400m from the development, thus

400m is considered to be the measure for evaluating accessibility to public transport.

z Most indicators proposed in the initial list do not have CEATM benchmarks, as noted

earlier since it focuses on detailed building environmental analysis rather than spatial and

socio-economical issues. Most indicators are therefore evaluated by qualitative measures

though there are some exceptions. For example, Measure 29a says “is there consideration

of maximizing the thermal efficiency of building envelopes?’ If there is effort to address

this issue in the design and construct process, scores will be given no matter what the

effort is and how well it could be. There is no scale of achievement level within each

measure. More research is needed in the future to allocate scores in proportion with the

achievable achievement of a measure.

z These measures will be examined by a group of local planners and researchers through a

questionnaire survey. They are given opportunities to eliminate or modify the proposed

measures, as well as add new measures.

Here again, this research has recognized the inadequacies of the measures proposed to

evaluate the indicators. However, the purpose of the exercise is not to develop a faultless SRD

rating system, but to identify the presence of increased decision-making opportunities by

using a union of a rating system and an LCA energy & carbon accounting approach. A

preliminary system should be able to achieve this purpose, as a well-developed system would

contribute more to decision-making process.

171
7.4 Survey of Local Experts

As noted earlier, the initial indicators will go through a survey participated by the local

experts to identify the relevant indicators according to the local context and add new

indicators to fill any gaps. The purpose is to provide preliminary evidence for the validity of

the proposed neighbourhood rating system for the case study city. In this section, methods

used to conduct the survey will be discussed in detail.

7.4.1 Description of survey research

7.4.1.1 Definition of survey research

Survey research is an excellent tool for measuring attitudes and orientations (Babbie 1995),

and is often used to “estimate the characteristics, behaviours, or opinions of particular

populations” (Salant and Dillman 1994:27). It is probably the best method available to the

social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to

observe directly and “it is especially appropriate for making descriptive studies of large

populations” (Babbie 1995:257). If the research goal is to find out what percentage of some

population has a particular attribute or opinion, and the information is not available from

secondary sources, then survey research is the only appropriate method (Salant and Dillman

1994: 9).

7.4.1.2 Sampling methods

The idea of ‘sample’ is linked to that of ‘population’. Population refers to all cases (Robson

1993:135). A sample is “a set of respondents selected from a larger population for the purpose

of a survey” (Salant and Dillman, 1994:53). Proper sampling can reflect the perception of a

particular population.

172
Generally, there are two sampling methods: Probability Samples and Non-Probability

Samples (Robson 1993:136). Probability sampling is referred to as representative sampling.

Statistical inferences about the population can be made from the responses of the sample.

Probability sampling involves identification of a population of interest, and then taking

sample as representative of the population by a random way. The two fundamental

characteristics of probability sampling are: an entire listing of the population to be studied,

and a random sampling (Pratt and Loizos 1992:61).

Non-probability sampling refers to any sampling plan where it is not possible to ensure any

person (or other unit) has an equal chance to be included in the sample (Robson 1993:140).

Subjective judgments are needed in selection of the sample from the population of interest. It

is also possible to get something sensible about the population of interest from

non-probability samples, but not on statistical grounds (Robson 1993:140, Pratt and Loizos

1992:61).

Non-probability sampling often involves Convenience Sampling methods. A convenience

sample is the one that you get because people who are willing to complete the survey are also

available when you need them (Fink 2009:56). It involves choosing the nearest and most

convenient persons to act as respondents. The process is continued until the required sample

size has been reached.

In many cases, Convenience Sampling is only method available (Henry 1990:23). Ideally the

research in this dissertation would sample a population that is concerned with every aspect of

the SRD sustainability, from planners, architects to engineers, developer, contractors and city

managers. However, it would be impossible to put together a name list of all these

stakeholders from which to draw a probability sample (even the total number of them is

unclear). Thus, using convenience sampling methods to investigate the key groups of

stakeholders may be the only practical way for this research.

173
7.4.1.3 Population of Interest

As noted earlier, it is impossible to investigate each stakeholder group by random sampling.

There is a need to identify the key groups of stakeholders that have the greatest influence on

SRD sustainability. Urban planners, who are responsible for SRD planning practice, are

selected as the main investigated group (called the “planner group” hereafter). In order to

compare with the urban planners’ preferences, a general researcher group (called ‘researcher

group’ hereafter) comprising of researchers from several SRD related research areas is also

selected for investigation via the questionnaire.

The two groups are considered to be mutually complementary. The former are the

practitioners responsible for the planning and design of an SRD. They may have sufficient

experience in SRD design, but may be lacking in knowledge about the latest development in

sustainability theory. The general researchers, on the other hand, are well-positioned in the

knowledge frontier. However, they often do not understand the local context, and also, there

is always a gap between the knowledge theory and the practice of real world.

Sample of planner group

A local planner group is selected for the detailed investigation primarily based on the

following considerations:

z SRD development, which is the basic planning unit in China, is largely shaped by local

planners. Their knowledge, experiences, perceptions, expectations and preferences about

SRD sustainability constitute important parts of the specific conditions and requirements

in their region.

z In their daily practice, urban planners communicate directly with a large variety of

people, including researchers, developers, designers and sometimes residents. They are

well-positioned not only to gain up-to-date knowledge and information regarding SRD

planning theories and technologies in the market place. They are also able to achieve an

understanding of other SRD stakeholders’ requirements and expectations that help them
174
 develop a more balanced view of SRD sustainability in the region. Therefore, their

knowledge, perceptions, expectations and preferences, to a large extent, may implicitly

reflect the perceived overall specific conditions and requirements for developing SRD

rating tools in their region.

z Whether a specific SRD rating tool is appropriate or acceptable in a region is largely

decided by urban planners whose work either involves the use of the tool (for internal

evaluation) or is the target of evaluation by a third party assessor.

In China, urban planners are classified into two levels according to their professional

experience and expertise: unregistered and nationally registered urban planners. A nationally

registered urban planner must sit a series of four accreditation exams organized by the

Ministry of Construction (MOC) and the Ministry of Personnel. People must possess

university degrees in urban planning or the relevant programs and have engaged in the

practice of urban planning for a certain tenure (e.g. 3 years working experience for bachelor

degree holders and 1-2 year working experience for PhD degree holder) before they are

admitted to such examinations. Their signatures and endorsements on planning drawings and

documents are nationally recognized. Registered urban planners must renew their

registrations every 3 years. One compulsory requirement for renewing is that they must attend

training programs organized by the Ministry of Construction, in which sustainability theories

and practice are included. In principle, they should be more informed about sustainability

issues than those without the national certificate. Therefore, it is considered appropriate to

involve only the national registered planners in the survey.

According to the name list promulgated by the Guangxi Provincial Construction Commission

(GPCC 2008), there were in total 35 national registered urban planners in Guilin in 2008.

Twenty-one of them are working in the Guilin Planning and Design Institute (GPDI), the

major planning body in the city. Others are working in the city’s Planning and Construction

Commission, Guilin Architectural Design Institute, and Guilin University of Technology.

Therefore, it was very important to get support from the GDPI to arrange interviews with its

planners.
175
 Sample of researcher group

Researchers in this group refer to those who are conducting research in sustainability-related

areas rather than undertaking planning practice. There is limited consensus in the literature as

to the definition of a researcher. This study defines the researchers as PhD degree holders or

professorship holders in the 5 research areas identified as the most relevant to neighbourhood

sustainability, including urban planning, environmental science, energy conservation,

architecture and transport. The researchers must also have at least 5 years professional

experience.

It is also important to investigate other stakeholders, including architects, engineering

designers, developers, and government officers in the case study city. This is not included

within this research due to resource limitations. In addition, the purpose of the case study

research is to validate the performance of a dual assessment approach rather than develop a

perfect rating system. Nevertheless, it is recommended for inclusion in future research.

7.4.1.4 Survey methods: focus group and individual interview

There are four main survey methods that are widely used: mail survey, telephone survey,

face-to-face survey and drop-off survey (Salant and Dillman 1994, Babbie 1995). Which

method is best for a particular survey depends not only on budget, staff and time constraints,

but also on what a specific study topic and population are dealt with (Salant and Dillman

1994:35).

According to the nature of the survey in this thesis, face-to-face survey in groups, or focus

group survey, seems to be the most suitable method for investigating the planner group,

because:

z Focus group surveys typically attain higher response rates than do other methods.

z Discussion expected in a focus group survey can be a valuable way of quickly

establishing some basic common ground and reach some consensus.

z It is a good way to address the complex questions in this survey. Participants may need
176
 instruction in filling out the questionnaires.

z Participants in the planner groups are relatively homogeneous with regard to their

characteristics. They are all nationally registered urban planners who presumably have

undertaken similar training and have passed accreditation exams before they could be

registered (planner group is not mixed with researcher group). Thus, participants are

confident and comfortable in giving their opinions.

z The number of the expected participants is manageable.

Focus groups hold many advantages as a method of gathering qualitative data. As Basch

(1987) noted, group interviews are an effective and relatively inexpensive means of

interviewing a number of people at once. They allow an investigator to hear the richly

contrasting viewpoints that become evident when group members react to each other’s

comments (cited in O’Brien 1993:105).

In this research, the director of the GPDI agreed to organize a focus meeting with

participation by its all nationally registered planners, but refused to split them into two groups.

Thus, the group size was 21 (all registered planners attended) which was larger than the ideal

scale proposed by Morgan (1988:44) who suggested the best size of a focus group might be

between 4 and 12. However, Morgan (1988:43) agreed, if the group meeting were properly

moderated, larger groups could also provide a quick and clean solution.

It seemed not suitable to apply the focus group method to the researcher group because they

were dispersed across different locations and organizations. Identification of the researchers

was also different from that of urban planners. There were three universities that provided

undergraduate and postgraduate programs relating to sustainability-related areas. There were

also some eligible researchers working in various governmental agencies and other research

organizations. It was impossible to know both the number of eligible researchers and their

names. To start the survey, a particular convenience sampling method, snowball technique,

was adopted. The author identified the first eligible expert in each of the 5 research areas, got

them to sign the consent letters and then answer the questionnaires. Then they were asked to
177
recommend other members. They were expected to call the persons they recommended

immediately and then the author would speak to them and explain the survey. If their

agreement was obtained, a time and location for an interview was then decided. In many cases,

the researchers tended to nominate the persons working in the same research areas and the

same organization.

However, one problem is that no energy-related researchers can be found in the case study

city that meets the selection criteria of a researcher. There are no energy related programs in

the local universities, and there is no research organization in Guilin focusing on energy study.

There are some staff in the municipal government’s policy research center working on energy

policy research but they do not meet the selection requirements. In this case, 4 experts from

the Beijing Energy and Environment Center were invited to the survey. The questionnaires

were emailed to them and they were returned by email.

For the researcher group, the participants were interviewed individually in any place they

preferred (normally in their offices). Four eligible participants were required in each of 5 key

sustainability research areas identified. So, in total there were 20 researchers involved.

7.4.2 Constructing the questionnaire

There are two primary types of questions: open-end and structured. Open-ended questions do

not provide choices from which to select an answer. Instead, respondents must formulate an

answer in their own words. It has both advantages and disadvantages (Salant and Dillman

1994:80). Compared to open-ended questions, structured questions can be answered quickly

but they do not provide chances for participants who wish to give an answer outside the

options.

In this research, structured questions were primarily used in the survey questionnaire

(Appendix 4), whereas open-ended questions were used occasionally to identify a range of

possible answers (e.g. possible indicators and benchmarks). For example, participants were
178
required to write down any indicator they felt was important but was missed in the initial

indicator list. All structured questions were presented with Likert scale of 5, from very

unimportant to very important.

Participants firstly were asked to read the cover letter and also the brief description on the

front page of the questionnaire. Both of them provided information on what the study was

about and why they should respond. This helped participants to establish an overall

impression on the survey and the questionnaire. Then they needed to determine the

importance of each of the nine assessment categories (principles) before they came to the

individual indicators. Finally, they were asked to select the most important 5 indicators and

also to add those indicators they think important but which were missed in the questionnaire.

It was estimated to take 20-30 minutes to finish the questionnaire. The front page consisted of

the title and the UNSW logo, as well as a brief description of the survey background. A few

sentences were placed in front of each part of the questionnaire that indicated the purpose of

and requirements for filling out that part of survey. A Chinese version of the questionnaire

was translated from the English version so that it could be delivered in China. The

participants could choose either the English version or Chinese version.

7.4.3 Weighting system

7.4.3.1 Weighting structure

As noted earlier, most of the existing building assessment systems, either for individual

buildings or for neighbourhoods, have considered the establishment of a kind of weighting

mechanism. Some tools have established a ‘formal and hierarchical’ weighting mechanism.

Examples include CASBEE and BREEAM. Weights are given to multiple levels of the

assessment structure. Others are designed as ‘flat rate’ tools with no formal and

comprehensive weighting factors involved. For example, there is no formal weighting system

in LEED. However, the different credits assigned to each of the assessment criteria in LEED
179
actually reflect the variations in importance between different assessment categories and

assessment indicators.

This research agrees with the argument made by Cole (1999:232) that “weighting is the

mechanism by which a very large number of performance criteria are reduced to a small and

more manageable number and [a score] is a critical part of the output module”. A weighting

mechanism can help to adjust the measured values of different SRD sustainability principles

and indicators. This means a formal and hierarchical weighting mechanism is needed in the

proposed rating system. Weighting factors are applied to each of the principles and the

individual indicators. Thus, there are two levels of weighting factors in the proposed rating

system (see Figure 7.3).

Sustainability Principles
Weighting Factors

Individual Indicators
Weighting Factors

Measures

Figure 7.3: Weighting structure of the proposed assessment system

7.4.3.2Weighting establishment methods

As summarized by Liu (2005:101-103), there are three methods usually used for establishing

weights in building assessment tools. The following description is based on her research.

The first and most common method is to let a panel group argue and vote for weights of

sustainable building issues. The GBTool and CEATM apply this method (Liu 2005:101).

The second method is to rank the issues on a semantic scale; for example, from no importance

to great importance, and seek a consensus on broad bases. The weighting system in

BREEAM-EcoHomes was developed by asking a wide range of interest groups which

180
sustainability issues they considered important (Rao et al. 2000:5, cited in Liu 2005:101).

The third method is to establish weights following the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP).

AHP is an approach to decision making that involves structuring multiple choice criteria into

a hierarchy, assessing the relative importance of each factor by pair wise comparison of all

factors with respect to a certain criteria. In the building assessment area, the Swedish

EcoEffect has established weighting systems by using the AHP method (Glaumann 2000:670,

cited in Liu 2005:101).

Liu (2005) further cites a study from the Center for the Built Environment, University of

Gavle (Westerberg 2000), which makes comparisons between the above three weighting

methods. This study concludes that “the individual results differed depending on the scale

used and as a whole there was little accordance in the answers”. Regarding the AHP method,

it is revealed that, “almost 50% of the answers turned out to be unacceptably inconsistent

according to the AHP inconsistency test”. Finally, the study showed that “just rating on a

semantic scale gave the least distinct but probably most reliable result” (Westerberg 2000,

cited in Liu 2005:102).

The consensus method, as in BREEAM-EcoHomes, is adopted in this research to identify the

relative importance of the principles and individual indicators, since this method avoids the

potential problems of AHP and best recognizes the limitations placed by the investigated

organizations. The GPDI required the focus meeting should be ended in 2 hours in their letters

of support. Accordingly, most questions in the questionnaire required the participants to tick

their answers on a Likert scale of 5, from ‘very unimportant’ to ‘very important’. The results

then can be analyzed to reflect the perceptions of the planner group and the researcher group

on the weights of a particular principle and indicator.

7.4.5 Description of the Survey Process

The survey was given approval by the ethics panel of FBE at UNSW, which agreed to
181
conduct such an expert survey on the condition that support letters were issued from the

relevant organizations.

Because the majority of Guilin’s registered urban planners are working in GPDI, it was

necessary to get the support of the organization. On 12 December 2009, a support letter was

issued by the director of GDPI, who agreed to organize a panel discussion participated in by

all its registered urban planners. On 20 December 2009, such a focus group meeting was held

in the conference room of GDPI. A total of 21 planners attended the meeting. The author gave

a half-hour presentation before the commencement of the discussion. Then a discussion about

the research was conducted. Participants could raise any concern they had about the content

of the questionnaire during the discussion. The questionnaires were filled out at the end of the

focus meeting. The whole process took about 2 hours.

In interviewing the researchers, the author first explained the purpose of the survey and the

survey technique, and then asked them to sign the consent letters. A discussion about the

research could occur (depending on their wishes and time availability). The researchers were

given enough time to fill the questionnaire. Discussion often continued during their

completion of the questionnaire. Finally the author collected the finished questionnaires and

an appreciation email was sent to them on the following day.

According to the pre-defined size of the researcher group, a total of 20 researchers were

interviewed and completed the questionnaires between 10 October 2009 and 8 January 2010.

Each of the 5 five research areas identified comprised four participants.

7.5 Summary

This chapter describes the methods used to conduct the case study research. The case study in

this thesis involves the application of the proposed framework to the two case study SRDs in

Guilin, i.e. an LCA energy and carbon accounting, and a neighbourhood rating system.

Literature review indicates data relating to embodied material and energy consumption of
182
housing development are not available in China, and also, the operational consumption data

are not collected at SRD level. In this research, the BQs prepared for the case study SRDs was

used to source the embodied consumption data, and a household survey was conducted to

investigate the energy consumed for SRD operation.

The international rating systems, such as LEED-ND and CASBEE-UD, cannot be applied to

China’s SRD, and the Chinese systems (e.g. CEATM) cannot address the SRD as a whole.

Therefore, a neighbourhood rating system needs to be developed for the case study SRDs.

Similar to other systems, the proposed neighbourhood rating system consists of three layers,

including principles (assessment category), indicators and measures.

The development of the neighbourhood rating system involves three steps:

z Identification of an initial set of indicators from the existing neighbourhood assessment

systems.

z The initial indicators are then examined by local stakeholders.

z Analysis of the survey results.

The survey involved a planner group and a researcher group. The planner group had 21

participants; all of them were nationally registered urban planners. The research group, on the

other hand, had 20 participants. They were selected from the 5 key sustainability research

areas identified. According to the nature of the survey and the limitations placed by the

investigated organization, the Focus group method was used to investigate the preferences of

the local planners. For the researcher group, the researchers were interviewed individually. All

participants in both groups were required to finish a questionnaire.

This research recognizes the limitations of the proposed neighbourhood rating system. First,

the selection of locally adaptable indicators should be based on a broader participation in their

formulation. An SRD’s life-cycle involves developers, planners, designers, contractors,

property managers, residents and many others. It is also subject to urban master plans and

various laws and regulations so that public decision-makers play an important role in
183
determining its sustainability performance. The involvement of only a group of nationally

certificated urban planners and a group of researchers is not sufficiently representative,

though this research lays the ground for further development of the system. Second, many of

the measures are not quantitatively based. They are intentionally written in a subjective way

because of the lack of relevant benchmark data.

However, this preliminary rating system provides a qualitative way of measuring the

sustainability performance of SRDs in the case study city and a common ground to compare

their performance. The principle purpose of the case study research is to present the working

of the framework proposed in Chapter 5, and validate its robustness. The preliminary system

that has been adapted to the local context should adequately address this purpose, though

future improvement of the system will be needed.

In the next chapter, the calculation of LCA energy consumption and the related carbon

emissions for the case study SRDs is described in detail. Chapter 9 will analyze the survey

results and apply the finalized rating system to the case studies.

184
Chapter 8: LCA Energy and Carbon Accounting for the Case
Studies

Chapter 5 has proposed an assessment framework that consists of an LCA energy and carbon

accounting model and a regionally specific neighbourhood rating system. This framework

will be tested to prove its robustness. In this chapter, the LCA energy and carbon accounting

model is applied to the two case study SRDs. It starts with a discussion of the calculation

scope and assessment boundary. The methodology of LCA energy and carbon accounting is

then discussed. The results will be presented in a number of figures and tables that reflect the

energy & carbon profiles for the case study SRDs.

8.1. Introduction

The literature review has revealed that little research has been undertaken in this area in China,

particularly in terms of modeling life-cycle material & energy flows and the related carbon

emissions for large groups of building sites such as residential neighbourhoods. Studies have

typically assessed either the national total building stock (e.g. Fernandez 2007, Yang and

Kohler 2008) or the single building (e.g. Zhang et al. 2006, Gu et al. 2006). These studies

have typically focused on building performance without consideration of the users’ activities

such as travel between home and work. Some concerns such as interior housing decoration

and recurring energy for building maintenance are also neglected.

The calculation of carbon emissions is often presented in the form of carbon footprint (CF).

As discussed in section 4.4, there is no universally accepted CF definition. Even the units of

CF measurement are diverse in the literature. This research acknowledges the definition

proposed by Wiedmann and Minx (2008) that is, “the carbon footprint is a measure of the

exclusive total amount of carbon dioxide emissions that are directly and indirectly caused by

an activity or are accumulated over the life stages of a product”.

185
This definition includes only CO2 in the analysis and adopts life-cycle thinking. It provides a

simple, straightforward and practical way to facilitate the generation of clear solutions.

Wiedmann and Minx (2008) argue that many other GHG substances (e.g. CF4) are either not

based on carbon or are more difficult to quantify because of data availability. In addition, the

definition also refrains from expressing the carbon footprint as an area-based indicator (e.g.

Eco-footprint). The ‘total amount’ of CO2 is physically measured in mass units (kg, t, etc) and

thus no conversion to an area unit (ha, m2, km2, etc) takes place. Wiedmann and Minx further

point out that the conversion into a land area would have to be based on a variety of different

assumptions and increases the uncertainties and errors associated with a particular footprint

estimate. For this reason accounting should try to avoid unnecessary conversions and attempt

to express any phenomenon in the most appropriate measurement unit.

In this research, energy consumption and carbon emissions will be reported in units of per

residential construction area and per resident. First, residential function is the core service of

an SRD, and the existence of community buildings, commercial buildings and open space is

to support such a function. The unit of energy consumption and carbon emissions per

residential construction area can link the energy & carbon performance of whole SRD

(including the public area) to the residential area. Thus it can encourage individual residents

to calculate their shares (or household share) of the total energy consumed and the resulting

carbon emissions based on the construction area of their apartments. In addition, it can

provide a common ground for comparison between different SRDs in which size and

characteristics of the public area vary greatly.

Second, the number of residents of a particular SRD also determines the total quantity of

energy consumed and carbon emissions. The assessment results can be presented in units of

GJ/per capita and tonnes of carbon/per capita, which are also easy to understand as an

educational and management tool. This research will use both measurements to present the

overall SRD energy & carbon profile.

Overall, life-cycle energy and carbon accounting is a suitable tool to evaluate the SRD,
186
because:

z The SRD is enclosed by gates and fences that provide a physical assessment boundary

for carbon calculations.

z Life-cycle energy and carbon accounting is a good management and educational tool to

illustrate the variety of different SRDs in which the average housing size, provision of

open space, provision of public buildings and life patterns may be very diverse.

z The tool may complement the neighbourhood building assessment methods by offering

an LCA analysis as well as an absolute measure of the actual environmental impact.

8.2. Assessment boundaries

In its broadest context the ‘carbon footprint’ calculates not just the carbon produced as a

result of the energy used for the construction, operation and maintenance of the SRD. There

are broader issues that relate to carbon emissions produced as a result of the users interacting

with their environmental, social and economic contexts. This is particularly important with

regard to the location of an SRD, the urban configuration and local transport network. Such

factors are highlighted in neighbourhood rating systems such as LEED-Neighborhood

Development and BREEAM-Communities. Traffic between homes and destinations such as

workplaces, amenities and urban services greatly increases the overall carbon footprint of the

SRD. In addition, carbon generation is associated with people’s everyday lives such as life

sustaining necessities (e.g. food, clothing), life quality commodities (e.g. TVs, fridges) and

entertainments (e.g. books, CDs).

Historically, the single greatest obstacle to evaluating buildings within their urban context has

been access to data on the composition and condition of the stock (IEA 2004a). As discussed

in section 7.1, data related to building construction and operation (e.g. embodied energy of

materials and operational energy of households) in China are very poor. Data are also lacking

with regard to the daily amounts of consumer goods such as food and clothes, as well as items

like housing appliances. Given data availability in the Chinese context, this study is only

187
concerned with energy based CO2 emissions as defined in Figure 8.1. It is not the full carbon

footprint of the SRD. Further research would be required to understand the full carbon

footprint and the links between the users’ behaviours and their socio-economic contexts.

Given there is no consensus on the scope and boundaries for life cycle energy consumption

and carbon footprint analysis, it is vital to define them clearly at the outset. For this study, the

scope of the analysis covers CO2 emissions related to manufacturing, conveyance,

construction, interior housing decoration, maintenance, direct energy for operation, and

energy used for transport between home and work. Emissions associated with people’s

life-styles such as consumption of food and consumer goods, embodied energy used for

manufacturing household appliances and the treatment of various wastes are excluded from

this analysis due to data availability. Figure 8.1 shows the boundaries that have been defined

for this study.

According to Figure 8.1, the whole analysis can be generally expressed by the following

equations, where CF means Carbon Footprint:

CF C F p re  o ccu p a n cy  C F p o st  o ccu p a n cy

CFpreoccupancy CFmanufacturing  CFco n v eyance  CFconstruction

CFpost occupancy CFdecoration  CFma int enance  CFoperation  CFtransport

These equations split the whole SRD life cycle into two stages: pre-occupation and

post-occupation. The pre-occupation stage refers to energy and emissions related to

manufacturing of building materials, conveyance to the construction site and the construction

process, which is mainly under control of developers, designers and contractors. The

post-occupation stage involves energy and emissions associated with activities such as

interior decoration, operation of buildings and open space, maintenance and transport between

home and work, which is mainly controlled by individual householders and SRD management

companies.

188
 Legend
Within the scope of study
Outside the scope of study

T raffic of Occupants (between

Raw Material Extraxtion Housing Decoration
home and work)

T ransport

SRD Operation (energy and water) Housing Appliances

Manufactoring of Construction
(munafacturing phase)
Materials and Components

Replacement of Materials and

T ransport
Components during Operational
Stage
Food (food and drink)

Site Preparation

Consumables (clothing, books,

Material Decommissioning and
CDs, tobacco, etc)
Construction of SRD (buildings, Demolition
roads, auxiliary facilities)

T ransport Domestic Wastes

Construction Wastes

Waste Recycling, Reuse and

T ransport
T ransport T reatment

Figure 8.1: System boundary for the carbon footprint calculations used in this study

8.3. Methodology

8.3.1 Overall presumption

8.3.1.1 SRD service life

It is important to define the service life of an SRD to assess its life-cycle impact. The service

life of an SRD will affect the total recurring embodied energy as well as the life-cycle

operational energy and related emissions. The Chinese Residential Building Code (GB

50386-2005) requires the service life of residential buildings to be not less than 50 years.

In this study, the service life of buildings is assumed to be 50 years given the assumption that

they all meet the requirements of the national building code. Regarding the open space of the
189
SRDs, there is no specification on its service life in the national building codes. As required

by the China’s Design Standards for Urban Roads (CJJ 37-91), the expected lifespan of hard

pavement with asphalt concrete surface is 15 years. Thus, it is assumed that the open pace (e.g.

roads, walls, and parking lots) of the case study SRDs also has a service life of 15 years.

8.3.1.2 Types of building materials

The construction process may involve dozens to hundreds of materials. It is extremely

difficult to account for all of them. As demonstrated in Chen et al. (2001), the use of steel,

aluminum, concrete, timber, PVC, and tiles constitutes 99% of total material inputs and 97%

of the total embodied energy in the residential buildings of Hong Kong. In order to reduce

analytical complexity, this study only examines these six main building materials in

assessment of the case study SRDs (In this study, concrete is replaced by cement because

cement is the major component by environmental impact of concrete and its quantities are

indicated in the Bill of Quantities for the two case studies).

8.3.1.3 Types of housing ‘decoration’ materials

In China, the housing transferred to the buyers usually has only low-quality flooring and

painting. The buyers often conduct some interior decoration by replacing the provided

finishes with higher-quality materials such as timber tiles to suit their personal preferences.

Interior housing decoration, in the Chinese context, may include a number of activities such

as tiling the floor, decorating the ceiling, painting the walls, and installing the kitchen. Due to

data availability, only flooring materials including timber decking tiles, marble tiles and

ceramic tiles are included in the analysis.

190
8.3.2. Energy consumption in the pre-occupation phase

8.3.2.1 Energy for manufacturing

Energy will be consumed to convert raw materials into various construction materials which

can be assembled into a building or a road. The calculation of embodied energy for each

material can be expressed by the following equation:

ª n º
Emanufactoring « ¦ qi ei »
¬i 1 ¼

Where qi is the quantity of material i used in the SRD that can be totalled based on the BQ. ei

is the energy intensity for material i (MJ per unit). It should be noted that this equation does

not consider the waste factors of materials that represent the wastages and losses incurred

during construction and maintenance.

8.3.2.2 Energy intensities and CO2 emission factors

The literature review has revealed that there is very little information found related to

non-operational energy consumption in China such as material intensity and embodied energy

intensity (ei)of construction materials (see also Fridley et al. 2008). As a result, studies have to

rely on international data to act as proxies for China’s calculation (see examples Fridley et al.

2008, Gu et al. 2006 and Chen et al. 2001). A study from Tsinghua University (Yang 2003:86)

provides the cradle-to-gate energy intensities and the related emission factors of some

Chinese building materials including steel, cement, aluminum, and timber. For other materials

not included in the Yang (2003) study, the data from the University of Bath’s Inventory of

Carbon and Energy (ICE) database (Hammond and Jones 2008) will be adopted. The ICE is

one of the most comprehensive databases available. It covers not only embodied energy

coefficients of building materials but also the related carbon emission factors. The current

ICE contains over 1700 records on embodied energy.

191
It should be noted that these data only provide an initial and rough estimate of the total energy

use and carbon footprint of a Chinese SRD. The embodied energy intensities and the related

emission factors greatly vary in different studies. For example, in producing 1kg steel (one of

the most studied materials) in China, Yang et al. (2002:117-119) suggest a 56.65MJ energy

consumption and 8200g CO2 emission; Yang (2003:86) gives 38.6MJ and 6778g respectively.

Gong and Zhang (2004) suggest 24.97MJ energy consumption and Gu et al. (2006) estimates

29MJ energy consumption. This reflects a fact that the calculation of embodied energy

intensities for China’s building materials is still underdeveloped. To improve accuracy, further

research including establishing a reliable database for China’s building materials would be

needed. The synthesis of energy intensity of the main construction materials and water

production is shown in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Energy intensity and the associated emission factors of materials & water
Material Steel* Timber* Cement* Aluminum* PVC Ceramic Marble Water
3
(kg) (m ) (kg) (kg) (kg) tile (kg) tile (kg) (m3)
Energy 38.6 3355 10.2 424 67.5 9 3.33 0.72
intensity
(MJ)
CO2 6778 95000 1594 24978 2500 590 187 213
emission
(gram)
Source: Materials with an asterisk are based on Yang (2003:86)
Materials without asterisk are based on Hammond and Jones (2008)

8.3.2.3. Energy for conveyance of building materials

Energy used for transport of construction materials from manufacturing plants to construction

sites can be expressed as:

Econveyance ¦Q d e i i it

Where Qi is the amount of construction material i dealt with for conveyance; di is the

conveyance distance for material i; eit is the energy intensity for a specific type of conveyance.

The average distance of freight transport in China is 61 km in 2004 (cited in Gu et al. 2006).

This distance is assumed to be the average distance of transferring building materials. Given
192
the assumption that all materials are road conveyed and fueled by diesel oil, it is suggested by

Yang et al. (2002:118) that the average energy consumption for road transportation in China is

2.423MJ/tonne-km and the related CO2 emission is 0.2377kg/tonne-km. Thus, the total energy

for conveyance of building materials can be calculated given the amount of materials, average

distance and transport energy coefficient.

8.3.2.4 Energy for Construction Process

The energy calculation for the construction process is given in Chen et al (2001), which is

estimated by:
n
Econstruction ¦Q e
i 1
i i

Where Qi is the amount of construction material i dealt with in producing the buildings, roads

and facilities; ei is the energy intensity required for the construction process dealing with

material i. It is suggested in Fridley et al. (2008) that approximately 70 MJ would be

consumed for the construction of one meter square area in the Chinese context. For more

accuracy, this data may also be obtained directly from the BQ in which contractors often

record the electricity and water usages.

8.3.3 Energy consumption in the post-occupancy phase

8.3.3.1 Interior decoration and maintenance

Interior decoration is normally carried out by the home buyers after completion of the SRD.

Only floor decking is included in this analysis. Generally, timber tiles, ceramic tiles and

marble tiles are the most frequently used flooring materials in China. The energy intensities of

these three flooring materials can be found in Table 8.1.

The energy and emissions associated with material or component replacement and periodic

maintenance during the life of a building can be up to 32% of the initial embodied energy or
193
emissions (Crawford 2009). A replacement factor is the coefficient of the lifespan of a

building divided by the average lifespan of a building material. If a material or building

element has a life expectancy of 10 years, the replacement factor is 5 given the building

lifespan of 50 years. This also means this material or element needs to be replaced four times

after the completion of the building. The replacement factors of various materials and

elements can be found in Chen et al. (2001) and Chau et al. (2007) (see Table 8.2). In this

thesis, cement and steel used in building construction are assumed to be all for structural

components. Thus their lifespan is as the same as the building that means no material

replacement for cement and steel during the building lifespan. For other building materials

examined, replacement materials and energy consumption are determined by both the initial

material inputs and the related replacement factors. It should be noted that the material and

energy recurrence for the open space of the SRD is different from the buildings. Since the

expected lifespan of the open space (e.g. roads, walls) of an SRD is assumed to be only 15

years, maintenance work required for the open environment such as roads, walls and parking

lots is more frequent.

Table 8.2 Life spans of building materials and elements

Material & Element Years of life span
Structural elements 50
External and interior wall 50
Windows and doors 38
Plastic, rubber, polymer 10
Plywood 10
Concrete 50
Tiles 10
Steel 50

Source: Synthesis based on Chen et al. (2001) and Chau et al. (2007)

8.3.3.2 SRD Operation

The energy and water consumed for operation can be categorized as:

z Household usage: appliances, toilet flushing, cooking, etc;

z Landscaping: fountains, vegetation irrigation, pruning, etc;

194
z Public usage: street lamps, running of the property management office, etc;

The quantity of energy and water used to run the public area can be obtained from the

property management company. The data relating to the energy and water consumption in

homes are not collected at SRD level, thus, a household survey needs to be conducted to

obtain the actual consumption data.

Yang et al. (2002:113) give a CO2 emission factor of 317 grams in producing 1MJ

(approximately 0.278 kWh) electricity in China. The University of Bath’s ICE database

estimates 213 grams CO2 emission in producing 1m3 tap water (Hammond and Jones 2008)

that will be used as the proxy in the case study SRD calculations. Jungbluth et al. (1997)

suggest 122kg CO2 emission in using 1 GJ Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG). Given the above

assumptions, the CO2 emissions in operating the SRD can be calculated by linking them with

the actual usages of electricity, water and LPG.

8.3.3.3 Transport between Home and Work

In order to calculate the petrol consumption for traffic between home and work, information

such as transportation means, modal split, and average commuting time is required. This type

of information can be gained by a household survey. This thesis only involves the use of

private car, motorbike, and bus. Other transportation means such as walking, cycling, and

cell-powered scooter are assumed to be environmentally neutral. A research paper published

in 2006 estimated the average car speed in the urban area of Guilin was 40km/hour (Li and

Qin 2006). No research has been found regarding the average speed of bus and motorbike in

the case study city. The average speed of bus in Beijing ranged between 14km/hour and

20km/hour in 2007 (China Net 2007). Considering Guilin is a city smaller than Beijing in

terms of size and population. 20km/hour is assumed to be the average bus speed in Guilin.

The average speed of motorbike in the urban area of Guilin, assumed by the author, is

30km/hour. The average petrol consumption for a 100km ride in China is 8.06 liters (Beijing

Daily 2009) for cars, 3 liters (Financial Times 2006) for motorbikes and 31 liters (Zhen and
195
Chen 2008) for buses. Each bus ride conveys 50 passengers. It should be noted that the

analysis is focusing on petrol consumption without considering embodied energy for

manufacturing vehicles and petrol.

If the transport means and the related average commuting time can be obtained by a

household survey, the total petrol consumption for travel between home and work would be

available. Other assumptions include the yearly working days (250) and the density of petrol

(0.725kg/liter) with a heating value of 32MJ/liter. Yang et al. (2002:136) suggests a CO2

emission coefficient of 3172 grams in using 1kg petrol in China. Thus, the total carbon

emissions attributable to travel between home and work can be also quantified.

8.4. Data Analysis

8.4.1 Case study SRD 1

8.4.1.1. BQ survey

A set of BQs has been obtained for each of the buildings in SRD 1, and also for the roads,

walkways, green areas and parking lots. The material consumption for construction of the

wall is based on the author’s estimation due to not being included in the BQs. Life-cycle

material consumption and electricity & water usage during the construction process are

shown in Table 8.3. It reveals that the total consumption of various construction materials

during a life-cycle of 50 years is 20,864 tonnes. The initial construction materials consumed

in the largest quantities for this SRD are cement and steel, followed by timber (given a

density of 900kg/m3), various tiles, aluminum and PVC. However, the order will be

re-arranged in a view of the life cycle consumption. In a life-cycle context, the materials

consumed in the largest quantities are cement and various tiles, followed by timber, steel,

PVC and aluminum. The reason is because materials such as timber, tiling materials and PVC

are more frequently replaced during the lifespan.

196
Table 8.3: Life-cycle material consumption and construction related electricity & water
consumption of SRD 1
Material/SRD Steel Timber Cement Aluminum Tiles PVC Water Electricity
component (kg) (m3) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (m3) (kWh)
Buildings 2064,000 1,703 10293,000 52879 537,180 48,729 42,489 244,216
Public open space 12,000 226,000 978 1,748
Housing decoration 212 264,542
Recurrent materials 24,000 1,915 452,000 52879 3206,888 194,916
Total 2088,000 3,830 10971,000 105758 4008,610 243,645 43,467 245,964
Grand total: 20864 tonnes
Note: (1) The aggregation of the initial material consumption and the construction related electricity & water consumption is
based on the BQs and there is no consideration of material recycling.
(2) The public open space includes roads, walkways, parking lots, pavement in landscaped area and walls. The calculation of roads,
walkways, and parking lots is based on the BQs. The materials used for construction of walls and the pavement in the landscaped
area are estimated by the author due to not being included in the BQs.
(3) The types of materials used for interior decoration are based on the household survey; the tiles used for floor decking consist of
ceramic tiles (240180kg), marble tiles (24362kg) and timber flooring tiles (212 m3); the tiles are assumed to be 10mm thick with
densities of 2000kg/m3, 2600 kg/m3 and 900kg/m3 respectively.
(4) Water and electricity usage for housing decoration and maintenance are ignored due to lack of data;
(5) Recurrent materials during the life cycle are calculated based on the synthesis of Chen et al. (2001) and Chau et al. (2007) (see
table 8.2). An expected life-span of 10 years means requiring replacement four times during the life span of 50 years. Steel and
cement in building construction are assumed to be used for building structure.
(6) It is assumed that the public open space (e.g. roads, walkways, parking lots, wall) needs to be totally reconstructed every 15
years. This means the reconstruction of public area need to conduct twice during 50-year life span.

84.1.2. Household survey

A household survey was conducted with the focus on the operational energy and water

consumption for SRD 1. It involved 46 households or 10% of the total households. The

survey indicates that the average household size is about 3.39 persons and it is estimated that

the total residents of this SRD is 1566. This survey also reveals the energy and water

consumption characteristics of the SRD. On average, 257kWh electricity is consumed per

household per month or 76 kWh/month-person. For water consumption, 15.18 m3 are

consumed per month per household or 4.38 m3 /month-person. Regarding gas consumption,

each household consumes 11.74 LPG containers annually (each container has 16.5kg LPS).

The monthly electricity and water used for public area are provided by the property

management office, which include: street lamps (750kWh), office and guard kiosks

197
(2230kWH), vegetation irrigation (500 m3).

The survey revealed that interior decoration was conducted in all sampled households. Marble

tile, ceramic tile and timber are the most frequently used materials for interior decoration. In

total, there are 68% households using ceramic tiles to decorate their living rooms, while 25%

use timber and 7% use marble tiles. Regarding the decoration of bedrooms, 86% use timber

and 14% use ceramic tiles.

The percentages of various transport means are shown in Figure 8.2. The survey shows that

cycling (including cell-powered scooters), motorbikes, buses and cars are the most frequently

used modes of transport and the average time used for travel between home and work is

around 50.05 minutes per day (two-way). The average commuting time for private cars,

motorcycles and buses is 40.8 minutes, 54.8 minutes and 57.3 minutes respectively.

2%
car
13%
24% cycling
motorbike

21% bus
walk
24%
other

Figure8.2: Percent transportation means by SRD 1 commuters

8.4.2 Case Study SRD 2

8.4.2.1 BQ survey

A set of BQs has been obtained for each of the buildings in SRD 2, and also for the

kindergarten, roads, walkways, green areas, underground garage and surface parking lots. The

community center and the management office area are located on the ground floor of building

198
No. 9 and 19 respectively (see Figure 6.11). Since they cannot be separated from the BQs of

the two buildings, it is assumed that their energy and material consumption is proportional to

the ratio of their floor area to the respective total area of the buildings. Life-cycle material

consumption and electricity & water usage during the construction process is shown in Table

8.4. It reveals that the total consumption of various construction materials during a life-cycle

of 50 years is 17,368 tonnes, which is about 3,496 tonnes less than that of the SRD 1. Since

both case studies were located in the same city and completed in similar time, it is

unsurprising that they have used the same construction technology. Therefore, the life-cycle

construction materials consumed in the largest quantities for SRD 2 are of the same order:

cement, tiles, timber, steel, PVC and aluminum.

Table 8.4: Life-cycle material consumption and construction related electricity & water
consumption of the SRD 2
Material/SRD Steel Timber Cement Aluminum Tiles PVC Water Electricity
component (kg) (m3) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) (m3) (KWH)
Residential Buildings 1866,900 1,441 6388,697 43,459 415,700 67,875 136,493 368,090
Community and 155,920 85 1202,880 3,630 22,675 2,057 726 20,231
commercial buildings
Public open space 15,000 313,000 778 10,178
Housing decoration 202 204,702
Recurrent materials 30,000 1,728 626,000 47,089 2572,308 279,728
Total 2067,820 3,456 8530,577 94,178 3215,385 349,660 137,977 398,499
Grand Total: 17,368 tonnes
Note: (1) The calculation of community and commercial buildings includes material consumption for the underground parking
area.
(2) Other assumptions are as the same in Table 8.3.

8.4.2.3. Household survey

A survey of households was conducted with the focus on energy and water consumption for

operational characteristics of SRD 2. It involved 38 households or 11% of the total

households. The survey indicates that the average household size in the SRD is about 3.42

persons (the average household size of the city is 2.93 persons, see section 6.5.2.2) so it is

estimated that the total residents of this SRD is 1197. This survey also reveals energy and
199
 water consumption for the SRD 2. On average, 293kWh electricity is consumed per

household per month or 85.6kWh/month-person. For water consumption, 20.12 m3 are

consumed per month per household or 5.88 m3 /month-person. Regarding gas consumption,

on average each household consumes 13.21 LPG containers annually. The monthly electricity

and water used for the public area are provided by the property management office, which

include: street lamps (750kWh), office and guard kiosks (2,725kWH), the community center

(1,700kWh), the kindergarten (2,500), vegetation irrigation and a fountain (750 m3).

This survey has revealed that interior decoration has been conducted in all sampled

households. Forty six percent of households use ceramic tiles to decorate their living rooms,

while 35% use timber and 19% use marble tiles. Regarding decoration of bedrooms, 91% use

timber and 9% use ceramic tiles.

The percentages of various transport means are shown in Figure 8.3. Similar to SRD 1, the

survey shows that cycling (including cell-powered scooter), private cars, motorbikes and buses

are the most frequently used transport means. However, compared to SRD 1, the percentage of

people using public transport has decreased about 4%, and use of private cars has increased 8%.

The average commuting time used for traffic between home and work is around 47.26 minutes

per day (two-way). The average time for private cars, motorcycles and bus is 38.8 minutes,

50.5 minutes and 58.6 minutes respectively.

1%

6% car
24% cycling
17%
motorbike
bus
21% walk
31%
other

Figure8.3: Percent transportation means by the SRD 2 commuters

200
8.5. Results and Analysis: Energy and Carbon Profiles

Following the previously discussed analysis methodology and the survey results, the

life-cycle energy consumption and the related CO2 emissions can now be quantified and lead

to a number of figures and tables that describe energy and carbon profiles for the case studies.

8.5.1 Overall energy and carbon profile

The energy use and CO2 emissions in different life stages of the case study SRDs are shown in

Table 8.5.
Table 8.5: Life-cycle energy consumption and the related CO2 emissions
Life Stages Manufacturing Conveyance Construction Decoration Maintenance Operation Traffic
SRD 1: life-cycle energy consumption: 1100,108 GJ; life-cycle CO2 emission: 169,855 tonnes
Energy(GJ) 223,684 3,083 1,067 2,955 77,981 458,838 332,500

CO2(tonne) 32,763 303 289 168 4,784 107,673 23,875

SRD 2: life-cycle energy consumption: 1016,289; life-cycle CO2 emission: 155,031 tonnes

Energy(GJ) 193,033 2,567 1,532 2,176 75,338 417,293 324,350

CO2(tonne) 28,158 251 484 116 4,765 97,907 23,350

Note: The table is calculated based on Table 8.1, 8.2, 8.3 and 8.4.
(1) Energy consumption and carbon emission for manufacturing is calculated by multiplying the initial material inputs (see
Table 8.3 and 8.4) with their respective energy intensities and emission factors (see Table 8.1).
(2) Energy consumption and carbon emission for conveyance is calculated by multiplying the total amount of material
input (see Table 8.3 and 8.4, 20864 tonnes and 17368 tonnes for SRD1 and SRD2 respectively) with the average
distance of freight transport 61km and the energy & emission coefficients, 2.423MJ/tonne-km energy consumption and
0.2377kg/tonne-km CO2 emission.
(3) Energy consumption for the construction process is directly from the BQs. Then the usage of electricity is multiplied
with the emission factor of producing 1MJ electricity in China (317g/MJ).
(4) Energy consumption and carbon emission for decoration is calculated by multiplying the decoration material inputs (see
Table 8.3 and 8.4) with their respective energy intensities and emission factors (see Table 8.1).
(5) Energy consumption and carbon emission for maintenance is calculated by multiplying the recurrent material inputs
(see Table 8.3 and 8.4) with their respective energy intensities and emission factors (see Table 8.1), and then further
multiplying with their replacement factors (see Table 8.2).
(6) Energy consumption and carbon emission for operation is calculated by multiplying the electricity, gas and water usage
(see section 8.4.1.2 and 8.4.2.3) with their respective energy intensities and emission factors (see Table 8.1), and then
further multiplying with the prescribed building life span (50 years).
(7) Energy consumption and carbon emission for traffic is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicle users (car,
motorbike and bus, see section 8.4.1.2 and 8.4.2.3) with the average traffic time and the assumed average speed, then
further multiplying with the average petrol consumption per 100km and emission factors (see section 8.3.3.3)

201
The total life-cycle energy use of SRD 1 is 1100,108 GJ with CO2 emission of 169,855 tonnes.

As a whole, SRD 2 uses slightly less energy and emits less CO2. The energy consumption

and CO2 emission of SRD 2 are 1016,289 GJ and 155,031 tonnes respectively. Given a life

span of 50 years, the annualized energy use and carbon emissions are 22002GJ and 3397

tones CO2 for SRD 1, and 20,325GJ and 3,101 tonnes for SRD 2.

However, the picture is different if the two SRDs were measured in units of energy

consumption per residential area or per resident. Compared to SRD 1, SRD 2 provides larger

open space and more community facilities, but accommodates fewer residents. Given the

assumption of unchanged household size, the annualized per capita energy consumption and

carbon footprint are 14.1GJ and 2.17 tonnes for SRD 1 and, 17.0 GJ and 2.59 tonnes for SRD

2 respectively. The annualized energy consumption and carbon emissions per m2 residential

area are 0.41 GJ and 0.063 tonnes CO2 for SRD 1, and 0.46 GJ and 0.070 tonnes CO2 for

SRD 2.

Specifically, energy consumption and carbon emissions in the pre-occupancy phase

(manufacturing, conveyance and construction) are 4.25 GJ and 0.62 tonnes CO2 per m2

residential area for SRD 1, which are about 5.4% and 6.5% smaller than those of SRD 2 (4.48

GJ and 0.66 tonnes respectively). The reason is attributable to the larger public area of SRD 2.

The pre-occupation profile can be used as an environmental label to denote the actual

environmental impact of a new SRD. This label links the environmental impact of the whole

SRD to the unit of residential area. By this, housing buyers can readily evaluate the actual

carbon emissions of the apartment they are interested in.

The percentages of energy use in different life stages are shown in Figure 8.4. Operational

energy use including electricity, water and LPG takes up 42% and 41% of the total life-cycle

energy consumption of SRD1 and SRD2 respectively, followed by energy use for travel

between home and work (30% and 32% respectively). Energy used for manufacturing the

initial construction materials constitutes 20% and 19% respectively. Gu et al. (2006) in a study

of a single residential building in Beijing also give a similar result in that embodied energy
202
constitutes 20% of life span consumption.

Energy used for SRD maintenance is relatively smaller with 7% in both SRDs. The

combination of conveyance, construction and housing decoration only constitutes 1% in both

SRDs. Overall, total energy use in the pre-occupation phase (manufacturing, conveyance, and

construction) of SRD 1 and SRD 2 constitutes 20.7% and 19.4% respectively, while the

post-occupation phase (decoration, maintenance, operation and transport) constitutes 79.3%

and 80.6%. This is also similar to the results of some other studies such as Fernandez (2007)

and BECC (2009:1). Both estimate the post-occupation energy consumption is about 80% of

the total energy consumption of a building life cycle.

Conveyance, construction and

decoration

Maintenance

Manufacturing SRD 2
SRD 1
Transport between home and work

Operation

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

Figure 8.4: Percent energy use in different life stages of the case study SRDs

Carbon emissions in different life stages of the case studies are illustrated in Figure 8.5.

Carbon emissions from running SRD 1 and SRD 2 constitutes 64% and 63% of the total

life-cycle emissions, followed by manufacturing of the initial construction materials (19% and

18%), and travel between home and work (14% and 15%). The maintenance of both SRDs

constitutes about 3% of the total emissions, and the combination of conveyance, construction

and decoration constitutes only 1%. In overall, the total CO2 emission in pre-occupation phase

of SRD 1 and SRD 2 constitutes 19.6% and 18.6% respectively, while the post-occupation

phase constitutes 80.4% and 81.4%.

203
 Conveyance, construction and
decoration
Maintenance

Traffic between home and work SRD 2

SRD 1
Manufacturing

Operation

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 8.5: Percent CO2 emissions in different life stages of the case study SRDs

Noteworthy in the analysis, travel between home and work alone constitutes about 30% of the

total energy consumption and 15% of the total life-cycle carbon emissions. If considering

other city travel such as shopping and excursion, and long distance travel by train and plane,

the energy consumption and carbon emissions for transport would be more significant.

8.5.2 Embodied energy use analysis

Embodied energy use involves the initial embodied energy, recurring embodied energy for

SRD maintenance (material replacement), energy for interior decoration, and energy use for

conveyance and construction. From the breakdown in Table 8.4, it can be seen that the total

embodied energy use for SRD 1 and SRD 2 are 308,770 GJ and 274,646 GJ respectively. The

total embodied carbon emissions are 38,307 and 33,774 tonnes respectively. Further analysis

reveals that the manufacturing of building materials constitutes 72% and 70% of the total

embodied energy consumption for SRD 1 and SRD 2, and 85% and 84% of the total

embodied carbon emissions respectively, followed by recurring embodied energy constituting

25% and 27% of the total embodied energy consumption, and 13% and 14% of the total

embodied carbon emissions (see Figure 8.6). The significance of the use of recurrent

materials and energy cannot be ignored in any life-cycle assessment. However, energy use for

conveyance, construction and interior decoration are much less. The combination constitutes

only about 3% of the total embodied energy consumption.

204
 Conveyance, construction,
decoration

SRD 2 (carbon)
Maintenance SRD 2 (energy)
SRD 1 (carbon)
SRD 1(energy)
Manufacturing

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 8.6: Breakdown of embodied energy and carbon emissions

8.5.3 Energy use and CO2 emissions of various construction materials

Since both SRDs have been built in the same city and completed in similar time, they should

comply with the same design codes and construction technology. Thus the material contents

for them should be also similar though there are some minor differences between high-rise

buildings and medium-rise buildings. SRD 1 is used as an example here to present the energy

and carbon profiles of different construction materials. The breakdown of initial embodied

energy and the associated CO2 emissions of different construction materials is shown in

Figure 8.7. Cement constitutes 37% of the total embodied energy and 48% of the total

embodied emission, followed by steel with 26% and 38% respectively. It should be noted that

aluminum represents 15% of the total embodied energy and 7% of the total embodied

emissions given only 0.5% of the total quantity of material consumption. Various tiles

constitute 12% of the total embodied energy and 6% of the total emissions. The impact of

timber and PVC are smaller, together representing 10% of the total embodied energy

respectively and 3% of the emissions. It is also should be noted that the percentages of carbon

emission of cement and steel are higher than their respective energy consumption percentages,

while other materials demonstrate reverse results. The reason may be attributed to current

cement and steel industry is heavy users of coal, which emits more carbon than other energy

sources such as gas and oil.

205
 PVC
Timber
Tiles
Carbon emissions
Aluminum
Energy consumption
Steel
Cement

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Figure 8.7: Initial embodied energy and carbon emissions of different construction materials

8.5.4 Operational energy use and emission analysis

Operational energy use involves the consumption of electricity, water and LPG in homes and

public area. The values of operational energy use and its related CO2 emissions are shown in

Table 8.6. Given the life span of 50 years, the use of electricity has the greatest impact. It

constitutes 57% of the total operational energy use and 78% of the total carbon emission of

SRD 1, followed by the use of LPG for cooking and bathing, representing 42% and 21%

respectively (see Figure 8.8). SRD 2 presents similar distributions as those in SRD 1. The

energy used for producing water is minor, only representing 1% of the total operational

energy and the total operational CO2 emission in both case studies. This reflects a fact that the

significance of water cannot be sufficiently addressed in an energy-based analysis. A parallel

water footprint analysis should be undertaken to delineate a holistic picture of resource and

energy consumption.

Annualized per capita life-cycle operational energy use and CO2 emission are 5.86 GJ and

1.37 tonnes for SRD 1, and 6.97 GJ and 1.64 tonnes for SRD 2. This suggests that the

residents of SRD 2 consume 18.9% more energy and produce 19.7% more CO2 emission on

average compared to the residents of SRD 1. The reasons behind this may include:

z SRD 2 has larger houses on average.

z SRD 2 has more open space and more community facilities, and
206
z Life-styles between them may be different.

Table 8.6: Operational energy and carbon emissions in 50 years life span
Energy types Electricity Water LPG
SRD 1: total operational energy use is 458,838 GJ with the related CO2 emission of 107,673 tonnes
Energy (GJ) 262,902 3,049 192,887
Emission (tonnes) 83,252 889 23,532
SRD 2: total operational energy use is 417293 GJ with the related CO2 emission of 97907 tonnes
Energy (GJ) 238,086 3,366 175,841
Emission (tonnes) 75,460 995 21,452

Water

RSD 2 (carbon)
LPG SRD 2 (energy)
SRD 1 (carbon)
SRD 1 (energy)
Electricity

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Figure 8.8: Operational energy and carbon emissions by different energy types

8.5.5 Transport between home and work

Life-cycle energy consumption for travel between home and work is 332,500 GJ for SRD 1

and 324,350 GJ for SRD 2. Annualized per capita transport energy consumption and the

related CO2 emissions are 4.25 GJ and 0.31 tonnes respectively for SRD 1, and 5.42 GJ and

0.39 tonnes for SRD 2.

Figure 8.9 and 8.10 indicate the relationships between energy use of different transport means

and the respective proportions of commuters conveyed. In this thesis, only the use of the

private car, motorbike and bus is included. The use of the private car consumes 61% of the

total transport energy but only conveys 16% of the residents of SRD 1. However public

207
transport, consuming only 4% of the total transport energy conveys 21% of the total

commuters. The users of motorbikes constitute 24% of the commuters and consume 35% of

the total transport energy. In SRD 2, the use of private car consumes 74% of the total

transport energy but only displaces 24% of the total commuters, while public transport

consumes 3% to convey 17%. The motorbike users constitute 21% of the total commuters and

consume 23% of the total transport energy. Unsurprisingly, the use of public transport has the

greatest environmental benefit.

Bus

Motorbike Commuters conveyed

Energy consumption

Private car

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Figure 8.9: Energy consumption (%) commuters of different transport means in SRD 1

Bus

Motorbike Commutors conveyed

Energy consumption

Private car

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Figure 8.10: Energy consumption (%) of commuters of different transport means in SRD 2

8.5.6 CO2 emissions by different SRD components

Figure 8.11 shows the total CO2 emission (excluding travel between home and work) for
208
different components of the SRDs. The construction and operation of the public area of SRD

1 constitute only 2% of the total carbon emission and the residential buildings constitute 98%.

Compared to SRD 1, SRD 2 has some community facilities and more open space. The carbon

emissions from the construction and operation of the community and commercial sector

constitute about 9% of the total emissions, and the open space constitutes 2%. In total the

public area constitutes about 11% of the life-cycle emissions. These figures reflect that the

public area plays a more important role in determining the energy and carbon profile of SRD

2.

Open space
SRD 2
Community and commercial facilities
SRD 1

Residential buildings

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Figure 8.11: CO2 emissions by main physical components of the case study SRDs (%)

8.6. Summary
This chapter represents one of the pioneering studies that quantify the life-cycle energy and

carbon profiles of two case study SRDs in China. Compared to other LCA-based studies in

China, it shifts the assessment focus from single building assessment to precinct level in order

to address the SRD as a whole.

The results have been illustrated in a number of figures and tables that interpret the energy

and carbon performance of the SRDs with regard to their life stages, construction materials,

transport means and SRD components. Together these figures and tables create an energy and

carbon profile for the SRDs investigated. Useful information can be generated based on such

profiles to help various stakeholders, such as developers, designers and buyers, to make

decisions. However, it is also obvious that the energy and carbon profile cannot address

sustainability in a holistic way: many social, spatial and site-specific issues are not reflected.
209
The analysis reveals that the annualized per resident life-cycle energy use and carbon

footprint are 14.1GJ and 2.17 tonnes for SRD 1, and 17 GJ and 2.59 tonnes for SRD 2. The

post-occupation phase consumes energy and emits CO2 at about four times the rate of the

pre-occupancy phase. The results indicate that CO2 emitted from the operation of the SRD

constitutes the largest proportion of total emissions; followed by initial embodied energy,

travel between home and work, and recurrent energy for maintenance. This study indicates

that cement and steel are the most energy intensive materials in the construction of an SRD. It

also shows that the life-cycle environmental impact of daily commuter travel is significant

and that there is an urgent need to promote the use of public transport. The analysis

unsurprisingly shows that residential buildings consume much more construction materials

and embodied energy than other component parts of the SRD. However, this may vary

according to the SRD evaluated because larger landscaped areas and more community

amenities could be built in many affluent SRDs. As illustrated in this study, the public area of

SRD 2 emits about 11% of the total carbon emissions compared to only 2% in SRD 1.

The energy and carbon calculation in this chapter has roughly similar assessment scope with

the two cases given in section 4.4.2 (York and Adelaide). SRD 1 has only about 38% and 30%

of the average carbon footprint of Adelaide and York residents respectively, while SRD 2 has

about 45% and 36% respectively. Reasons may be mainly attributable to climate diversity,

use of private vehicles, and housing conditions.

It should be noted that the energy consumption in the life-cycle analysis is secondary energy.

The difference between primary and secondary energy can be 3 to 4 times different depending

on the quality and efficiency of fuel sources. On average, coal constitutes 69.5% of China’s

overall energy source, followed by oil (19.7%), gas (3.5%), and hydropower (7.3%) (BEEC

2009:271). However, considering China is a huge country, the use of primary energy varies

between different regions in terms of fuel source and efficiency of power production. Thus,

caution should be given if secondary energy is converted to primary energy.

210
More generally, the carbon emissions of the day-to-day operational use of the SRDs are about

four times greater than embodied impact. This implies that increasing material inputs in the

construction stage, e.g. providing thermal mass or installing passive facilities, may

considerably reduce impacts over the full life cycle (Osmond 2010) of the SRDs. In addition,

evaluating the SRD as a whole helps designers to expand their views beyond single buildings

by incorporating public open space which helps to form a holistic picture of their work.

Furthermore, such a calculation can aid decision-making at an early stage of the design

process. For example, providing life-cycle energy and emission data helps designers to select

construction materials and assess the various transport scenarios.

SRDs are enclosed by walls and gates, and the community facilities and open space are

owned by all residents. They are not open to people outside a particular SRD, for example, a

gym within SRD ‘A’ is not open to the residents from SRD ‘B’. Thus, energy consumption

and carbon emissions attributable to the construction and operation of the gym, should be also

shared by all residents in SRD ‘A’. However, it should be noted that any SRD needs the

facilities and services provided by the larger urban context, which are shared by the whole

society. The residents of an SRD may use the public gyms of the city because their

community gym does not provide a particular sport court. Therefore, the calculation of energy

and carbon flows for the case study SRDs does not necessarily represent the energy

consumption and emissions generated by all activities of the SRDs’ residents.

Chapter 9 will discuss the qualitatively based SRD rating system, which leads to the creation

of an SRD sustainability profile for the case studies.

211
 Chapter 9: Neighbourhood Rating System and Its
Application to the Case Study SRDs

The previous chapter has examined the life-cycle energy and carbon profile of the case study

SRDs in Guilin. In this chapter, the neighbourhood rating system will be developed and

applied to the case study SRDs. The review of the current building rating systems in Chapter

3 indicates that the international systems, such as LEED-ND and CASBEE-UD, cannot be

applied to the Chinese context without modification, and the Chinese building rating systems,

e.g. GOBAS and CEATM, cannot adequately address neighbourhood sustainability. Chapter 6

also argues that a regionally specific system will be more suitable due to the country’s large

territory and diverse conditions. Therefore, a regionally specific assessment system needs to

be generated for Guilin, in which the case study SRDs are located. In Chapter 7, the methods

used to develop the system are described. It involves a survey of the local practitioners and

researchers based on an initial set of indicators. The proposed rating system is structured with

three layers, principles (assessment categories), indicators and measures respectively. The

preliminary system has in total nine assessment categories, 44 individual indicators and 101

measures (see section 7.3.1 and 7.3.2). Weights are assigned to the category and indicator

level (see section 7.4.3). The initial indicator set is attached in Appendix 3 and the

questionnaire for the survey is in Appendix 4.

In this chapter, the survey results will be analyzed and collated in order to generate a

Guilin-specific neighbourhood rating system, and weights will be assigned to the assessment

categories and indicators. Then the neighbourhood rating system will be applied to the case

study SRDs and lead to the SRD sustainability profiles.

9.1 Background Variables

As noted in Chapter 7, the survey involves two groups of participants. The planner group

which has 21 participants represents the view of the planning practitioners. The researcher
212
group has 20 participants from the 5 sustainability research areas who reflect the perceptions

of the local research community.

The Excel calculation function is used to count the maximum values, minimum values, mean

values and standard deviations for each of the data groups.

9.1.1 Professional years

Figure 9.1 shows that half of the participants who joined in the survey had between 10-20

years of professional career. In each of the two groups, the participants having professional

experience between 10 and 20 year constituted nearly 50% of the total. Overall, the

proportion of participants with more than 10 years working experience was around 70%.

60%
52%
49%
50% 45%

40% 35%
All
29%
30% 24% Planners
22% 24% 20%
Experts
20%
10%
0%
5-10 professional years 10-20 professional 20-30 professional
years years

Figure 9.1: Distribution of Profession Years of the participants

9.1.2 Gender

Figure 9.2 shows that there is double the number of male participants in the survey compared

with female participants, and this proportion is about the same in both two groups.

213
 70% 63% 62% 61%
60%
50%
37% 38% 39% All
40%
Planners Group
30% Experts Group
20%
10%
0%
Male Female

Figure 9.2: Gender distribution of the participants

9.2 Evaluating Neighbourhood Sustainability Principles

As noted earlier, the nine neighbourhood sustainability principles are used as the assessment

categories in the rating system. This is Part 1 of the questionnaire. The only question in Part 1

is designed to explore local participants’ perceptions about the relative importance of the

principles, and also the potential for other principles to be added. The participants are required

to tick their answers on a Likert scale of 5 in the given table, where ‘1’ represents “very

unimportant”, ‘2’ represents “unimportant”, ‘3’ is “neutral”(or neither important nor

unimportant, ‘4’ is “important” and ‘5’ is “very important”. Score 3 is the minimum value for

acceptance. If an item is scored below 3, it will be excluded from the analysis. If they have

other principles to suggest, there is space below the table to allow such addition.

The nine principles listed in Part 1are:

z Providing livable environmental quality (or environmental quality in abbreviation)

z Providing social neighbourhood layout and facilities (or social neighbourhood)

z Providing quality infrastructure (or infrastructure)

z Providing efficient public transport (or transport)

z Improving housing affordability and local economy (or economy in abbreviation)

z Improving resources and energy efficiency (or resources and energy)

z Reducing environmental impact on local and global environment (or environmental

214
 impact)

z Maintaining site ecology (or site ecology), and

z Providing sustainability management (or sustainability management).

Descriptive statistics of the results (Table 9.1) shows that the mean values of all the 9

principles are between 3 and 5, which reflects they are considered between ‘neutral’ and ‘very

important’ by both groups. Generally speaking, all the principles are perceived positively to

be of some degree of importance for SRD assessment in the case study city. There was no

new principle raised by the participants. Within the 9 principles, ‘environmental quality’ was

voted as the most important one, which is followed by ‘transport’ and ‘sustainability

management’.

Table 9.1: Statistical data for weighting the Neighbourhood Sustainability Principles
Sustainability Principles N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Environmental quality 41 3 5 4.61 0.628

Social neighbourhood 41 2 5 4 0.866

Infrastructure 41 2 5 4.03 0.88

Public transport 41 3 5 4.1 0.788

Economy 41 1 5 3.59 1.095

Resources and energy 40 2 5 4.03 0.92

Environmental impact 41 1 5 3.22 1.013

Site ecology 40 1 5 3.28 1.086

Sustainability management 41 2 5 4.1 0.944
Note: (1) N refers to the number of participants that tick the 5 point Likert scale properly. (2) Minimum refers to the minimum
score in all respondents. (3) Maximum refers to the maximum score in all respondents.

The weight of each principle is calculated as the percentage of the mean value of any

particular principle out of the total mean value. For example, the weight of ‘environmental

quality’ is

4.61/(4.61+4+4.03+4.1+3.59+4.03+3.22+3.28+4.1)*100%=13%

The weights of other principles are calculated in the same way and the results are shown in

Figure 9.3. This figure indicates that “environmental quality” is assigned the highest weight
215
with 13%, while “infrastructure”, “transport”, “resource and energy” and “sustainable

management” are given weights of 12% each. The principle of ‘social neighbourhood’ and

‘economy’ are allocated weights of 11% and 10% respectively. The principle of

‘environmental impact’ and ‘site ecology’ are given the lowest weights with 9%. Note that all

numbers are rounded.

social neighbourhood
12% 11%
infrastructure
transport
9% 12%
economy
resource and energy
9%
12% environmental impact
site ecology
12%
10% sustainability management

Figure 9.3: Weighting distribution of sustainability principles by both groups

Comparing the results from the planner group and the researcher group, it is noted that

weights of the principles given by both groups are roughly the same (Table 9.2). The planner

group gives 1% higher weight to ‘infrastructure’ than the researcher group and a 1% lower

weight to ‘site ecology’.

Table 9.2: Weighting distribution of sustainability principles by different groups

Principle/ Envi Neigh. Infrastructure Transport Economy Resource Envi. Site Sustainability

Group Quality Layout Energy Impact. Ecology Management

Both 13% 11% 12% 12% 10% 12% 9% 9% 12%

groups

Planners 13% 11% 12% 12% 10% 12% 9% 9% 12%

Researchers 13% 11% 11% 12% 10% 12% 9% 10% 12%

216
9.3 Evaluating Individual Indicators

9.3.1 Principle 1: Providing livable environmental quality

This part of the questionnaire aims to evaluate environmental quality within the

neighbourhood. The question is designed to explore the participants’ perception about the

relative importance of the indicators within the principle. There are 5 individual indicators

including: (1) air quality, (2) acoustic quality, (3) urban heat island effect, (4) conservation of

water bodies within the project sites, (5) conservation of wetlands and habitats within the

project site. Each of them consists of several measures to score the indicator.

The participants are required to tick the answers on the same 5 point Likert scale. If they have

any other concerns regarding the indicators, a space is provided just below the table where

they can give their comments or add an indicator. Also, the participants are asked to select the

measure/measures which are thought to be suitable for measuring the indicators. Multiple

ticks are allowed if there is more than one suitable measure. If the participants think other

measures might be more suitable, they should specify them in the “other” option.

Descriptive statistics of the data distribution and the relative importance of the indicators

within the “environmental quality” principle are shown in Table 9.3 and Figure 9.4. The mean

values are between “neutral” and “very important”. Briefly speaking, all indicators listed

under this principle are considered important by both groups. Air Quality is considered the

most important factor determining the environmental quality of an SRD, followed by

Conservation of Water Bodies within the Project Site, while the average score of Urban Heat

Island Effect is only slightly above 3, the minimum acceptance level. Accordingly Air quality

has the highest weight of 24% and Urban Heat Island Effect has the lowest of 16%. The other

three indicators all have 20%.

217
 Table 9.3: Statistical data for weighting the ‘environmental quality’ indicators
‘Environmental Quality’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Air Quality 41 3 5 4.756 0.663
Acoustic Quality 40 2 5 4.073 0.932
Urban Heat Island Effect 39 1 5 3.316 0.904
Conservation of Water Bodies 40 2 5 4.125 0.911
Conservation of Wetlands and Habitats 40 1 5 3.975 0.999

air quality

20%
24% acoustic quality

urban heat island effect

20%
20% conservation of water body

16% conservation of wetland and

habitats

Figure 9.4: Weights assigned to ‘environmental quality’ indicators by both groups

The weights assigned by the planner group and the general expert group are nearly exactly the

same (Table 9.4). The both cases, the highest weight is given to Air Quality; the lowest weight

is given to Urban Heat Island Effect, and all other indicators are given a medium weight. It is

interesting to note that all participants in the planner group give maximum importance to the

issue of Air Quality. This is the only indicator on which all participants in a group give the

same level of scoring.

Table 9.4: Weights assigned to ‘environmental quality’ indicators by different groups

Indicator/ Air quality Acoustic Urban heat Conservation Conservation
Group quality island effect of water bodies of wetland and
habitats
Both groups 24% 20% 16% 20% 20%
Planners 23% 21% 16% 20% 20%
Researchers 24% 20% 17% 21% 19%

If 50% or more of the participants think a measure is useful and available, it will be accepted

as an effective measure for the indicator. In other words, a 50% agreement vote is needed for
218
a measure to be selected. If more than one measure is selected, points are given evenly to

each of the measures. For example, if both of the measures ‘shaded area’ and “green space

and open water area” within the indicator Urban Heat Island Effect are singled out by the

participants, the points assigned to the indicator will be evenly distributed between the two

measures. In case there is no measure selected, the measure with the highest positive

respondent rate will be singled out. The measures selected by the two focus groups are shown

in Table 9.5.

It is noteworthy that two participants, both from the planners’ group, suggest that the quality

of landscaping should be included in this principle. Attractive landscaping (open water, trees,

green space, fountains, etc) will increase resident satisfaction and reduce the urban heat island.

This concern is partially addressed in Indicator 6 ‘access to public places’ and Indicator 13

‘urban integration’ in the next part of the questionnaire.

Table 9.5: Measures selected for ‘environmental quality’ indicators

Indicators Measures
Indicator 1: Air quality 1a) does the API reported from the nearest air
monitoring station meet the standard?
2a) does noise level of the adjacent traffic meet
Indicator 2: Acoustic quality standards?
2b) does noise level of the area on average meet
standards?
3a) is there green space in the SRD?
Indicator 3: Urban heat island effect 3b) is there open water area in the SRD?
3c) is there continuity of open spaces?
3d) is there green roof and walling planting area?
4a) is there wastewater discharging into the natural
Indicator 4: Conservation of water bodies water body?
4b) is there purification facility onsite and does the
treated wastewater meet the standards?
5a) are the habitats and wetland identified by the EIA
properly conserved?
Indicator 5: Conservation of wetland and habitats 5b) is there consideration for maintaining the
pre-development terrain?
5c) is there investigation of flora and fauna conducted
as part of the project EIA
Note: API: Air Pollution Index; EIA: environmental impact assessment

219
9.3.2 Principle 2: Providing social neighbourhood layout and facilities

This part of the questionnaire aims to evaluate diverse issues that relate to neighbourhood

layout and community facilities. There are 8 individual indicators addressed in this principle,

including (1) proximity to school, (2) access to public place, (3) access to daily-use stores and

facilities, (4) universal accessibility, (5) walkable streets, (6) community involvement, (7)

safety in public areas, (8) urban integration. Each of them consists of several measures.

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators within the principle area are

shown in Table 9.6. Generally, all indicators score between “neutral” and “very important”.

The indicator of safety achieves the highest score, followed by access to daily-use stores and

facilities. The indicator of urban integration gains the lowest score, only slightly above the

level of neutral.

The weights assigned to each of the indicators can be seen in Figure 9.5. Accordingly safety

and access to daily-use stores and facilities have the highest weight of 14%, followed by

proximity to school with 13%. The indicator of urban integration has the lowest of 11%.

Table 9.6: Statistical data for weighting the ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators
‘Social Neighbourhood’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Proximity to school 41 2 5 4.098 0.944
Access to public place 41 2 5 3.854 0.823
Access to daily-use stores and facilities 41 3 5 4.195 0.601
Universal accessibility 41 3 5 3.805 0.843
Walkable streets 41 2 5 3.634 0.662
Community involvement 41 2 5 3.707 0.814
Safety in public areas 41 2 5 4.244 0.830
Urban integration 41 1 5 3.317 1.012

220
 12% 13% proximity to school
access to public place
access to facilities
12% 12%
universal accessibility
walkable streets
12% community involvement
14%

Figure 9.5: Weights assigned to ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators by both groups

The weights assigned by the planner group and the researcher group are slightly different

(Table 9.7).The major divergences between the two groups include: (1) access to public place

is given the highest weight in the researcher group in contrast to the lowest in the planner

group. (2) community involvement is given the second highest score in the planner group in

contrast to the second lowest weight in the researcher group.

Table 9.7: Weights assigned to ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators by different groups

Indicator/ School Public Daily Universal Walkable Community Safety Urban
Group place facilities accessibility Streets involvement integration
Both 13% 12% 14% 12% 12% 12% 14% 11%
groups
Planners 13% 11% 13% 13% 12% 13% 14% 11%
Researchers 13% 14% 14% 12% 12% 11% 13% 10%

The effective measures selected by the participants are shown in Table 9.8.

221
 Table 9.8: Measures selected for ‘social neighbourhood’ indicators
Indicators Measures
Indicator 6: Proximity to school 6a) is there a kindergarten within 600m walking
distance?
6b) is there a primary school within 600m walking
distance?
Indicator 7: Access to public place 7a) is there a park, green plaza or square of at least
700m2 area within 600m walking distance?
Are the following amenities within 600m walking
Indicator 8: Access to daily-use stores and facilities distance?
8a) supermarket 8b) food market 8c) bank 8d)
sport facility 8e) restaurant 8f) library 8g)
hospital 8h) children’s playground
Indicator 9: Universal accessibility 9a) are there barricade-free facilities for disabled and
elderly people?
Indicator 10: Walkable streets 10a) is an active frontage created?
10b) are there speed limits and traffic calming measures
taken within the SRD?
10c) are there continuous sidewalks along both sides of
streets within the SRD?
11a) are there community facilities or open spaces as
Indicator 11: Community involvement centers for community activity?
11b) are the local community stakeholders consulted
during the planning, design and construction process?
11c) is a resident committee put in place after
occupation?
12a) is the layout plan free of intersections between
Indicator 12: Safety in public areas pedestrians and vehicle movement?
12b) are surveillance cameras and guards provided
through the project site?
12c) are there dead zones or obscured spots that are
hard to see from the surroundings?
13a) does the layout consider scenic axes, continuity
Indicator 13: Urban integration and skyline of the surrounding area?
13b) does the layout consider aesthetic concerns
including wall positioning, color harmonization,
planted trees positioning, and illumination?
13c) does the layout consider connectivity to
surrounding vicinity?

222
Comments

The major comments suggested by the participants include:

(1) Pedestrian-and-vehicle separation should be included as a measure for the indicator of

walkable streets.

The concept of separating pedestrian and vehicle movement involves the separation of

pedestrian ways and vehicle roads. The separation can increase safety. However, as argued by

many researchers, it may also reduce the robustness of the street frontages. The vehicle-only

roads may become “dead zones” because of the loss of pedestrians. Therefore, Xu and Yan

(2008) suggest that a certain level of mix of pedestrians and vehicle movements is more

suitable for Chinese neighbourhood planning. Since this concern is still largely dependent on

the planners’ judgment, it is not considered to be an assessment measurement here.

(3) Disaster sheltering facilities should be included in the issue of “safety in public areas”.

A disaster prevention (or sheltering) facility is an issue addressed in CASBEE-UD, but not

presented in LEED and BREEAM. Generally disaster facilities are planned and constructed

by city governments according to the levels and types of risk, and population distribution.

They are normally not considered at neighbourhood level. Thus, disaster facilities are not

included in this category.

There are also a few minor suggestions such as a theater and hairdressing shop should be

included in access to daily-use stores and facilities, and the distance to a high school should

be addressed in proximity to school. These suggestions are not adopted since neighbourhood

assessment should not address every aspect of people’s life.

223
9.3.3 Principle 3: Providing quality infrastructure

There are three individual indicators within this principle. The three indicators are: (1) quality

of information systems, (2) quality of water and wastewater systems, and (3) quality of waste

disposal facilities. Each of them also uses measures.

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators within this principle is shown

in Table 9.9. All individual indicators score between “neutral” and “very important”. The

weights assigned to the indicators within the principle can be seen in Figure 9.6. Accordingly

water and wastewater systems and waste disposal facilities have the similar weights of 36%

and 35% respectively. The indicator quality of information systems has only 29%.

The weights assigned by the planner group and the researcher group are almost the same

(Table 9.10). The quality of the information systems is considered less important by both

groups.

Table 9.9: Statistical data for weighting the ‘infrastructure’ indicators

‘Infrastructure’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std.Deviation
Quality of information systems 41 2 5 3.805 0.928
Quality of water and wastewater
41 2 5 4.683 0.687
System
Quality of waste disposal facilities 41 3 5 4.512 0.711

information system
29%
35%
water and wastewater
system
waste disposal system

36%

Figure 9.6: Weights assigned to ‘infrastructure’ indicators by both groups

224
Table 9.10: Weightings assigned to ‘infrastructure’ indicators by different groups
Indicator/Group Information systems Water and wastewater Waste disposal facilities
systems
Both groups 29% 36% 35%
Planners 30% 37% 33%
Researchers 29% 35% 36%

The measures selected by the two groups are shown in Table 9.11. Measure 16c in the

questionnaire that is about the establishment of onsite composting facilities is excluded

because participants argue such facilities should not be installed in an SRD because of odor

and sanitary concerns. Wastes should be collected and classified, then sent to a central

composting facility in the city.

Table 9.11: Selected measures for ‘infrastructure’ indicators

Indicators Measures
Indicator 14: Quality of information system 14a) is there high-speed internet connection to the
SRD?
Indicator 15: Quality of water and wastewater system 15a) is there quality potable water supply to the SRD?
15b) does the wastewater discharge to a qualified
municipal treatment plant?
16a) are there drop-off points within the SRD for
potentially hazardous wastes such as paints and
Indicator 16: Waste disposal facilities batteries?
16b) is there recycling station for classification,
collection and storage of material including paper,
cardboard, glass, plastics and metals?
16c) it there compost station for collection and
composting of food wastes?

9.3.4 Principle 4: Providing effective public transport

Five indicators are addressed within this principle. They are: (1) access to public transport; (2)

effectiveness of public transport; (3) transport facilities; (4) reducing car parking; (5) use of

bicycle.

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 9.12.

225
Access to public transport is given the highest score and the score is much higher than those

of other indicators. This reflects that proximity to public transport is considered the most

decisive factor influencing the use of public transport. Effectiveness of public transport,

transport facilities and use of bicycle are considered much less important though they are

scored between “neutral” and “important”.

Table 9.12: Statistical data for weighting the ‘transport’ indicators

‘Transport’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Access to public transport 41 2 5 4.537 0.778
Effectiveness of public transport 41 2 5 3.854 0.853
Transport facilities 41 1 5 3.341 0.855
Reducing car parking 41 1 5 2.805 1.077
Use of bicycle 41 1 5 3.341 0.99

It should be noted that “reducing car parking” is scored below the level of “neutral”. This is

the first individual indicator that is deemed not suitable for China’s situation. This indicator

has been addressed in LEED and BREEAM. The intent of NPD 6 in LEED is to “minimize

the adverse environmental effects of parking facilities”. It requires that “for any

non-residential buildings and multifamily residential buildings that are part of the project,

locate all off-street surface parking lots at the side or rear of buildings, leaving building

frontages and streetscapes free of surface parking lots”, and “Use no more than 20% of the

total development footprint area for surface parking facilities, with no individual surface

parking lot larger than 2 acres”, and “provide bicycle and/or carpool parking spaces

equivalent to 10% of the total automobile parking for each non-residential and multifamily

building on the site” (LEED-ND 2007). Two credits are given to this issue in LEED. The

TRA 8 of BREEAM also requires that a certain percentage of car parking area should be

flexible enough for other uses to be encouraged. The TRA 9 encourages the placement of car

parking restraint measures in neighbourhoods (BREEAM-Communities 2009).

However, the participants in this survey seem not to support the parking limitation measures

in USA and UK. Some of their comments are: (1) the increase of car use and parking area is

inevitable in China. Planning should reflect and adapt to this trend; (2) in China’s SRD, the
226
problem is the shortage of parking area; (3) the planning priority may be the increased use of

underground parking; (4) this issue is not suitable for China’s situation, instead, the issue of

‘access to parking area’ should be addressed. Regarding the issue of reducing parking

footprint, the planner group gives a clearly negative opinion. An averagely of only 2.57 points

are assigned to this issue. The researcher group gives 3.05 points that is slightly higher than

“neutral”. Both of them are aware of the conflict between the rapid growth of private cars and

the shortage of parking area. The divergence between the two groups may reflect the fact that

the planners tend to tolerate the increased use of cars and try to find a way to accommodate

the extra vehicles that they think are inevitable. At the same time as finding a way to increase

the parking area, the planners group also struggles not to consume land beyond a certain level.

Since the issue of car parking has not achieved consensus, it will be excluded from the

assessment checklist. Further research is needed to address the dilemma between the

increased use of cars and land saving, and pollution including GHG reduction. Perhaps the

combination of underground and multi-storey car parking is a way to avoid wasteful at-grade

car parks.

The weights assigned to the ‘transport’ indicators exclude reduce car parking are illustrated in

Figure 9.7. Access to public transport is given the highest weight of 30%, followed by

effectiveness of public transport with 26%. The other two issues are assigned the same weight

of 22%.

access to public transport

22%
30%
effectiveness of public
transport
transport facilities
22%

26% use of bicycle

Figure 9.7: Weighting assigned to the ‘transport’ indicators by both groups

227
The weights allocated by the planner and researcher group are somewhat different (Table

9.13). The planners give more emphasis on encouraging the use of bicycles while the

researchers seem be more inclined to transport facilities. However, both groups think “access

to public transport” and “effectiveness of public transport” are the most important factors in

this area.

Table 9.13: Weights assigned to ‘transport’ indicators by different groups

Indicators/ Access to Effectiveness of Transport Reducing car Use of bicycle
Groups public public facilities parking
transport transport footprint
Both groups 30% 26% 22% 22%
Planners 26% 22% 17% 14% 21%
Researchers 25% 21% 20% 17% 17%

Note: the indicator of “reducing parking footprint” is excluded from the analysis of both groups’ preference

The measures selected by the two groups are shown in Table 9.14. Most measures are

considered suitable except Measure 21b (see Appendix 4) that addresses the bicycle network.

Only 40% of the participants voted for it. The reason given was “a totally separate bike

network is not realistic in China”. Cyclists are used to sharing the road with vehicles; some

places there is a barrier to separate the bike lane and vehicle lanes, some places not”. This

measure thus is excluded from the analysis.

Two comments in the focus group work suggested the safety of bike storage should be

included in use of bicycle. That means the bicycle parking area should be secure and protected

in an SRD. Since there is a very high rate of bicycle theft in China, this suggestion is adopted

in Measure 20b.

228
 Table 9.14: Measures selected for ‘transport’ indicators
Indicators Measures
Indicator 17: Access to public transport 17a) is there bus stop within 400m walk distance?

Indicator 18: Effectiveness of public transport 18a) does a bus arrive in the stop every 10 mins during
daytime?
Indicator 19: Transport facilities 19a) is a safe, well-lit and openly waiting area provided
for bus or train?
19b) are there timetable information and seats
provided?
Indicator 20: Use of bicycle 20a) is there off-street parking area provided for bicycle
parking
20b) is there a sheltered and security space for bicycle
storage?

9.3.5 Principle 5: Improving housing affordability and local economy

Four indicators are addressed in this principle: (1) housing affordability; (2) use of local

labour and resources; (3) creating new jobs; and (4) creating new business complementing

existing ones.

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 9.15.

Housing affordability is given the highest score of 4.525, between “important” and “very

important”, and is close to “very important”. The issue of creating complementing business is

given the second highest score of 3.154, between “neutral” and “important” (and close to

‘neutral’). Both indicators, use of local labor and resources and creating new jobs are scored

between “unimportant” and “neutral”. According to the prescribed selection criteria, these two

issues will be excluded from the final checklist.

It is a little surprising that local planners and researchers give very low emphasis to economic

issues relating to building activities, except for building affordable houses. One comment is

“using local labor & resources or not is a matter determined by the market. It should not be a

burden for developers and contractors if they find more competitive labor and resource

elsewhere”. This reflects a fact that the priorities of the current planning practice in China

have largely excluded socio-economic considerations. The reasons may include:

229
z Technically, land is not privately owned. How to use the land is determined by

governmental officials and professionals in line with the planning regulations. Local

community has little say on this issue. Therefore developers have no incentive to take the

local communities into account.

z Economic consideration (using local labour is also a social issue) is not required by the

planning regulations and thus is not a part of planning decisions.

Table 9.15: Statistical data for weighting ‘economy’ indicators

‘Economy’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Housing Affordability 40 1 5 4.525 0.905

Use of Local Labour and Resource 41 1 5 2.707 1.001

Creating New Jobs 41 1 5 2.902 1.356

Creating New Business Complementing Existing Ones 39 1 5 3.154 0.988

Since only two indicators meet the selection criteria, it is simple to calculate their weights. The

indicator of housing affordability takes up 60% of the total weight while creating complementing

business has 40%. The weights allocated by the planner and researcher group are almost the same

(Table 9.16).
Table 9.16: Weightings assigned to ‘economy’ indicators by different groups
Indicators/ Housing Local labor and Creating new Creating
Groups affordability resources jobs complementing
business
Both groups 60% 40%
Planners 34% 22% 21% 23%
Researchers 34% 19% 23% 24%

Note: “Local labor & resources” and “creating jobs” are excluded from the analysis of both groups’ preference

The available measures are shown in Table 9.17. It should be noted that three comments

suggested the inclusion of a property management fee related to the indicator of housing

affordability. This fee is charged by the property management companies for the services they

provide, which is based on floor area of an apartment. This expense is normally negotiated

between the property management company and the resident committee during which

residents can have an input. It is also very difficult to quantify the fee’s impact on

230
affordability (no benchmarks can be found). Thus, it is not included in the analysis. Further

research is needed to evaluate such impact.

Table 9.17: Measures selected for ‘economy’ indicators

Indicators Measures
Indicator 21: Housing affordability 21a) is there diversity of housing types?
21b) is there diversity of housing size?
Indicator 22: Creating new business complementing the 22) is an economic assessment conducted to examine
existing ones the needs of existing business in the area?

9.3.6 Principle 6: Improving resources and energy efficiency

There are five individual indicators addressed in this principle, which are: (1) use of

brownfield, infill and previously developed land, (2) use of environmentally sound building

materials, (3) use of water, (4) use of energy, (5) generation of renewable energy. It involves

the assessment of major resources & energy input required by construction of SRDs.

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators within the principle area can

be seen in Table 9.18. In general, all indicators are given scores between “neutral” and “very

important”. The indicator of use of energy is given the highest score of 4.366, followed by use

of materials - 4.341, and use of water - 4.244. The indicator of use of land is given the lowest

score of 3.976. It is observed that the score margins between different indicators are relatively

low. The highest score is only 0.35 points greater than the lowest, less than 10%.

Table 9.18: Statistical data for weighting ‘resource and energy’ indicators
‘Resources and Energy’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Use of brownfield, infill and previously developed land 41 1 5 3.976 1.036
Use of environmentally sound building materials 41 2 5 4.341 0.794
Use of water 41 2 5 4.244 0.916
Use of energy 41 2 5 4.366 0.829
Generation of renewable energy 41 1 5 4.049 1.094

231
The weights assigned can be seen in Figure 9.8. Accordingly use of energy and use of

environmentally sound materials have the highest weight of 21%. The issue of use of water is

given a medium weight of 20%, as use of brownfield, infill and previously developed land and

generation of renewable energy are given the lowest weight of 19%. In general, weights

assigned to the indicators are very similar. The weights assigned by the planners group and

the researcher group are almost the same (Table 9.19).

use of land

19% 19%
use of materials

use of water

21% 21%
use of energy

20% generation of renewable

energy

Figure 9.8: Weighting assigned to the ‘resources and energy’ indicators by both groups

Table 9.19: Weights assigned to ‘resource and energy’ indicators by different groups
Indicators/ Use of land Use of Use of water Use of energy Generation of
Groups materials renewable
Both groups 19% 21% 20% 21% 19%
Planners 18% 20% 20% 21% 21%
Researchers 20% 21% 20% 21% 18%

The measures selected by the two focus groups are shown in Table 9.20. There is no

significant comment on the indicators and measures from the participants.

232
 Table 9.20: Measures selected for ‘resource and energy’ indicators
Indicators Measures
Indicator 23: Use of land 23a) does the project use of brownfield, infill or
previously developed land?
Indicator 24: Use of material 24a) is there consideration of the use of materials with
low health impact?
24b) is there consideration of the use of recycled
materials?
24c) is there consideration of the use of low embodied
materials?
Indicator 25: Use of water 25a) is there a greywater recycling system connected
to toilets, baths and washing machines?
25b) is there consideration on water use reduction
through efficient equipment and controls?
25c) use only captured rainwater, recycled wastewater
and recycled greywater for landscaping irrigation
Indicator 26: Use of energy 26a) is there consideration on maximizing the thermal
efficiency of building envelopes?
26b) is there consideration on energy end use
reduction through efficient equipment and controls?
Indicator 27: Generation of renewable energy 27a) is there consideration on minimizing energy
demand through orientation and passive design?
27b) is there onsite renewable energy generation
installation?
27c) are buildings that are not fitted with active solar
devices designed to allow future installation?

9.3.7 Principle 7: Reducing environmental impact on local and global

environment

There are five indicators addressed within this principle, which are: (1) reducing thermal

impact on the adjacent environment, (2) reducing stormwater runoff impact on the local

environment, (3) prevention of air pollution affecting the local, regional and global

environment, (4) prevention of impact on local water bodies and groundwater, (5) prevention

of noise, light, vibration and odor impact on adjacent and local environment. It involves the

assessment of negative impacts on the offsite environment (beyond the SRD boundaries)

attributable to the construction and operation of the SRD.

233
Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators within the principle can be

seen in Table 9.21. In general, all indicators are given scores between “neutral” and “very

important”. The indicators of preventing air pollution, preventing water pollution and

preventing noise and other types of pollution are given similar scores ranked between

“important” and “very important”. The issues of reducing thermal impact and reducing runoff

impact are assigned scores between “neutral” and “important”. The highest score is given to

preventing air pollution with 4.244, while the lowest is given to reducing runoff impact with

3.537.

Table 9.21: Statistical data for weighting ‘environmental impact’ indicators

‘Environmental Impact’ Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Reducing thermal impact on
41 2 5 3.585 0.741
adjacent environment
Reducing stormwater runoff impact on
41 1 5 3.537 1.002
local environment
Preventing air pollution affecting local,
41 2 5 4.244 0.943
regional and global environment
Preventing impact on local water
41 2 5 4.22 0.759
bodies and groundwater
Preventing noise, light, vibration and odor
41 2 5 4.22 0.936
impact

The weights assigned to the indicators within this principle can be seen in Figure 9.9.

Accordingly preventing air pollution has the highest weight of 22%, followed by preventing

water pollution and preventing noise and other types of pollution, both at 21%. Weights given

to reducing thermal impact and runoff impact are relatively low, both at 18%. Greater

significance is given to the issues of urban heat island and stormwater runoff impacts in the

international systems but this may reflect the particular features of Guilin which has a mild

climate, evenly distributed precipitation, and sound stormwater infrastructure. The weights

assigned by the planners group and the researcher group are almost the same (Table 9.22).

234
 reducing thermal impact

21% 18%
reducing runoff impact

preventing air pollution

18%
21% preventing water pollution

22% preventing noise, light,

vibration and odor

Figure 9.9: Weights assigned to the ‘environmental impact’ indicators by both groups

Table 9.22: Weightings assigned to ‘environmental impact’ indicators by different groups

Indicators/ Reducing Reducing Preventing air Preventing Preventing
Groups thermal impact runoff impact pollution water pollution noise and other
pollution
Both groups 18% 18% 22% 21% 21%
Planners 18% 18% 22% 21% 21%

Researchers 18% 18% 20% 22% 22%

The measures selected by the two focus groups are shown in Table 9.23. All measures are

considered suitable to Guilin’s situation. There is no significant comment on the issues and

measures from the participants.

9.3.8 Principle 8: Maintaining site ecology

There are five indicators addressed in this area: (1) acquisition of green certificate (e.g. an

SRD or part of an SRD is successfully certificated by a green rating system); (2) construction

management program; (3) avoidance of site disturbance; (4) reduction of construction waste,

and (5) energy and water saving in construction process. It involves the assessment of

negative impacts during the construction process of the SRD.

235
 Table 9.23: Measures selected for the ‘environmental impact’ indicators
Indicators Measures
28a) is there consideration on building group layout to
avoid blocking wind in summer?
Indicator 28: Reducing thermal impact 28b)is there consideration on positioning of air
conditioning heat discharge
28c) is there consideration on roofing, cladding and
paving materials?
29a) is there permeable paving, percolation sumps,
percolation trenches and outdoor spaces that allow rain
percolation?
Indicator 29: Reducing stormwater runoff impact 29b) is there consideration on roofs designed to
harvesting rain water?
29c) is there a flood risk assessment conducted to
minimize the peak runoff rate to watercourses and other
receiving bodies?
30a) are there source control measures?
Indicator 30: Preventing air pollution 30b) is there consideration on use of plants for
atmospheric purification such as CO2 sequestration?
31a) is there restriction on the pumping of
groundwater?
Indicator 31: Preventing water pollution 31b) if any potential source of water pollution identified
within the project site such as vehicle maintenance area
and waste disposal area, are there counter-measures
being installed?
32a) is there any noise source identified and treated?
32b) is there any light pollution source identified and
Indicator 32: Preventing noise, light, vibration and treated?
odor impact 32c) is there any vibration source identified and treated?
32d) is there any odor source identified and treated?

Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 9.24. In

general, all indicators are given scores between “neutral” and “very important”. The indicator

of avoidance of site disturbance is given the highest mean score of 4.293, followed by energy

and water saving in construction process and reducing construction waste, with 4.098 and

4.024 respectively. The other two indicators are slightly lower than 4, with 3.974 and 3.725

respectively.

236
 Table 9.24: Statistical data for weighting ‘site ecology’ indicators
Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Acquisition of green certificate 39 2 5 3.974 0.843
Construction management program 40 2 5 3.725 0.938
Avoidance of site disturbance 41 3 5 4.293 0.844
Reduction of construction waste 41 2 5 4.024 0.851
Energy and water saving in construction process 41 2 5 4.098 0.831

The weights assigned to the indicators by all participants can be seen in Figure 9.10. The

weights assigned to each of the indicators are quite close. Accordingly avoidance of site

disturbance has the highest weight of 21%, while construction management program has the

lowest weight of 19%. The other three indicators all have the same weight of 20%.

acquisition of green certificate

20% 20% construction management

program
avoidance of site disturbance

20% 19%
reducing construction waste

21% energy and water saving

Figure 9.10: Weighting assigned to the ‘site ecology’ indicators by both groups

The weights assigned by the two groups are also alike (Table 9.25). Both the planner group

and researcher group give the highest weight to avoidance of site disturbance, and give the

lowest weight to construction management program. In general, the weights assigned to each

indicator by the two groups are very close.

The measures selected by the two focus groups are shown in Table 9.26. All measures are

considered suitable for local situation. Group comments are focused on the definition of

“green building certificate”. The participants hope to know what building eco-label is suitable

for the case study city.

237
 Table 9.25: Weightings assigned to ‘site ecology’ indicators by different groups
Indicators/Groups Acquisition of Construction Avoidance of Reduction of Saving energy
green management site construction and water in
certificate program disturbance waste construction
Both groups 20% 19% 21% 20% 20%
Planners 20% 19% 21% 19% 21%
Researchers 20% 18% 21% 21% 20%

Table 9.26: Measures selected for ‘site ecology’ indicators

Indicators Measures
Indicator 33: Acquisition of green certificate 33a) is the construction company certificated by a green
certificate such as ISO14001?
33b) is there any building certificated by a green
building labeling system?
Indicator 34: Construction management program 34a) is there a construction environmental management
program in place?
Indicator 35: Avoidance of site disturbance 35a) is there consideration on outflow of mud and
turbid water?
35b) is there consideration on noise and vibration?
35c) is there consideration on ecosystem conservation?
35d) is there consideration on scenic appearance?
Indicator 36: Reduction of construction waste 36a) is there consideration on reducing the generation
of construction waste?
36b) is there consideration on sorting and recycling of
construction waste?
36c) is there consideration on reuse of construction site
soil?
Indicator 37: Energy and water saving in construction 37a) are there measures to reduce energy use in
process construction process?
37b) are there measures to reduce water use in
construction process?

9.3.9 Principle 9: Providing sustainability management

There are four indicators addressed in this principle, which are: (1) development user guide;

(2) community facility management; (3) transport demand management; and (4) a

management system for operational energy and water usage. It focuses on post-occupation

management.

238
Descriptive statistics of the relative importance of the indicators can be seen in Table 9.27. In

general, all indicators are given scores between “neutral” and “very important”. The

indicators of community facility management and operational management are given the

scores between “important” and “very important”. The other two indicators are given scores

between “neutral” and “important”.

The weights assigned to the indicators can be seen in Figure 9.11. The indicator, community

facility management is assigned the highest weight of 27%, followed by operational energy &

water management (26%) and user guide at 24%. Transport management is given the lowest

weight of 23%.

Table 9.27: Statistical data for weighting ‘sustainable management’ indicators

Indicators N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Development user guide 40 1 5 3.65 1.075
Community facility management 41 3 5 4.244 0.799
Transport demand management 40 2 5 3.6 0.928
Operational energy and water management system 40 2 5 4.075 0.797

user guide
26% 24%
community facility
management
transport demand
management
23% 27% operational management

Figure 9.11: Weights assigned to the ‘sustainable management’ indicators by both groups

Both the planner group and researcher group give the highest weights to community facility

management and operational management (Table 9.28). However, the planners give more

weight to development user guide than transport management. The order is reversed in the

researcher group.
239
Table 9.28: Weightings assigned to ‘sustainable management’ indicators by different groups
Indicators/Groups Development user Community Transport demand Operational
guide facility management management
management
Both groups 24% 27% 23% 26%
Planners 25% 27% 22% 26%
Researchers 22% 28% 24% 26%

The measures selected by the two focus groups are shown in Table 9.29. All measures are

considered suitable to the local situation. There are no comments suggested by the

participants.

Table 9.29: Measures selected for ‘sustainable management’ indicators

Indicators Measures
Indicator 38: SRD user guide 38a) is there guidance provided to the residents
including information such as energy and water
conservation tips, etc.?
Indicator 39: Community facility management 39a) does the SRD have provision for community
management of facilities, open space, grey water
scheme, meeting places, etc.?
Indicator 40: Transportation demand management 40a) is there a transportation program with reduction
targets?
40b) is there a system for monitoring improvement
toward the targets?
Indicator 41: Management system for operational 41a) are there reduction targets for the use of energy
energy and water usage and water?
41b) is there a system for monitoring improvement
toward the targets?

9.4 Selection of the Most Important Indicators

This question requires the participants to select the most important five indicators from the

indicator list, no matter what sustainability principles they are grouped in. There are in total

39 questionnaires that properly address this question. Twenty are from the planner group and

19 from the researcher group. The results are shown in Table 9.30. This table indicates that

there is a certain level of convergence. Though there is slight difference in the order of

importance in different groups, only 7 out of the 44 initial indicators are considered to be

240
particularly important by the respondents in the two groups.

The most important indicators voted by both groups are (in order of importance):

1. Indicator 1: air quality;

2. Indicator 22: housing affordability;

3. Indicator 17: access to public transport;

4. Indicator 8: access to daily-use stores and facilities;

5. Indicator 2: acoustic quality; and Indicator 15: quality of water and wastewater system.

Table 9.30: Statistical presentation of the selection of the most important five indicators
Indicators Most 2nd most 3rd most 4th most 5th most
important important important important important
indicator indicator indicator indicator indicator

Both groups Indicator 1 Indicator 22 Indicator 17 Indicator 8 Joint by

Indicator 2 and
Indicator 15
Planners Indicator 1 Joint by Indicator 8 Indicator 2 Indicator 15
Indicator 17 Indicator 27
and Indicator 22
Researchers Indicator 1 Indicator 22 Joint by Joint by Indicator 27
Indicator 8 and Indicator 2 and
Indicator 15 Indicator 17
Note: Joint indicators refer to indicators that have the same vote.

There is a slight different in the order of importance between the planners and the researchers.

For example, Indicator 17 is ranked the second most important in the planner group but is

considered the fourth in the researcher group. Indicator 15 is considered the third important in

the researcher group but is ranked only the fifth in the planner group. However, it seems the

convergence is greater than the divergence. Both of them consider Indicator 1, 22, 8, 2 and 27

are amid the most important issues, in an order from high to low.

The selected most important indicators are generally given the highest weight in the principle

they are grouped in. These important indicators could be considered as compulsory

241
requirements in the design of a rating system. However, this interpretation is not adopted in

this study because prerequisites need underpinning of very reliable benchmarks, and may also

exclude certain types of neighbourhoods from the assessment system. Establishing

prerequisites needs more detailed research and this would be one of the priorities for future

work.

9.5. Creating Sustainability Profiles

This chapter has developed an SRD rating system for the case study city, which consists of

nine principles, 41 indicators and 95 measures. The next step is to apply this system to the

two case study SRDs and then to create a sustainability profile for them.

9.5.1. Defining the sustainability profile

The sustainability profile will describe the sustainability position of an SRD by aggregating

the weighted scores from the indicators to the principles (assessment categories), then to an

overall sustainability score. The sustainability profile appears as a ‘radar’ chart that reflects

distance to sustainability, which is on a scale between 0 and 3. Such a scale is referred to as

the scoring design of the rating system, which includes the following considerations:

z Each individual indicator has three credits available (this is similar to

BREEAM-Communities). The credits are evenly divided by the number of measures. For

example, if there are two available measures within an individual indicator, 1.5 points

will be assigned to each measure.

z The score of each indicator will be then multiplied against the corresponding weight to

provide the weighted score available for that particular indicator.

z The scores of each of the indicators within a sustainability principle are then added

together to give the score of the principle, which is then multiplied against the

corresponding weight of the principle.

z The overall score of the SRD will be obtained by aggregating the weighted score of each

242
 principle. It would be a number between 0 and 3.

Besides producing an overall score for the SRD, the scores of each sustainability principle are

presented on the radar chart to indicate the distance to sustainability of each principle.

9.5.2 Scoring the case study SRDs

The scores for the principles and the overall sustainability of the two case study SRDs are

shown in Table 9.31, and the details of the scoring process is described in Appendix 5.

As noted earlier, scoring starts when points are assigned to the measures. Then each

indicator’s score can be obtained by summing up the points of its constituent measures. The

scores at indicator level are aggregated to a principle score by multiplying the corresponding

weights, and finally an overall score is obtained by aggregating the weighted scores of all

principles.

Table 9.31: Overall sustainability scores of the SRDs and their distributions
Principles Scores of SRD 1 Scores of SRD 2

Environmental quality (13% weight) 2.14 2.38

Social neighbourhood (11% weight) 0.793 1.833

Infrastructure (12% weight) 1.95 1.95

Transport (12% weight) 2.01 0.66

Economy (10% weight) 0.9 1.8

Resources and energy (12% weight) 1.285 0.715

Environmental impact (9% weight) 1.95 2.13

Site ecology (9% weight) 1.6 1.6

Sustainability management (12% weight) 0.81 0.81

Overall SRD sustainability score 1.502 1.523

Some data sources were used to assign points to the measures, mainly including the

environmental impact assessment (EIA) report, site observation and interview with the

developers, contractors, designers and SRD managers. The EIA report for an SRD
243
development was required by the law before a construction approval was issued. EIA was a

policy instrument in China to evaluate potential environmental impact generated by an

industrial or construction project, typically focusing on the alteration of natural environment

and potential atmospheric emissions (including particulate matter 10, SO2 and NOx), and

waterborne pollutants (including chemical oxygen demand and suspended solids). Thus, EIA

was a data source that presented the pre-development environmental conditions. For the

post-construction conditions, site observations were conducted to investigate measures such

as distance to the nearest supermarket (Measure 8a) and bank (Measure 8c), and continuous

sidewalks (Measure 10c). For some other measures, such as the high-speed internet

connection (Measure 14a) and measures relating to the original development strategy and

design concept (e.g. Measure 9a, 22a, and 25b), interviews with the relevant persons (e.g.

designers, contractors) were carried out in order to assign points to these measures. The data

sources for scoring the measures are given in Appendix 5.

9.5.3. The sustainability profile of the case study SRDs

As shown in Table 9.31, SRD 2 has an overall sustainability score of 1.523, which is slightly

higher than that of SRD 1 which is 1.502. SRD 1 performs better in the principles of

‘transport’ and ‘resources & energy’. SRD 2 performs better in the principles of

‘environmental quality’, ‘social neighbourhood’, ‘economy’, and ‘environmental impact’.

They achieve the same scores in the principles of ‘infrastructure’, ‘site ecology’ and

‘sustainability management’. If roughly dividing the assessment results into three categories,

i.e. unsustainable (scoring between 0 and 1), conventional practice (scoring between 1 and 2)

and sustainable (scoring between 2 and 3), both case studies are classified into the category of

‘conventional practice’. Since the two SRDs were built around the same time under identical

planning and construction codes, the similarity of scores is hardly surprising and at the same

time representing the sustainability level that can be expected from current SRD practices in

the case study city.

Based on the Table 9.31, a sustainability profile depicting the distance of each SRD to
244
sustainability can be drawn on a scale of 0 and 3. The sustainability profiles report at the level

of principles (see Figure 9.12).

Environmental
quality
3
Sustainable Neighbourhood
management 2 layout

1
Site ecology Infrastructure SRD 1
0
SRD 2
Environmental
Transport
impacts
Resource and
Economy
energy

Figure 9.12: Sustainability profile of the case study SRDs

As discussed in section 3.3.4, assessment tools are all designed for internal comparison

between buildings scored under the system, rather than comparisons of buildings appraised

under different systems. It should be noted vastly different results could be obtained if

different rating systems are applied to the same neighbourhood. For example, using

LEED-ND may generate scores in which SRD 1 could be slightly better than SRD 2 and

applying CASBEE-UD may give the reverse order. This is because the criteria and their

weights vary across rating systems. Here again, the purpose of this research is not to develop

an unblemished rating system but to prove the proposed framework (a union of two

assessment approaches) can produce more information which is useful for decision-making.

9.6. Summary

This chapter has developed a regionally specific SRD rating system for the case study city. It

has three hierarchical levels, i.e. principles, indicators, and measures. An initial model set of

indicators, which was derived from the current neighbourhood rating systems, has been

examined by local planners and researchers in the case study city with regard to the local
245
context. The survey results indicate that nine principles, 41 indicators and 95 measures were

considered suitable to evaluate the SRD sustainability performance in the case study city.

A set of weighting coefficients has been established for this system. Weights are assigned to

each of the principles and individual indicators based on the opinions derived from the expert

surveys. With this organized structure, the state of sustainability of the case study SRDs can

be ascertained by multiplying scores and the weights allocated to the assessment levels.

The SRD sustainability profile is illustrated by a radar chart that reflects distance to

sustainability, which is on a scale between 0 and 3. The sustainability profile presents an

overall score for the SRD, as well as reports the performance of each sustainability principle.

The application of the rating system to the case study SRDs indicates that SRD 2 is slightly

more sustainable than SRD 1. Both can be classified as ‘conventional practice’ developments.

The sustainability profile shows that SRD 1 performs well in ‘transport’ principle while SRD

2 performs well in ‘social neighbourhood’ and ‘environmental quality’ principles. By

combining the sustainability profile and the energy & carbon profile, more decision

opportunities can be generated. This will be discussed in the next chapter.

246
 Chapter 10: Conclusions

This research has proposed a new framework for neighbourhood sustainability assessment,

which consists of an LCA energy & carbon accounting and a neighbourhood rating system.

This framework has been tested in the two SRDs and the testing led to creation of an energy

& carbon profile and a sustainability profile for the case studies. In this chapter, the benefits

of the new framework will be summarized together with the main findings of the diagnostic

analysis which was applied to the two SRDs. It will focus on exploring what information can

be generated by combining these two profiles, and how the information can aid the decision

process. Based on the twofold outcomes of the research, the contributions to knowledge are

then highlighted. The inadequacies of this research and future research paths are also explored.

It is concluded that using multiple assessment methods at the neighbourhood scale,

qualitatively and quantitatively, can provide more decision-making information for planners,

designers, owners and managers.

10.1 Introduction

The aim of this research was to test the hypothesis that using multiple assessment approaches,

qualitatively and quantitatively, could provide more information for sustainability

decision-making at neighbourhood level.

Five research objectives were proposed in Chapter 1. The first objective focused on general

theories and practices that underlie neighbourhood BE sustainability and influence their

effectiveness. In Chapter 2 general sustainability theories and definitions were explored.

Based on this, three general sustainability core values were discussed. By combining the

sustainability core values and neighbourhood BE characteristics, nine neighbourhood

sustainability principles were proposed. These sustainability core values and neighbourhood

sustainability principles constitute the theoretical underpinning for this research. This chapter

has also developed a suite of issues that should be addressed in the sustainability assessment
247
process at neighbourhood level.

The second research objective focused on how the neighbourhood BE is currently being

assessed. In Chapter 3 and 4 respectively, qualitatively based building rating systems and

quantitatively based material & energy accounting methods were reviewed. In these chapters

it was concluded that neither approach can adequately address the neighbourhood

sustainability. The building rating systems cannot address the life-cycle environmental

impacts of a neighbourhood, as well as the real values of such impacts. The material & energy

accounting methods, on the other hand, cannot effectively deal with many social, spatial and

site-specific concerns. However, in tandem, they seem to complement one another.

Based on the previous literature review, a hypothesis was proposed in Chapter 5 that a

combination of multiple approaches may generate better quality and more decision-making

opportunities than using each system alone. The third research objective was then achieved by

conceptualizing an assessment framework which consists of a regionally specific

neighbourhood rating system and an LCA energy & carbon accounting.

China’s SRD was selected as the case study for testing the working of the proposed

assessment framework. The fourth research objective then focused on exploring the way in

which the ‘absolute’ value of material & energy flows and the ‘relative’ value of the state of

sustainability can be monitored and measured. In Chapter 6, the overall BE in China and the

features of Chinese SRD were reviewed. In Chapter 7, the methods used to collect data for the

case study research were described. Chapter 8 conducted life-cycle energy & carbon

accounting for the two case study SRDs, which created a life-cycle energy & carbon profile.

The regionally specific neighbourhood rating system was developed and then applied to the

two SRDs in Chapter 9, which generated a SRD sustainability profile.

The fifth research objective was to identify the opportunities for improving decision-making

quality. By analyzing both the energy & carbon profile and the sustainability profile of the

two case studies in Chapter 10, it is proposed that the new assessment framework can provide
248
more decision-making opportunities for different stakeholders, such as housing buyers, urban

managers, planners and designers. The contributions to knowledge are also described in this

chapter.

10.2 Major Research Findings

As noted earlier, the proposed framework has used two assessment approaches. The results

lead to a sustainability profile as well as an energy & carbon profile for the case study SRDs:

z The neighbourhood rating system can present a sustainability profile for the SRDs

investigated, because it covering social, economic and environmental dimensions. It conducts

the assessment in a qualitative and subjective way by aggregating an overall sustainability

score for the SRDs.

z The LCA energy & carbon accounting presents a life-cycle energy & carbon profile of

the case studies, because it analyses material and energy flows, and the related carbon

emissions during the construction and operation of the SRDs. It conducts the assessment in a

quantitative and objective way by calculating the real values of such flows and emissions.

The neighbourhood rating system has a hierarchical structure that allows aggregation to occur.

To make aggregation possible, it proposes for each indicator and principle a weight, which

finally leads to an overall sustainability score for the SRD reviewed. The sustainability profile

is presented in the form of a “sustainability scale”, which indicates the distance each of the

assessment categories (i.e. principles) from sustainability. If needed, an SRD profile could

be presented on the basis of the 41 indicators selected. However, aggregation on the basis of

sustainability principles seems to be given more readable results.

The energy & carbon accounting analysis, on the other hand, aims at giving a calculation for

the SRD in terms of material & energy consumption and carbon emissions. A number of

figures and tables forming the case studies’ energy and carbon profiles have been presented in

Chapter 8, which are recapitulated as follows:

249
z Overall energy consumption and carbon emissions that are presented in terms of GJ and

tonnes CO2 per m2 residential construction area and per capita.

z Distribution of energy consumption and carbon emissions in different life stages (Figures

8.4 and 8.5): pre-occupation (manufacturing of materials, conveyance, construction

process) and post-occupation (housing decoration, maintenance, operation, traffic).

Generally, the first stage is under control of planners and designers, while the second is

under the control of property owners and SRD management companies.

z Distribution of embodied energy (Figure 8.6 and 8.7): manufacturing, transport and

construction; different construction materials.

z Distribution of different energy types (Figure 8.8): electricity, gas and water.

z Distribution of different transport means (Figure 8.9 and 8.10): buses, motorbikes and

private cars.

z Distribution of energy and carbon emissions in different parts of the SRD (Figure 8.11):

residential buildings, community buildings, commercial buildings and open space.

Again, the application of the proposed assessment framework to the case studies has provided

two sets of data: one is qualitatively based, addressing the full range of sustainability. The

other is quantitatively based, examining material & energy flows and related emissions. The

framework’s application to the two SRDs and the results of the comparative analysis are

presented in the following section. They add weight to the view that simultaneous use of both

assessment elements can significantly improve decision-making quality for various

stakeholders.

10.3. Diagnostic Findings

10.3.1 Review of Case Study Performance

The case study research indicates that SRD 2 has an overall sustainability score of 1.523,

which is slightly better than SRD 1 of 1.502. Both are considered within the category

250
‘conventional practice’. SRD 2 appears to be a little more sustainable than SRD 1. However,

from a life-cycle perspective, the residents of SRD 2 on average will consume more energy

and emit more carbon. The annualized energy and carbon footprint per resident of SRD 2 are

17 GJ and 2.59 tonnes respectively, compared to 14.1 GJ and 2.17 tonnes of SRD 1. In

addition, SRD 2 has more open space and community facilities, so the total pre-occupation

energy divided by the total residential construction area is higher (the construction

technologies would be equivalent given the SRDs were completed in the same city and at a

similar time). SRD 2 consumes 4.48 GJ energy and emits 0.66 tonnes CO2 in order to

construct one m2 residential area, in contrast to 4.25 GJ and 0.62 tonnes for SRD 1. This

reflects that a good performance in a qualitative neighbourhood sustainability rating system

may not be illustrative of its actual environmental impact. This is because:

z The rating system addresses only neighbourhood performance without considering the

residents’ interactions with the environment, e.g. travel between home and work, life

styles.

z Increased social sustainability (e.g. providing more community facilities and open space)

needs more resource and energy input to support it.

10.3.2 Labelling the case study SRDs

In order to generate more information for potential buyers, the results of both assessment

approaches can be used for labelling purposes. Assuming that SRD 1 is a newly completed

development, it can be labelled by the union of a sustainability rating score of 1.502 (or the

rating level as conventional practice), and a pre-occupation carbon emissions figure of 0.62

tonnes CO2 per m2 residential construction area (developing benchmarks to help interpret the

labelling level would be more preferable for general buyers than using absolute values). The

first label indicates the sustainability quality of the SRD as a whole, while the second label

reflects a specific environmental liability which is of global concern at present. Given a 100

m2 apartment in SRD 1, a potential buyer will need to make a trade-off between two sets of

data: a) an overall sustainability rating score of 1.502 (conventional practice), and; b) 62

tonnes CO2 produced in order to construct the apartment.

251
10.3.3 Enhancing the SRDs

Improving the existing urban SRD is limited by many conditions:

z The buildings and open space are already in place thus there is no opportunity to

optimize the embodied materials and energy used for construction.

z There are limited opportunities to change the SRDs’ layout and configuration.

z Infrastructure is generally in place with limited opportunities for change, and;

z Any change to buildings and infrastructure would carry energy and carbon penalties..

However, by analyzing the sustainability profiles of the two case studies, it is possible to see

opportunities for improving neighbourhood performance. SRD 1 performs weakly in the

principles of resource & energy efficiency, sociable neighbourhood, economy and sustainable

management, while SRD2 performs weakly in sustainable management, transport and

resource & energy. In contrast, SRD 1 performs well in transport but weakly in

neighbourhood sociability, the reverse of SRD 2. The life-cycle energy and carbon profiles

(Figure 8.4 and 8.5) reveal that the operational carbon emissions constitute the largest part of

the total emissions, followed by manufacturing of initial construction materials, traffic and

maintenance. The breakdown of energy consumption and carbon emissions by different SRD

components (Figure 8.11) further indicates that the energy use in homes (electricity, water,

and LPG) constitutes the largest part of the total emissions. Regarding energy types,

electricity use is the major source of emission (Figure 8.8). The carbon emissions associated

with running the public area only take up about 2% of the total operational emissions in SRD

1, and about 11% in SRD 2. These findings suggest some priority areas for future

improvement for the case study SRDs, including:

z Reducing emissions from homes in both SRDs.

z Improving neighbourhood social facilities is a priority for SRD 1.

z Improving accessibility to public transport is a priority for SRD 2.

z Reducing emissions from running the public area is also a priority for SRD 2.

252
Suggestions on the possible improvements for the case studies are summarized as follows.

Provision of community facilities for SRD 1

Except for a small central green space, there is neither open space nor indoor community

interactive space within SRD 1. The nearest public park is about 1300m away from the main

entrance of SRD 1. The lack of social facilities is a major concern which will need to be

addressed in order to improve the overall sustainability of SRD 1. Since the SRD is already in

place, it has limited opportunity to change its form and build such facilities within its

boundary. Opportunities may exist for the provision of community facilities such as a park,

gym and playground in the adjacent areas, which do not belong to a particular SRD but which

are shared and accessible by the residents from SRD 1, as well as by other SRDs. Such

‘genuine’ public space can facilitate more interaction between people from different SRDs

and different social contexts than those enclosed by a particular SRD in which the residents

are homogeneous.

Provision of public transport and walkability for SRD 2

Lack of public transport is one of the most urgent concerns for sustainability improvement of

SRD 2. The annualized per capita transport energy consumption and the related CO2

emissions in SRD 2 are 5.42 GJ and 0.39 tonnes respectively, which are 27.5% and 25.8%

higher than SRD 1. This reveals that the residents of SRD 2 are more dependent on the use of

private vehicles. Investigations reveal that 24% of the SRD 2 residents use private cars for

transport and 17% use public bus, while the car users reduce to 16% and bus riders increase to

21% in SRD 1 (see Figure 8.9 and 8.10). The sustainability profile of SRD 2 indicates that it

only scored 0.66 for the ‘transport’ principle due to the lack of public transport accessibility

and effectiveness. Possible improvements can be made by:

z Extending the existing bus operation to the main entrance of SRD 2.

z Improving the bus operation frequencies and conditions in the transition facilities.

z The residents of SRD 2 need to walk about 400m along the river bank before they can
253
 get onto the urban road and then to other attractions. Safety might be a concern because

not many people come down to this area at night. In order to further reduce the use of

private cars, some security measures such as enhancing police patrols should be

considered.

If the number of car users in SRD 2 is reduced to that in SRD 1 (8% lower) by introducing the

above improvements, it means a net reduction of 79500 GJ energy consumption and 5716

tonnes CO2 emissions during the life cycle of SRD 2.

Improving energy and resource performance

The energy and carbon profiles of both case studies indicate that the operational stage

constitutes the largest share of the total SRD emissions, and the residential sector (household

usage) constitutes the largest part of the operational energy and emissions. Among the three

major energy consumption sources, the use of electricity has the greatest life-cycle

environmental impacts. The sustainability profiles show that both SRDs fail to address many

energy and resource indicators such as the installation of energy and water efficient

appliances. SRD 1 achieves 1.285 points in this area and SRD 2 achieves only 0.715.

Opportunities for improvements may exist in:

z Replacing the current bulbs with efficient compact fluorescent bulbs.

z If possible, enhancing the thermal performance in homes (e.g. add roof insulation layer)

to reduce heating and cooling demand.

z Replacing the current taps with water efficient taps.

z Encouraging use of solar for hot water in homes.

z Applying the above measures to the community and commercial sector in SRD 2.

254
10.4 Contributions to knowledge

10.4.1 New framework for improving decision-making quality

Current neighbourhood rating systems, such as LEED-ND and BREEAM-Communities,

cannot adequately address neighbourhood sustainability and provide only limited information

to various stakeholders. The most significant contribution of this research lies in meeting its

aims. The proposed assessment framework allows a fuller measurement of neighbourhood

sustainability by integrating two assessment approaches. It upgrades a non-relevant

neighbourhood rating system (e.g. LEED-ND) to a much more appropriate system and then

allying it with material and energy accounting. Through testing this framework in the case

studies, it proves that it can provide more decision-making opportunities in terms of

neighbourhood labelling, and for existing developments, point to possible refurbishment

needs and future regeneration.

10.4.1.1 Improving the quality of buying decision

One problem regarding current neighbourhood labelling (e.g. LEED-ND) is that eco-labels

themselves include limited or no information describing the basis for the certification so

consumers cannot evaluate the value of the label itself (Scheuer and Keoleian 2002).

Assuming a neighbourhood is assigned a good score in a neighbourhood rating system, for

instance, a ‘Gold’ level in the assessment of LEED-ND, this equates to a high environmental

profile in the housing market and would be attractive to many buyers with environmental

conscience. However, a rating level of ‘Gold’ cannot reveal the actual environmental impact

attributable to the construction of the neighbourhood.

This research proposes and validates another type of neighbourhood labelling, in which the

‘whole neighbourhood’ environmental impact is divided by its net residential construction

area (e.g. tonnes of CO2 emissions per m2 residential construction area). Equipped with this

255
information, a potential housing buyer can easily count the environmental impact generated

not only from the construction of one’s apartment, but also the individual share of the open

area and community facilities.

By using the framework, housing buyers can obtain more information than using a

neighbourhood rating system alone. This will help them to envisage one of the most

significant buying decisions in their lives. The decision will be based on the combined

consideration on the overall sustainability quality the SRD provides and the actual carbon

emissions it produces.

10.4.1.2 Identifying priority areas for future improvement

Current neighbourhood rating systems can present a sustainability rating for an existing

neighbourhood development, and help urban managers (e.g. local governments) to identify

the weak points of a particular neighbourhood and seek possible solutions for improvement.

However, they cannot further pinpoint the priority areas for such improvement. For example,

resource & energy efficiency category was identified as a weak point for both SRD 1 and

SRD 2 by using the neighbourhood rating system. However, using a neighbourhood rating

system alone does not answer questions such as ‘what type of energy consumption should be

given more attention, gas or electricity?’ and ‘what component parts of a neighbourhood

should be given priority, homes or the public area?’ Without the simultaneous use of an LCA

material and energy accounting analysis, it is impossible to further identify the priority areas

for future improvement of the neighbourhood’s resource and energy performance.

In addition, the framework is helpful in evaluating different scenarios for improvement. For

example, lack of community facilities is identified as a weak point for SRD 1. In order to

improve its social sustainability, community facilities need to be built. Possible solutions may

include a) using existing open land within the SRD (if there is any); b) replacing the existing

residential buildings with higher buildings in order to vacate land for community facilities; c)

using land adjacent to the SRD. In any scenario, additional resources and energy are involved,
256
and carbon emissions are produced. Thus, using the framework can help urban managers not

only identify the weak points of a neighbourhood, but also be aware of the environmental

consequences generated by different improvement scenarios.

10.4.1.3 Assisting the planning and design process

As noted in section 3.1.2, Current neighbourhood rating systems are often used as planning

and design tools because they provide a set of organized criteria that planners and designers

can follow (Cole 2005). However, they cannot provide planners and designers with

information about the actual environmental impact of their creations.

The proposed assessment framework can be used to improve the design quality of a

neighbourhood development at an early stage and facilitate comparison between design

solutions. In the case of China’s SRD, the neighbourhood rating system can be used to

evaluate the original SRD designs and then generate a sustainability profile. An initial

estimate of material & energy consumption and the related carbon emissions can be

calculated for the original SRD designs by internally involving construction cost engineers

(the preliminary Bill of Quantities is required in the bidding process according to the current

construction regulation in China). Thus a rough calculation of the pre-occupation energy and

carbon profile for the original designs can be generated. By combining the two assessment

approaches, planners and designers can develop a sustainability profile and an energy &

carbon profile for their work and make comparisons between different design scenarios. It

facilitates the thinking of different scenarios and also of the deficiencies of parts of the

scenarios. By considering both profiles, a trade-off between conflicting interests could be

made such as between the demand of increasing community facilities and open space and the

need of reducing embodied energy, resource consumption, and carbon emissions.

257
10.4.1.4 Improving neighbourhood management

Potentially the assessment framework can be used as an instrument for educational and

management purposes. In the case of China’s SRD, urban managers can present both the SRD

sustainability profile and the energy & carbon profile on a yearly basis. The sustainability

profile presents a sustainability state for the whole SRD while the energy and carbon profile

denotes the individual shares of each household and residents’ contribution to climate change.

By this, households and residents are provided with information that links SRD sustainability

to individual activities, which finally leads to the change of attitude and life style.

The framework can also be used to compare SRDs in a city. Some SRDs may have a better

sustainability profile, but weak energy and carbon performance. Some may have low per

capita carbon emissions but may also suffer from poor social facilities. With better

understanding of SRDs’ unique characteristics, urban managers can propose individual

solutions for different SRDs.

10.4.2 Quantifying the life-cycle energy and carbon profile at SRD level

The calculation of energy consumption and carbon emissions for China’s SRD in this research

represents a pioneering study that quantifies life-cycle material and energy flows of an SRD

in the Chinese context. Currently there is no research found in the literature that has

conducted such calculation at this spatial level, as discussed in Chapter 8. Current studies

have typically used for assessment either the national total building stock or the single

building level. These studies have typically focused on building performance without

consideration of the users’ activities such as travel between home and work. Other concerns

such as interior housing decoration and recurring energy for building maintenance are also

neglected.

The research proposes an analytical methodology by using the data from the BQs and

household surveys to facilitate the calculation. Providing BQs is required by the construction
258
related regulations and codes in China. Using the household survey material is also an

effective way to obtain the operational energy data of the post-occupation stage (such data is

not available at SRD level). The methodology used to quantify the energy and carbon profile

for the case study SRDs is meaningful in that it can be applied to other SRDs in the country

though some modification may be needed.

This research proposes two innovative measurements that present the overall energy and

carbon performance of an SRD. One is used to measure a newly completed SRD, e.g. CO2

emission per m2 residential construction area. This measurement helps an individual buyer to

calculate the total carbon emissions due to the construction of his/her apartment, as well as

the individual share of the public area (community buildings and the open space). The

measurement is potentially powerful and can be developed into a labelling tool. The other

measurement is used to measure life cycle energy and carbon performance for an existing

SRD, e.g. CO2 emissions per resident. It involves quantification of the embodied energy,

operational energy and energy consumed by residents’ activities (e.g. transport between home

and work). This measurement is useful for urban managers to evaluate SRD’s energy and

carbon performance from a life-cycle perspective.

10.4.3 Developing a rating system for SRD sustainability assessment

This research proposes a neighbourhood sustainability rating system, which is comprised of

three layers including nine principles, 41 individual indicators and 95 measures. The nine

sustainability principles are developed on the basis of three sustainability core values, in the

context of neighbourhood built environment. They reflect the original sustainability values as

well as the threads of current neighbourhood practice in the sustainability arena. These

principles were used as the assessment categories for the neighbourhood rating system in this

research and were validated by a group of local planners and researchers.

The research uses an initial set of indicators, which is derived from the current neighbourhood

rating systems. The initial indicators are then adapted through a survey of local stakeholders
259
in order to generate regionally suitable indicators and corresponding weights. Considering

currently there is no effective rating system relating to neighbourhood sustainability

assessment in China, this research provides a set of organised assessment categories

(principles) and individual indicators for SRD assessment. These categories and indicators

can be applied, with minor adaptation, to other Chinese regions where a neighbourhood rating

system is needed.

10.5. Limitations and future research directions

The author has cognized a number of limitations and inadequacies in this thesis, especially in

the case study part. First, LCA energy and carbon accounting aims at calculating all related

activities of an SRD. However, this research has excluded certain energy consumption types,

such as daily used goods and waste treatment, from the assessment due to data availability.

Second, the development of the neighbourhood rating system for the case city is imperfect, as

discussed in Chapter 7. This system has been developed by surveying a group of local urban

planners and researchers which may be insufficient basis for a robust and permanent

assessment tool. The measures proposed in this system are subjectively judged because

currently there are no relevant benchmark data in China. It should be noted that the research

aim of this thesis was not to develop a faultless LCA tool or neighbourhood rating system, but

to prepare a provisional framework and to validate the concept in a practical application.

The author has also recognized a number of future research directions arising from this

research.

First, the proposed assessment framework applies the two assessment approaches separately

to the neighbourhoods, and the application then generates two sets of data, i.e. two

neighbourhood profiles. Future research on integration of the two data sets could be

interesting. Integration has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, some

information may be covered during the process of integration and aggregation. On the other

260
hand, integration would overcome the problem of how to interpret two separate labels that

may be contradictory to a degree, and can generate a clear and unique explanation for the

assessment results.

Second, the assessment framework is flexible enough to accommodate other assessment

methods. For example, water accounting methods could be included in the assessment if

water is a concern, or a household satisfaction survey could be conducted along with the

LCA-based material and energy assessment. The investigation of such multiple approaches,

together with the derivation of reliable material and energy accounting data for the Chinese

built environment, represent important areas for future research.

Third, it is argued in this thesis a more ‘sustainable’ neighbourhood may be less

environmentally friendly from a life-cycle perspective. A further question is about the balance

point between increased living standards (e.g. more car ownership, larger housing size, larger

open space), and energy & carbon efficiency of a neighbourhood. This is largely dependent on

the values of society in general. Further research on this matter would help to establish

benchmarks for determining the sustainability values of neighbourhoods in a particular

context.

Fourth, the calculation of an energy and carbon profile of a Chinese SRD could be

significantly improved by further research in areas in which China-specific data are lacking.

Further research would also involve establishment of a full energy & carbon profile for a SRD

by incorporating energy and emissions relating to daily lives such as consumption of food,

clothing and waste generation.

Fifth, currently there are no benchmarks for measuring many SRD related indicators,

especially in the socio-economic area. These benchmarks can be either developed at national

level, or at regional level and the quantification of the SRD rating system would be more

credible. It is also a need to develop benchmarks to help interpret the labelling level which

would be more preferable for general buyers than using absolute values.
261
Finally, it would be interesting to conduct further research on gated neighbourhoods in other

countries. The physical forms and legal ownerships over the public area may be diverse in the

gated neighbourhoods in different countries. Also the sustainability implications of the gated

neighbourhood as opposed to open communities are deserving of further exploration.

In conclusion, evidence from this research indicates that using multiple assessment methods

at the neighbourhood scale, qualitatively and quantitatively, can significantly improve the

quality of decisions of the various stakeholders. This research also represents one of the most

comprehensive studies to quantify life-cycle energy and carbon flows at Chinese SRD level,

as well as identifying SRD specific assessment categories and indicators.

262
References

Aall C. (2001), Direction analysis: an example of municipal sustainability assessment in

Norway. In Devuyst, D., Hens L., and Lannoy W., (eds.), How Green Is The City? Columbia
University Press pp. 221-247.

Alberti M. (1996), Measuring urban sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessment Review,

volume 16, pp. 381-424.

Ali-Toudert (2008), From green building to sustainable urban settlement: a new assessment
method, PLEA 2008 Conference on Passive and Low Energy Architecture, Dublin, October
2008.

ATHENA website (2010), http://www.athenasmi.org/index.html, accessed 13/09/2010.

Babbie E. (1998), Survey research methods (second edition), Wadsworth Publishing

Company.

Baccini P. and Brunner P.H. (1991), Metabolism of the anthroposphere, Spinger-Verlag.

Barrett J. and Simmons C. (2003), Ecological footprint manual for local authorities,
Stockholm Environment Institute.

Bartuska T. J. (2007), The Built Environment: definition and scope, In: McClure W., Bartuska
T. J., Young G.L. (eds.), The Built Environment: A Collaborative Inquiry into Design and
Planning, Wiley, John & Sons Incorporation.

Basch, C.E. (1987) Focus group interview: an underutilized research technique for improving
theory and practice in health education, Health Education Quarterly, 14(4) pp. 411-448.

Battle G. and McCarthy C. (2001), Sustainable ecosystems, McGraw-Hill, London.

Brandon P., Lombardi P., Bentivegna V. (1997), Introduction. In: P. Brandon P.,
Lombardi P., Bentivegna V. (Eds), Evaluation of the Built Environment for
Sustainability, E&EF Spon, UK, pp. xv-xxiii.

BECC (Building Energy Conservation Centre of Tsinghua University) (2007), China building
energy conservation annual report 2007, China Building Industry Publishing Company (In
Chinese).

BECC (Building Energy Conservation Centre of Tsinghua University) (2009), China building
energy conservation annual report 2009, China Building Industry Publishing Company (In
Chinese).

263
Beijing Daily (2009), http://auto.people.com.cn/GB/1049/9515071.html accessed 10/12/2009.

Bell S. and Morse S. (2003), Measuring sustainability: learning by doing, Earthscan, London.

Bijoux D., Lietz K., and Saville-Smith K., (2007), Measuring neighbourhood sustainability in
New Zealand, World Class Cities, January 2007.

Bijoux D., Lietz K., and Saville-Smith K., (2008). The importance of urban neighbourhoods:
measuring neighbourhood sustainability in New Zealand, Ecocity World Summit 2008
Proceedings.

Blair J. Fisher M., Prasad D., Judd B., Soebarto V., Hyde R., and Zehner R. (2003),
Affordability and sustainability outcomes of ‘Greenfield’ Suburban Development and
Master-planned Communities- a case study approach using triple bottom line assessment,
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

Brandon P.S. and Lombardi P. (2005), Evaluating sustainable development in the built
environment, Blackwell Science, Oxford.

Bray D. (2005), Social space and governance in urban china: the danwei system from origins
to reform, Stanford University Press.

Bray D. (2006), Garden estates and social harmony: a study into the residential planning and
urban governance in contemporary China, The 3rd China Planning Network Conference
Proceeding.

BRE (2002a), Case study report of Beddington Zero Energy Development, Building Research
Establishment,http://www.bioregional.com/news-views/publications/bedzedbestpracticereport
mar02/, accessed 17/08/2008.

BRE (2002b), BedZED-Beddington zero energy development Sutton: general information

report, Energy and Efficiency Best Practice in Housing, www.est.org.uk accessed
18/03/2010.

BREEAM website (2009), http://www.breeam.org/page.jsp?id=203, accessed 12/10/2009.

BREEAM-EcoHome (2006), BREEAM-EcoHome assessor manual, BRE Global Ltd.

BREEAM-Communities (2009), BREEAM-Communities assessor manual, BRE Global Ltd.

BRE Envest website (2010), http://envest2.bre.co.uk/account.jsp, accessed 12/10/2009.

Burnett J. (2007), City buildings: eco-labels and shades of green, Landscape and Urban

264
Planning 83 pp. 29–38.

Carmody J., Trusty W., Meil, J., Lucuik, M. (2007), Life cycle assessment tool for building
assemblies, In Braganca et al (eds.) Portugal SB 07 sustainable construction, materials and
practices, IOS Press 2007.

CASBEE-NC (2008), CASBEE for New Construction: Technical Manual 2008 Edition,
Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation.

CASBEE-UD (2007), CASBEE for Urban Development: Technical Manual 2007 Edition,
Institute for Building Environment and Energy Conservation.

Charlot-Valdieu C. and Outrequin P., (2003), HQE²R: Towards a methodology for sustainable
neighbourhood regeneration, HQE²R Deliverable, CSTB/La Calade.
http://hqe2r.cstb.fr/documents.asp, accessed 20/04/2010.

Chau C.K., Yik F.W.H., Hui W.K., Liu H.C. and Yu. H.K. (2007). Environmental impacts of
building materials and building services components for commercial buildings in Hong Kongˈ
Journal of Cleaner Production 15, pp. 1840-1851.

CEPAS (2006), CEPAS Application Guidelines 2006 Edition, Building Department, HKSAR
Government, http://www.bd.gov.hk/english/documents/index_CEPAS.html.

Chen Y.M and Zhang T.Z., (2005) Analysis of material flow of residential buildings in Beijing,
Journal of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Vol. 22, pp.37-42 (in Chinese).

Chen T.Y., Burnett J., Chau C.K., (2001), Analysis of embodied energy use in the residential
building of Hong Kong, Energy 26, pp.323–340.

China daily (2010), Short-lived buildings create huge waste,

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/06/content_9687545.htm, accessed 06/04/2010.

China Net (2007), Beijing’s bus speed increased 6km per hour,
http://www.china.com.cn/news/txt/2007-08/18/content_8706904.htm, access 06/04/2010.

China Statistical Yearbook (2008), http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjsj/ndsj/2008/indexch.htm.

Cidell J. and Beata A. (2009), Spatial variation among green building certification categories:
Does place matter? Landscape and Urban Planning 91, pp. 142–151.

Cole R.J. (2005) Building environmental assessment methods: Redefining intentions and
roles, Building Research and Information, 35(5), pp. 455-467.

Cole R.J. (2010) Environmental assessment: shifting scales, In Edward Ng (eds) Designing

265
high-density cities for social and environmental sustainability, pp. 273-282, Earthscan
London.

Cooper I. (1999), Which focus for building assessment methods: environmental performance
or sustainability? Building Research and Information, 27 (4/5) pp. 321-331.

Crawford R. H. (2009), Life cycle energy and greenhouse emissions of building construction
assemblies: developing a decision-support tool for building designers,
http://conference.alcas.asn.au/2009/Crawford%20Building%20Construction.pdf, accessed
30/03/2010.

Crawley D. and Aho I. (1999) Building environmental assessment methods: applications and
development trends, Building Research and Information, 27:4, pp. 300-308.

Creswell, J. W. (2003), Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods

approaches (2nd ed.), Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cui Y. J., Hens L., Zhu Y.G., and Zhao J.Z. (2004), Environmental sustainability Index of
Shangdong Province, China, International Journal of Sustainable Development and World
Ecology, 11, 3, pp. 227-233.

Curwell, S. and Cooper, I. (1998) The implications of urban sustainability. Building Research
& Information, 26:1, pp. 17-28.

Dadd M. F. (2008), Carbon footprint assessment using Life Cycle thinking of a Material
Recycling Facility (MRF): NEWS’ MRF as a case Study, Master Thesis, The University of
East Anglia.

Daniell K.A., Kingsborough A.B., Malovka D.J., Sommerville H.C., Foley B.A. and Maier
H.R. (2004), A review of sustainability assessment for housing development, Research Report
N0. R175, The University of Adelaide Australia.

Davison A. (2001). Technology and the contested meanings of sustainability, Albany, USA,
State University of New York Press.

Deng W. and Prasad P. (2010), Quantifying sustainability for the built environmental at urban
scale: a study of three sustainable urban assessment systems, Conference on Sustainable
Building South East Asia, 4-6th, 2010, Malaysia.

Devuyst D. (2001), Linking sustainability assessment to a vision for a sustainable future, in

Devuyst D., Hens L. and Lannoy W. (eds): How green is the city: sustainability assessment
and the management of urban environments. Columbia University Press, New York.

Dijka, M. P. and Zhang M. S., (2005), Sustainability indices as a tool for urban managers,

266
evidence from four medium-sized Chinese cities, Environmental Impact Assessment Review
25, pp. 667– 688.

Downs, A. (1981), Neighborhoods and urban development, Washington, DC: Brookings

Institution.

Dresner S. (2002). The principles of sustainability, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London, UK.

Edwards, B. (2001), Architectural design Vol. 71: green architecture, Wiley-Academy,

London.

EIA (2006), International energy outlook 2006, Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy.

EIA (2008), International energy outlook 2008, Energy Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Energy.

Encarta dictionary (2010), http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary

Encyclopedia dictionary (2010), http://www.encyclopedia.com/

Envest website: http://envest2.bre.co.uk/account.jsp.

Ewing R. and Kreutzer R. (2006), Understanding the relationship between public health and
the built environment: a report prepared for the LEED-ND core committee, US Green
Building Council.

Fahy F. and Cinnéide M., (2007), Developing and testing an operational framework for
assessing quality of life, Environ Impact Asses Review, Vol. 28, Issue 6, pp. 366-379.

Fan N.P., (2006), Construction and evaluation of China’s urban residential life quality,
Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Sciences) Vol. 36, No. 4, pp. 111-117,
(In Chinese).

Fay R., Treloar G., and Lyer-Raniga U. (2000), Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: a case
study, Building Research and Information, 28(1), pp. 31-41.

Fernandez J. (2008), Resource consumption of new urban construction in China, Journal of

Industrial Ecology, Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 99-115.

Field E. (2007), Sustainability: leadership in energy and environmental design and gender
sensitivity, Urban Planning 343, Michigan State University.

Financial Time (2006)

267
http://epub.cnki.net/grid2008/detail.aspx?filename=CJSB20060612C031&dbname=CCND20
06, accessed 10/12/2009

Fink A. (2009), How to conduct survey: a step-by-step guide, SAGE Publications, Inc. USA.

Fischer F. and Hajer M. A. (1999), Living with nature: Environmental politics as cultural
discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

Forsberg A. and Malmborg F.V. (2004), Tools for environmental assessment of the built
environment, Building and Environment 39, pp. 223–228.

Fowler and Rauch (2006), Sustainable rating systems summary, U.S. Department of Energy
by Battelle.

Fridley D. G., Aden N.T., and Zhou N., (2007), China’s building energy use, Environmental
Energy Technologies Division, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA.

Galster G. (2001), On the nature of neighbourhood, Urban Studies, 38: 12, pp. 2111-2124.

GBCA website (2009): http://www.gbca.org.au/green-star/green-star-overview/ Green

Building Council Australia.

Girardet H. (2003), Creating sustainable cities, Green Books, Devon.

Golab, C. (1982), The geography of the neighborhood, in: Bayer R. (Eds.) Neighborhoods in
Urban America, Port Washington: Kennikat, pp. 70–85.

Golley J., Meagher D., and Xin M. (2008), Chinese household consumption, energy
requirements and carbon emissions,
http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~meng/Draft%20May%2012.pdf, accessed 12/05/2010.

Gong Z.Q., and Zhang Z.H. (2004), Quantitative assessment of the embodied environmental
profile of building materials, Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 44(9),
pp. 1209-1213, (In Chinese).

GPCC (2008), http://www.gxcic.net/gxzczx/WebEdit/UploadFile/2008981707667.doc

accessed 10/10/2009.

Graham P. (2004), Building ecology: first principles for a sustainable built environment,
Blackwell Publishing, London.

Green Globes website: http://www.thegbi.org/commercial/about-green-globes/

268
Green Star-Multi Unit Residential (2009), Green Star for multi unit residential, version V1,
Green Building Council Australia.

Gu, D.J., Zhu, Y.X. and Gu, L.J. (2006), Life cycle assessment for China building
environment impacts. Journal of Tsinghua University (Science and Technology), 46(12), pp.
1953–1956, (In Chinese).

Guardian website (2009), http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/07, accessed

08/09/2009.

Guilin EPA (2009), The Gazette of Environmental State of Guilin 2009.

Guilin Statistical Yearbook (2007), Guilin Economic and Social Statistics, China Statistical
Press, (In Chinese).

Guinée, J.B. (2002): Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment – Operational Guide to the ISO
Standards, Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Haq G. and Owen A., (2009), Green Street: The neighbourhood carbon footprint of York,
Stockholm Environment Institute.

Hallman, H. W. (1984) Neighborhoods: their place in urban life. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Hammond G. P. and Jones C. I. (2008), Inventory of carbon and energy (ICE), Beta Version
1.6a, Sustainable Energy Research Team, University of Bath.

Hangzhou Daily (2010), http://www.hangzhou.com.cn/pdf/2006/05/25/mrsb/sb28b(ps).pdf,

accessed 08/05/2010.

Hardi P. and Pinter L. (1995), Models and methods of measuring sustainable development
performance, International Institute for Sustainable Development. Winnipeg, Ont.

Harding R. (2006). Ecologically sustainable development: origins, implementation and

challenges, Desalination 187:229–239.

Haven, J. (2007). Environment Business 129: 27.

Ho P. K.M. (2008), Cost control in the Chinese construction sector, Davis Langdon & Seah
China / Hong Kong Limited,
http://www.dlsqs.com/ice/index.jsp?mod=newsdetails&op=showimgs&nresponse=true&sho
wimgs=1&imgname=433_Cost+Engineering+in+Chinese+Construction+Sector.pdf, accessed
08/03/2010

269
Høyer K. G. and Holden E., (2003), Household consumption and ecological footprints in
Norway: does urban form matter? Journal of Consumer Policy 26, pp. 327–349.

Hubacek K., Guan D., Barrett J., and Wiedmann T., (2009), Environmental implications of
urbanization and lifestyle change in China: Ecological and Water Footprints, Journal of
Cleaner Production 17, pp. 1241–1248.

Huijbregts M.A.J., (2002), Handbook on life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the
ISO standards, Kluwer Acadamic Publishers, Dordrecht.

Humber W. and Soomet T. (2006), The neighbourhood imperative in the sustainable city; In
Mander U., Brebbia C. A., Tiezzi E., (eds.), The sustainable city: urban regeneration and
sustainability, Wit Press, pp. 713-722.

Hyde R., Moore R., Kavanagh L., Schianetz K., and Prasad, D., (2007), Planning and design
standard for improving sustainability of neighbourhoods and precincts, Australian Sustainable
Tourism Cooperative Research Centre.

IEA (2004a), Types of tools, Annex 31: Energy-related environmental Impact of Building,
International Energy Agency.

IEA (2004b), Life cycle assessment methods for buildings, Annex 31: Energy-Related
Environmental Impact of Building, International Energy Agency .

IEA (2004c), Stock aggregation methods for evaluating the environmental Performance of
Building Stocks, Annex 31, International Energy Agency.

IEA (2007), World Energy Outlook 2007, International Energy Agency.

iiSBE (2007), An overview of SBTool, International Initiative for a Sustainable Built

Environment, http://www.iisbe.org/sbtool accessed 08/112009.

Jacobs M. (1991), The Green economy: environment, sustainable development and the
politics of the future, Pluto, London.

Jiang Y., and Qin Y. G., (2003), Assessment system for green building of Beijing Olympic,
China Architect & Building Press, (In Chinese).

Jones P., Patterson J., and Lannon S. (2007), Modeling the built environment at urban scale:
energy and health impacts in relation to housing. Landscape and Urban Planning 83, pp.
39-49.

Jungbluth N. (1997), Life cycle inventory for cooking, Energy Policy, Vol. 25, No. 5, pp.
471-480.

270
Kawazu (2005), Comparison of the assessment results of BREEAM, LEED, GBTOOL and
CASBEE, The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo.

Keeler M. and Burke B. (2009), Fundamentals of integrated design for sustainable buildings,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Jersey.

Keller S. (1968) The urban neighborhood, New York: Random House.

Kilbert, C.J. and Grosskopf, K. (2005), Radical sustainable construction: envisioning
next-generation green buildings, http://www.treeo.ufl.edu/, accessed 17/07/2008.

Kobus D. (2005), Development and testing of a conceptual framework for assessment of

progress towards achieving sustainable development in countries in transition, Journal of
Environmental Assessment Policy Management 7(3), pp. 457–91.

Kohler, N. (1999) The relevance of the green building challenge: an observer’s perspectives,
Building Research and Information, 27(4/5), pp. 309-320.

Kohler N. (2007) Life cycle analysis of buildings, groups of buildings and urban fragments, in
Deakin M., Mitchell G., Nijkamp J. and Vreeker R. (eds.) Environmental assessment methods:
sustainable urban development Vol. 2, Routledge, New York, pp. 348-373.

Kumar A. (2006) Toward an integrated sustainability assessment of the built environment,

PhD Thesis, UNSW Australia.

Kytzia S. (2003), Material flow analysis as a tool for sustainable management of the built
environment. In: Koll-Schretzenmayr M., Keiner M., Nussbaumer G. (eds.), The Real and the
virtual world of spatial planning. Springer-Verlag pp 281-309.

Landman K. (2000), Gated communities and urban sustainability: taking a closer look at the
future, 2nd Southern African Conference on Sustainable Development in the Built
Environment, Pretoria South Africa.

LEED-NC (2005), LEED for new construction and major renovations, version 2.2, US Green
Building Council.

LEED-ND (2007), LEED for Neighborhood Development, pilot version, US Green Building
Council.

Leedy, P.D. and Ormrod, J.E. (2001), Practical Research:Planning and Design, 7th edition.
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

Li D.Z., Hui E.C.M., Leung B.Y.P.Li Q.M., and Xu X. (2010), A methodology for
eco-efficiency evaluation of residential development at city level, Building and Environment,

271
Vol. 45, Issue 3, pp. 566-573.

Li F. and Qin Z. (2006), The Mathematical Model of Tourism Transport Planning in Guilin,
Costal Enterprises and Science & Technology, 2006(1), pp.72-73.

Li X., Zhu Y. and Zhang Z. (2010) An LCA based environmental impact assessment model
for construction process, Building and Environment, 45, pp. 766-775.

Li, Zh.J. and Jiang, Y. (2006), Pondering over the situation of domestic generalized building
energy consumption. Architectural Journal, 7, pp. 30-33, (In Chinese).

Lietz K., Bijoux D., and Saville-Smith K. (2008) Neighbourhood, local authorities and
community development: opportunities for improved sustainability, Sustainable Building
Conference Proceeding, Melbourne.

Lin & Lee (2005), Sustainable community indicators: case of Mengshan Community, Taipei,
Taiwan, 8th International Conference of the Asian Planning Schools Association.

Liu Y. (2005) A Holistic approach to developing generic vs. regionally specific frameworks
for sustainable building tools, PhD thesis, UNSW.

Liu Y., Prasad D., Li J., Fu Y., and Liu J. H. (2006), Developing regionally specific
environmental building tools for China, Building Research & Information, 34: 4, pp. 372-386.

López-Ridaura S. (2002), Evaluating the sustainability of complex socio-environmental

systems: the MESMIS framework, Ecological Indicators 2, pp. 135–148.

Low S. P. (2009), Sustainable facilities: institutional compliance and the Sino-Singapore

Tianjin eco-city project, Facilities, Vol.27 N0.9/10, pp.368-386.

Lowe C. and Ponce A. (2008), An international review of sustainable building performance

indicators & benchmarks, UNEP-SBIC Report.

Lutzkendorf T. and Lorenz D.P. (2006), Using an integrated performance approach in

building assessment tools, Building Research & Information 34(4), pp. 334-356.

Mark A.J., Hellweg H. S., Frischknecht R., Hungerbühler K., and Hendriks A. J. (2008),
Ecological footprint accounting in the life cycle assessment of products, Ecological
Economics 64, pp. 798-807.

Matthews, Hendrickson and Weber (2008), The importance of carbon footprint estimation
boundaries, Environmental Science and. Technology, 42, pp. 5839–5842.

Mawhinney M. (2002), Sustainable development: understanding the green debates, Blackwell

272
 Science, Oxford

McLean D. and Korol R. (undated), Comparing the sustainability of Hamilton

Neighbourhoods, http://www.web.net/~fode/PDFs/study.pdf, accessed 10/05/2010.

Miao P. (2003), Deserted streets in a jammed town: the gated community in Chinese cities
and its solution, Journal of Urban Design, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 45–66.

Mitchell, G. (1995), PICABUE: a methodological framework for the development of

indicators of sustainable development, International Journal of Sustainable Development and
World Ecology, 2, pp. 104- 123.
Moore, S. and P. Brunner, P. (1996), Review of materials accounting measures for tracking
and improving environmental performance, Institute of Environmental Studies, University of
New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.

Morgan D.L. (1988), Focus group as qualitative research, Sage Publications Inc.

NEMC (2003), Analyzing the Cost of Obtaining LEED Certification, Northbridge

Environmental Management Consultants,
http://www.cleanair-coolplanet.org/for_communities/LEED_links/AnalyzingtheCostofLEED.
pdf, accessed 07/07/2010.

Nie M,S., Qing Y.G., Jiang Y., Zhang Q.F., and Cai F. (2003), China’s Ecological Housing
Assessment Technical Manual, China Architect & Building Press, (In Chinese).

NIST website (2010): http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/bees.html, National Institute

of Standards and Technology.

O’Brien K. (1993) Improving survey questionnaires through focus groups, In Morgan D.L.
(eds.) Successful Focus Groups, Sage Publications Inc.

Olgyay, V. and Herdt, J. (2004), The application of ecosystems services criteria for green
building assessment. Solar Energy, 77 (4), pp. 389–398.

Osmond P. (2010), Application of “streamlined” material accounting to estimate

environmental impact, International Conference on Environmental Science and Engineering
Singapore, August 25-27.

Pearce A, and Fischer C.L.J. (2001), Systems-Based Sustainability Analysis of Building 170,
Ft. McPherson, Atlanta, GA. Summary analysis report to the Army Environmental Policy
Institute, Atlanta, GA, May.

Pearce A. (undated), Sustainability at the installation scale: a comparison of LEED-ND and

systems-based sustainability assessment.

273
Plessis C.D., Irurah D.K., and Scholes R.J., (2003), The built environment and climate change
in South Africa, Building Research and Information, 31(3–4), pp. 240–256.

Popovici E. and Peuportier B. (2004), Using life cycle assessment as decision support in the
design of settlements, Plea 2004-The 21th Conference on passive and low energy Architecture.
Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Pow C.P. (2007), Constructing a new private order: gated communities and the privatization
of urban life in post-reform Shanghai, Social & Cultural Geography, 8:6, pp. 813-833.

Prasad D & Hall M. (2003), The construction challenge: sustainability in developing

countries, RICS Leading Edge Series.

Pratt and Loizos (1992), Choosing research methods: data collection for development
workers, Oxfam.

Pyke C. R., Johnson T., Scharfenberg J. and Groth P. (2007), Adapting to climate change
through neighborhood design, GTC Energetics Inc.

Rao N. and Rogers P. P. (2006), Assessment of Agricultural Sustainability, Current Science,

Vol. 91, No 4, pp. 439-448.

Read B. J. (2003), Democratising the neighbourhood: new private housing and home-owner
self-organization in urban China, The China Journal, No. 49, pp. 31-59.

Rees W., (1999), The built environment and the ecosphere: a global perspective, Building
Research & Information, 27(4/5), pp. 206–220.

Rees W. (2001), The conundrum of urban sustainability, in Devuyst D. (eds.) How Green is
the city? Columbia University Press, pp. 37-41.

Rees W. and Wackernagel M. (1996), Urban ecological footprint: why cities can be
sustainable and why they are a key to sustainability, Environmental Impact Assessment
Review16, pp. 223-248.

Reeves D. (2005), Planning for Diversity: Policy and Planning in a World of Difference,
http://www.urban.uiuc.edu/APA-PW/Reeves/IWPR%20paper%20DR%20and%20PP%20200
5%20with%20url.pdf, accessed 02/06/2010.

Reijnders L. and Roekel, A.V. (1999), Comprehensiveness and adequacy of tools for the
environmental improvement of buildings, Journal of Cleaner Production 7, pp 221-225.

Retzlaff R. C. (2008), Green building assessment systems: a framework and comparison for

274
planners, Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 74, No. 4, pp. 505-519.

Retzlaff R. C. (2009), The use of LEED in planning and development regulation, Journal of
Planning Education and Research, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 67-77.

Robson C. (1993), Real world research: a resource for social scientists and
practitioners-researchers, Blackwell Publishers.

Salant P. and Dillman D.A. (1994), How to conduct your own survey? John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.

Saunders (2008), A discussion document international environmental assessment methods for

buildings, BRE Global.

Saville-Smith K., Lietz K., Bijoux D. and Howell M. (2005), Neighbourhood sustainability
framework: prototype, NH101, Beacon Pathway Limited.

SBTool, (2007), Sustainable Building Tool, International Institute for Sustainable

Development.

Scheuer C.W. and Keoleian G.A. (2002), Evaluation of LEED using life cycle assessment
methods, National Institute of Standard and Technology, Technology Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce.

Shari (2007) Establishing local weighting values of SBTOOL for application in Malaysia,
Conference on Sustainable Building South East Asia, Malaysia.

Shepherd A. & Ortolano L. (1996). Strategic environmental assessment for sustainable urban
development, Environmental Impact Assessment Review16, pp. 321-335.

Sina website (2010), www.sina.com.cn.

Sinou M. and Kyvelou S. (2006), Present and Future Building Performance Assessment Tools,
Management of Environment Quality, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp. 110-132.

Snow M., Jones P., LanNon. S. and Prasad D. (2000), Application of a GIS-Building
integrated Photovoltaic (PV) modelling approach for cities A case example – Newcastle,
Australia, PLEA 2000, Cambridge University, UK.

Slavid R. (2009), BREEAM, LEED and Green Star: Who's the fairest?
http://www.bsdlive.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3146922, accessed 12/09/2009.

Sun N. (2004), Rethinking walled residential compound in peripheral urban China: a

guideline for boundary and size, Master Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,

275
Taylor R. P., Liu F., and Meyer A. S. (2001), China: opportunities to improve energy
efficiency in buildings, Asia Alternative Energy Programme and Enery & Mining Unit, The
World Bank.

The Statistical Yearbook of Chinese Cities (2008),

http://219.219.191.244:1980/pe/tongji/fulltext/tools/200911/8431.html (In Chinese).

Tian and Liu (2009), The current situation and development trend of China’s wastewater
treatment, http://www.863p.com/shuili/Riverslzl/200906/120044.html, In Chinese, accessed
15/10/2009.

Todd J. A., Crawley D, Geissler S., and Lindsay G. (2001), Comparative assessment of
environmental performance tools and the role of the green building challenge, Building
Research Information, Vol. 29, 5, pp. 324-335.

TopEnergy (2007), Green Building Assessment, China Architecture & Industry Publish, (In
Chinese).

Treloar, G., Fay, R., Love, P. E. D. and Iyer-Raniga, U. (2000), Analyzing the life-cycle
energy of an Australian residential building and its householders, Building Research &
Information, 28: 3, pp. 184-195.

Tredrea, S and Mehrtens (2008), Building green star rated projects: an analysis of challenges
for contractors and their responses, 2008 AIBS Conference – Climate change: Engaging the
elements, South Australian.

Troy P., Holloway, D., Pullen, S. and Bunker, R. (2003), Embodied and operational energy
consumption in the city, Urban Policy and Research 21 1, pp. 9-44

Trusty W.B. (undated), Life cycle assessment, databases and sustainable building, The
ATHENA Sustainable Materials Institute,
www.athenasmi.ca/publications/docs/Brazil%20paper.pdf, accessed 08/06/2010.

Trusty W.B. and Horst S. (2002), Integrating LCA tools in green building rating systems, The
Materials Institute
http://www.athenasmi.org/publications/docs/LCA_Tool_Integr_Paper.pdf accessed
30/06/2010.

Tuan-Viet D. (2008), Design for sustainable cities: the compact city debate and the role of
green building rating systems, EcoCity World Summit 2008 Proceedings.

Twinn C. (2003), BeDZED, THE ARUP Journal 1/2003.

276
UNPF (2007), State of world population, United Nations Population Fund, New York.

USGBC website (2009), http://www.usgbc.org/ShowFile.aspx?DocumentID=6350 U.S.

Green Building Council.

Utne I. (2008) Are the smallest fishing vessels the most sustainable?—trade-off analysis of
sustainability attributes, Marine Policy. 32, pp. 465–474

Vijayan A. and Kumar A. (2005), A review of tools to assess the sustainability in building
construction, Environmental progress, Vol.24, No.2, pp. 125-132

Voogd H. (1983), Multicriteria evaluation for urban and regional planning, Pion, London.
Vreenegoor R., Hensen J., and Vries B. (2008), Review of existing energy performance
calculating methods for district use, IBPSA-NVL Event, Eindhoven, Nederland.

Wang Y. and Shi M. (2008), Energy requirement induced by urban household consumption in
China, Resource Science, Vol. 31, Issue 12, pp. 13-17, (In Chinese).

Warren D. (1981), Helping networks. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame University Press.

WCED (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Australia.

White R.R. (2001) Sustainable development in urban areas: An Overview. In: Devuyst D.,
Hens L. and Lannoy W. (eds.) How Green Is The City? Columbia University Press, pp. 47-63.

Wiedmann, T. and Minx, J. (2008), A definition of 'Carbon Footprint', In: C. C. Pertsova C. C.

(eds) Ecological Economics Research Trends: Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge NY,
USA. Chapter 1, pp. 1-11.

Williams C. (2007), Research Methods, Journal of Business & Economic Research, Volume 5,
Number 3, pp. 65-71.

Wu F. L. (2002), Real estate development and the transformation of urban space in China’s
transitional economy, with special reference to Shanghai, In: Logan J. R. (eds.) The New
Chinese City: Globalization and Market Reform, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 161-166.

Wu, F.L. (2005), Rediscovering the ‘gate’ under market transition: from work-unit
compounds to commodity housing enclaves, Housing Studies 20, pp. 235–254.

Wu M. and Yau R. (2005), A Comprehensive Environment Performance Assessment Scheme

for Buildings In Hong Kong, The 2005 World Sustainable Building Conference, Tokyo, 27-29
September 2005.

WWF (2008), Living Planet Report 2008, The World Wildlife Fund.

277
Xu J. H. and Yan J. (2008), Traffic organization mode of human and automobile in current
residential area, Vol. 26, Huangzhou Architecture, pp. 5-7, (In Chinese).

Yang JX, Xu C, and Wang RS (2002), Methodology and application of life cycle assessment.
Beijing: China Meteorological Press, (In Chinese).

Yang W. and Kohler N. (2008), Simulation of the evolution of the Chinese building and
infrastructure stock, Building Research & Information, 36(1), pp. 1–19.

Yang XM (2003), Quantitative assessment of environmental impact on construction during

planning and designing phases, Master thesis, Beijing: Department of Construction
Management, Master Thesis, School of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, (In Chinese).

Yudelson J. (2008), Green Building Revolution, Island Press.

Zhang, Z., Wu, X., Yang, X., and Zhu, Y. (2006), BEPAS: A life cycle building
environmental performance assessment model. Building and Environment, 41 (5), pp.
669–675.

Zhen Yanping and Chen Qingsheng (2008), Simulation calculation of bus fuel economy under
city traffic environment, Tractor and Farm Transport, Vol.35 No.4, pp 7-9, (In Chinese).

Zou D. N. (2001), A history of modern architecture in China, Tianjin Science and Technology
Press pp.459-65, (In Chinese).

278
 Appendix 1: Household Operational Resource and Energy Survey

Evaluating Sustainability for China’s Small

Residential District

- Survey of Household Resource and

Energy Consumption FACULTY OF THE

BUILT ENVIRONMENT

This survey is part of a research study about evaluating sustainability for small residential

districts (SRD) in the context of Chinese cities. It is conducted by Wu Deng, from the

University of New South Wales, Australia. Based on a survey of the local urban planners and

researchers, a regionally specific SRD sustainability indicator set has been established for the

case study city of Guilin. The proposed indicator set is then applied to a few case study SRDs

in Guilin to validate its usefulness. A household survey in the case study SRDs needs to be

conducted in order to collect data relating to household resource and energy consumption.

These data will help us to quantify life-cycle resource & energy consumption and the related

carbon emissions for the case study SRDs.

The SRD where you are living is selected to conduct such a survey. We solicit you to provide

us with some information about you and your family such as annual water consumption,

annual electricity consumption and transport modes. This survey has been approved by the

property management company of your SRD. You Do Not need to expose your name, your

flat number or any contact number. You can also choose to fill the questionnaire in the office

or take it home and return to the office later. All information will be strictly confidential.

If you have any question or concerns about the project, you are welcome to contact me on

00612-93856488 or email to dengwu2000@hotmail.com, or Prof. Deo Prasad on

00612-93854868 and d.prasad@unsw.edu.au.

279
Part 1: Household Information
1. The number of people living in your flat ________

2. The construction area of your flat˖_______msqˈfloor area______ msq.

3. Building type˖

Ǐ ǐ townhouseǏ ǐmulti-storey˄7ˉ12 floors˅

Ǐ ǐ high-rise˄above 12 floors˅

4. When the building was completed˖_______

5.

Part 2: Household Energy and Water Consumption

1. Average expense of your monthly electricity consumption_______ yuanˈthe unit

price _______yuan/kWh

2. Average expense of your annual liquefied petroleum gas consumption_______ yuanˈ

the unit price______ yuan/container

3. Average expense of your monthly water consumption _______ yuanˈthe unit

price_______ yuan/m3.

Part 3: Interior Decoration

Please indicate what flooring materials you used to decorate your flat

Item Living room Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Toilet Balcony

Material

Area (m2)

280
Part 4: Transport
Please indicate the time and transport means you and your family members used to travel between home and work (school)

Transport means Time of travel to Private car Bus Motorbike Cycling and cell-powered Walk Other
work or school scooter
(two way)

Family member 1

Family member 2

Family member 3

Family member 4

Family member 5

281
 Appendix 2: SRD Public Resource and Energy Consumption
Survey

Evaluating Sustainability for China’s Small

Residential District

- Survey of Public Resource and

Energy Consumption
FACULTY OF THE
BUILT ENVIRONMENT

This survey is part of a research study about evaluating sustainability for small residential districts
(SRD) in the context of Chinese cities. It is conducted by Wu Deng, from the University of New
South Wales, Australia. Based on a survey of the local urban planners and researchers, a regionally
specific SRD sustainability indicator set has been established for the case study city of Guilin. The
proposed indicator set is then applied to a few case study SRDs in Guilin to validate its usefulness. A
survey needs to be conducted in order to collect data relating to public resource and energy
consumption in the case study SRDs. These data will help us to quantify life-cycle resource & energy
consumption and the related carbon emissions for the case study SRDs.

The SRD under your management is selected to conduct such a survey. We solicit you to provide us
with some information about the SRD such as water used for irrigation and electricity consumption
for street lamps. All information will be strictly confidential.

If you have any question or concerns about the project, you are welcome to contact me on
00612-93856488 or email to dengwu2000@hotmail.com, or Prof. Deo Prasad on 00612-93854868
and d.prasad@unsw.edu.au.

1. Name of the Company: _______

2. The number of residents˖________, which consist of Adult________ˈSchool Children________ˈ
Non-School Children________
3. Total construction area of the SRD˖_______msqˈwhich consist of Residential Area˖_______
msqˈCommercial Area˖_______msqˈOffice Area _______ msq;
5. Total Land Area______ msq, which consist of Green Area _______msqˈRoad Area _______ msqˈ
Parking Area_______msq;
6. When this SRD was complete˖_______

282
7. How many vehicles parking in the SRD: _______
8. Is there elevators used in the SRD _______, and the number_______
9. The average expense of monthly electricity for the operation of the public open space including
street lamps and underground garage:_______ yuanˈthe unit price _______yuan/kWh
10. The average expense of monthly electricity for running of the community facilities including
community centers, gyms, schools, shops and elevators:_______ yuanˈthe unit price _______
yuan/kwh
11. The average expense of monthly electricity for running of the management office:_______ yuanˈ
the unit price _______ yuan/kwh
11.The average expense of monthly water for maintaining the public area including irrigation and
cleaning:_______ yuanˈthe unit price _______m3
12. The number of full-time staff working in the SRD: _______

283
 Appendix 3: The Initial Set of Indicators

In total, an initial set of 44 indicators is compiled based on the review of the current neighbourhood rating systems, including LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD and
BREEAM-Communities and CEATM. The 44 initial indicators are classified into the 9 sustainability principles (assessment categories). The following table
indicates the initial indicators and the sources they were derived from.

Principles Indicators Sources

Indicator 1: Air quality CASBEE-UD, CEATM
Indicator 2: Acoustic quality CASBEE-UD, CEATM
Indicator 3: Urban heat island effect CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
Principle 1: Providing livable environmental CEATM
quality Indicator 4: Conservation of water bodies CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
Indicator 5: Conservation of wetlands and habitats CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 6: Proximity to school LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 7: Access to public space LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 8: Access to daily-use stores and facilities CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 9: Universal accessibility CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Principle 2: Proving social neighbourhood layout Indicator 10: Walkable streets LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
and facilities Indicator 11: Community involvement CASBEE-UD, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator12: Safety in public area LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 13: Urban integration CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND
Indicator 14: Quality of information systems CASBEE-UD
Principle 3: Providing quality infrastructure Indicator 15: Quality of water and wastewater systems CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 16: Waste disposal facilities CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 17: Access to public transport CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
Indicator 18: Effectiveness of public transport CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Principle 4: Providing efficient public transport Indicator 19: Transport facilities LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 20: Reducing car parking LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 21: Use of bicycle CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 22: Housing affordability LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 23: Use of local labour and resources LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 24: Creating new jobs BREEAM-Communities
Principle 5: Improving housing affordability and Indicator 25: Creating new business complementing existing BREEAM-Communities
local economy ones
Indicator 26: Use of land LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities

284
 Indicator 27: Use of materials LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities, CEATM
Principle 6: Improving resource and energy Indicator 28: Use of water CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
efficiency Indicator 29: Use of energy CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
Indicator 30: Generation of renewable energy CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
Indicator 31: Reducing thermal impact CASBEE-UD
Indicator 32: Reducing stormwater runoff CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
CEATM
Principle 7: Reducing environmental impact on Indicator 33: Preventing air pollution CASBEE-UD, CEATM
local and global environment Indicator 34: Preventing water and groundwater pollution CASBEE-UD
Indicator 35: Preventing noise, light, vibration and odor CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
impact CEATM
Indicator 36: Acquisition of green certificates CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 37: Construction management plan LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 38: Avoiding site disturbance LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities, CEATM
Indicator 39: Reducing construction waste CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
Principle 8: Maintaining site ecology Indicator 40: Saving water and energy in construction BREEAM-Communities, CEATM
process
Indicator 41: Neighbourhood user guide BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 42: Community facility management BREEAM-Communities
Indicator 43: Transport demand management CASBEE-UD, LEED-ND, BREEAM-Communities,
Principle 9: Proving sustainability management
Indicator 44: Energy and water monitoring and management CASBEE-UD
system

285
 Appendix 4: Questionnaire for Expert Survey
(Neighbourhood Rating Systems)

,GHQWLILFDWLRQRI&KLQD6SHFLILF,QGLFDWRU6HW
IRU(YDOXDWLQJ6XVWDLQDELOLW\RIWKH8UEDQ
6PDOO5HVLGHQWLDO'LVWULFW

FACULTY OF THE
BUILT Environment
Background

This survey is part of a research study about evaluating sustainability for urban small residential
districts (SRD) in the context of Chinese cities, focusing on identification of assessment categories
and individual indicators. It is conducted by Wu Deng, from the University of New South Wales,
Australia. SRD, or xiaoqu, is the basic planning unit in Chinese residential development and is a vital
link between single buildings and greater urban form. SRDs are linkages and intermediary
spaces/places that offer much scope for influencing sustainability both at the local and wider scale.
However, they cannot be appropriately evaluated by either the whole building rating tools or the
urban assessment systems. Currently there is a trend to expand the individual building assessments to
larger scale building groups. Examples are LEED-ND, CASBEE-UD and BREEAM-Communities.

In the following tables, an initial set of indicators are derived from the current neighbourhood rating
systems, including LEED-Neighborhood Development, CASBEE-Urban Development,
BREEAM-Communities and China Eco-housing Assessment Technical Manual. You will help us to
further identify what assessment categories and individual indicators are suitable for the assessment of
Guilin’s SRDs. The indicators are grouped into 9 assessment categories depending on their
characteristics. Also, some possible measures are assigned to each of the individual indicators. These
measures will help to quantify the indicator performance.

286
Part 1: First, please indicate how important you think each of the assessment areas is a way to
measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answer on a scale of 5. If you have other ideas, please
specify them in the blank below the table.

Very Very
Assessment Categories Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
Providing livable environmental
quality
Providing social neighbourhood
layout and facilities
Providing quality infrastructure
Providing efficient public transport
Improving housing affordability
and local economy
Improving resource and energy
efficiency
Reducing environmental Impact on
local and global environment
Maintaining site ecology
Providing sustainability
management

Other ideas or
comments

287
 Part 2: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Providing Livable
Environmental Quality is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answer on a scale
of 5. Also, please tick the code numbers of the measures based on their scientific soundness and data
availability (multiple ticks if there is more than one answer). If you have other ideas, please specify
them in the blank below the table.

Assessment Category: Providing Livable Environment

Very Very
Indicators Possible Measures
Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 1: air quality 1a) does the API reported from the nearest air monitoring
station achieve meet the standards?
Indicator 2: acoustic 2a) does noise level of the adjacent traffic meet standards?
quality 2b) does noise level of the area in average meet standards?
3a) it there green space in the SRD?
Indicator 3: urban heat 3b) is there open water area in the SRD?
island effect 3c) is there continuity of open spaces?
3d) is there green roof and walling planting area?
Indicator 4: conservation 4a) is there wastewater discharging into the natural water
of water bodies body?
4b) is there purification facility onsite and does the treated
wastewater meet the standards?
5a) is there investigation of flora and fauna conducted as
Indicator 5: conservation part of the project EIA
of wetlands and habitats 5b) Are the habitats and wetlands identified in the EIA
properly conserved?
5c) is there consideration on maintaining the
pre-development terrain
Note : API, air pollution index; EPB, environmental protection bureau; EIA, environmental impact assessment

Other ideas or
comments

288
 Part 3: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Providing Social
Neighbourhood Layout and Facilities is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your
answers as aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Providing Social Neighbourhood

Layout and Facilities

Indicator Very Very Possible Measures

Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 6: proximity to 6a) is there kindergarten within 600m walk distance?
school 6b) is there primary school within 600m walk distance?
Indicator 7: access to public 7a) is there a park, green plaza or square at least 700m2
place area within 600m walk distance?

Is there following facilities within 600m walk distance?

Indicator 8: access to 8a) supermarket 8b) food market 8c) bank 8d)
daily-use stores and facilities sport facility 8e) restaurant 8f) library 8g)
hospital 8h) children playground
Indicator 9: universal 9a) are there barricade-free facilities for disable & elder
accessibility people?
10a) are there active frontages created?
Indicator 10: walkable streets 10b) are there speed limits in the SRD?
10c) are there continuous sidewalks along both sides of
streets in the SRD?
11a) are there community facilities or open spaces as
Indicator 11: community centers for community activity?
involvement 11b) are the local community stakeholders consulted
during the planning, design and construction process?
11c) is a resident committee put in place after occupation?
12a) is the layout plan free of intersections between
Indicator 12: safety in public pedestrians and vehicle movement?
areas 12b) are surveillance cameras and guards provided
through the project site?
12c) are there dead zones or obscured spots that are hardly
to see from the surroundings?
13a) does the layout consider scenic axes, continuity and
skyline of the surrounding area?
13b) does the layout consider aesthetic concerns including
Indicator 13: urban integrate wall positioning, color harmonization, planted trees
positioning, and illumination?
13c) does the layout consider connectivity to surrounding
vicinity?

Other ideas or
comments

289
 Part 4: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Providing qualify
Infrastructure is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answers as aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Providing Quality Infrastructure

Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measures
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 14: quality of 14a) is there high-speed internet connection to the SRD
information system
Indicator 15: quality of water 15a) is there quality potable water supply to the SRD?
and wastewater systems 16b) does the wastewater discharge to a qualified
municipal treatment plant?
16a) are there drop-off points within the SRD for
potentially hazardous wastes such as paints and batteries?
16b) is there recycling station for classification, collection
Indicator 16: waste disposal and storage of material including paper, cardboard, glass,
facilities plastics and metals?
16c) it there compost station for collection and
composting of food wastes?

Other ideas or
comments

Part 5: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Transport is a way to
measure sustainability of urban small residential districts. Please tick your answers as aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Providing Efficient Public Transport

Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measures
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 17: access to public 17a) is there a bus stop within 400m walk distance?
transport
Indicator 18: effectiveness of 18a) does a bus arrive in the stop every 10 mins during
public transport daytime?
19a) is a safe, well lit and openly visible waiting area
Indicator 19: transport provide for bus or train?
facilities 19b) are there timetable information and seats provided?
20a) parking lots not located at building frontages and
Indicator 20: reducing car streetscapes
parking 20b) surface parking area no more than 20% of the project
footprint
20c) 20% of the parking area can be flexibly used for
other purposes
21a) is there off-street parking area provided for bicycle
Indicator 21: use of bicycle parking
21b) is there a bike network to surrounding vicinity?

Other ideas or
comments

290
 Part 6: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Economic & Costs is a
way to measure sustainability of urban small residential districts. Please tick your answers as
aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Improving housing affordability and

local economy
Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measures
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 22: housing 22a) is there diversity of housing types?
affordability 22b) is there diversity of housing sizes?
Indicator 23: use of local 23a) is there consideration of using of local labour and
labour and resource sub-constractors
23b) is there consideration of using of locally produced
materials for construction
Indicator 24: creating new job 24a) are there new jobs created?
Indicator 25: creating new 25a) is an economic assessment conducted to examine the
business complementing needs of existing business in the area?
existing ones

Other ideas or
comments

291
 Part 7: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Improving Resource &
Energy Efficiency is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answers as
aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Improving Resource & Energy

Efficiency
Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measures
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 26: use of land 26a) does the SRD use of brownfield, infill or previously
developed land?
27a) is there consideration of the use of materials with low
Indicator 27: use of health impact?
materials 27b) is there consideration of the use of recycled
materials?
27c) is there consideration of the use of low embodied
materials?
28a) is there a greywater recycling system connected to
toilets, baths and washing machines?
Indicator 28: use of water 28b) is there consideration on water use reduction through
efficient equipment and controls?
28c) use only captured rainwater, recycled wastewater and
recycled greywater for landscaping irrigation
29a) is there consideration on maximizing the thermal
Indicator 29: use of energy efficiency of building envelops?
29b) is there consideration on energy end use reduction
through efficient equipment and controls?
30a) is there consideration on minimizing energy demand
through orientation and passive design?
Indicator 30: generation of 30b) is there onsite renewable energy generation
renewable energy installation?
30c) are buildings that are not fitted with active solar
devices designed to allow future installation?

Other ideas or
comments

292
Part 8: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Reducing Impact on
Local and Global Environment is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answers as
aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Reducing Impact on Local and Global

Environment

Indicator Very Very Possible Measures

Unimportant Neutral Important
1 2 3 4 5
31a) is there consideration on building group layout to
avoid blocking wind in summer?
Indicator 31: reducing of 31b)is there consideration on positioning of air
thermal impact conditioning heat discharge
31c) is there consideration on roofing, cladding and
paving materials?
32a) is there permeable paving, percolation sumps,
percolation trenches and outdoor spaces that allow rain
Indicator 32: reducing percolation?
stormwater runoff impact 32b) is there consideration on roofs designed to harvesting
rain water?
32c) is there a flood risk assessment conducted to
minimize the peak runoff rate to watercourses and other
receiving bodies?

33a) are there source control measures?

Indicator 33: preventing air 33b) is there consideration on use of plants for
pollution atmospheric purification such as CO2 sequestration?
34a) is there restriction on the pumping of groundwater?
Indicator 34: preventing water 34b) if any potential source of water pollution identified
pollution within the project site such as vehicle maintenance area
and waste disposal area, are there counter-measures being
installed?
35a) is there any noise source identified and treated?
Indicator 35: preventing 35b) is there any light pollution source identified and
pollution of noise, light, treated?
vibration and odor impact 35c) is there any vibration source identified and treated?
35d) is there any odor source identified and treated?

Other ideas or
comments

293
 Part 9: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Maintaining Site
Ecology is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answers as aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Maintaining Site Ecology

Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measures
1 2 3 4 5
36a) is the construction company certificated by a green
Indicator 36: acquisition of certificate such as ISO14001?
green certificates 36b) is there any building certificated by a green building
labeling system?
Indicator 37: construction 37a) is there a construction management program in
management program place?

38a) is there consideration on outflow of mud and turbid

Indicator 38: avoidance of site water?
disturbance 38b) is there consideration on noise and vibration?
38c) is there consideration on ecosystem conservation?
38d) is there consideration on scenic appearance?
39a) is there consideration on reducing the generation of
Indicator 39: reduction of construction waste?
construction waste 39b) is there consideration on sorting and recycling of
construction waste?
39c) is there consideration on reuse of construction site
soil?
40a) are there measures to reduce energy use in
Indicator 40: energy and construction process?
water saving in construction 40b) are there measures to reduce water use in
process construction process?

Other ideas or
comments

294
 Part 10: Please indicate how important you think each of the indicators within Providing
Sustainability Management is a way to measure sustainability of SRD. Please tick your answers as
aforementioned.

Assessment Category: Providing Sustainability Management

Very Very
Indicator Unimportant Neutral Important Possible Measurement
1 2 3 4 5
Indicator 41: SRD user guide 41a) is there guidance provided to the residents including
information such as energy and water conservation tips,
etc.?
Indicator 42: community 42a) does the SRD have provision for community
facility management management of facilities, open space, grey water scheme,
meeting places, etc.?
43a) is there a transportation program with reduction
Indicator 43: transportation targets?
demand management 43b) is there a system for monitoring improvement toward
the targets?
Indicator 44: management 44a) are there reduction targets for the use of energy and
system for operational energy water?
and water usage 44b) is there a system for monitoring improvement toward
the targets?

Other ideas or
comments

Part 11: Thank You. Now please select the most important 5 indicators for SRD sustainability assessment
in the context of Guilin. Please simply write down the code number of the indicators that you think are
most important, no matter what assessment categories they are grouped in.

a) Indicator number _________ b) Indicator number _________

c) Indicator number _________ d) Indicator number _________

e) Indicator number _________

Part 12: Finally, we are going to ask some questions about you. Your answer will be kept
confidential.

a) Your name and organization ______________________________________________

b) Your email address ______________________________________________

c) What is your academic or professional title __________________________________

d) What is your main research/professional area?

Urban planning [ ] Architecture [ ] Energy [ ] Environment [ ]
Other (please specify)__________________

e) How many years have you been involved in the above research/professional area?
5-10 [ ] 10-20 [ ] 20-30 [ ] above 30 [ ]

f) Are you female or male? Female [ ] male [ ]

295
 Appendix 5: Scoring the Case Study SRDs

The neighbourhood rating is comprised of three layers, principles (assessment categories), individual indicators, and measures. In total there are 9 principles,
41 indicators and 95 measures. Each individual indicator has three credits available (this is similar to BREEAM-Communities). The credits are evenly divided
by the number of measures. For example, if there are two available measures within an individual indicator, 1.5 points will be assigned to each measure.

The score of each indicator is multiplied against the corresponding weight to provide the weighted score available for that particular indicator. The scores of
each of the indicators within a sustainability principle are then added together to give the score of the principle, which is then multiplied against the
corresponding weight of the principle. The overall score of the SRD is obtained by aggregating the weighted score of each principles. It would be a number
between 0 and 3.

296
Principle 1: Providing livable environmental quality

This principle consists of 5 individual indicators and 12 measures. The scoring results of each indicator are shown in the following table. By aggregating the
weighted scores of each indicator, the results indicate that the SRD 1 gets 2.14 points in this principle compared to 2.38 points of SRD 2. The difference is
mainly produced in the performance of Indicator 1.3 (urban heat island). SRD 1 has less green space and open water area.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

1a) does the API reported from the 3 points 3 points Guilin Environmental Monitoring
Indicator 1: Air quality (24% weight) nearest air monitoring station meet the Station
standard?
2a) does noise level of the adjacent 1.5 points 1.5 points Guilin Environmental Monitoring
Indicator 2: Acoustic quality traffic meet standards? Station
(20% weight) 2b) does noise level of the area on 1.5 points 1.5 points Guilin Environmental Monitoring
average meet standards? Station
3a) it there green space in the SRD? 0.75 points 0.75 points Site observation
Indicator 3: Urban heat island effect 3b) is there open water area in the SRD? 0 0.75 points Site observation
(16% weight) 3c) is there continuity of open spaces? 0 0.75 points Site observation
3d) is there green roof and walling 0 0 Site observation
planting area?
4a) is there wastewater discharging into 1.5 points 1.5 points Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Indicator 4: Conservation of water the natural water body? for the SRDs
bodies within site (20% weight) 4b) is there purification facility onsite 0 0 Site observation
and does the treated wastewater meet the
standards?
5a) are the habitats and wetland properly 1 point 1 point Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
conserved? for the SRDs
Indicator 5: Conservation of wetland and 5b) is there consideration for maintaining 0 0 Conversation with the developers and
habitats (20% weight) the pre-development terrain? designers
5c) is investigation of flora and fauna 1 point 1 point Environmental Impact Assessment
conducted? (EIA) reports for the SRDs
Overall principle score NA 2.14 2.38 NA

297
Principle 2: Providing social neighbourhood layout and facilities
There are 8 individual indicators and 24 measures within this principle. The scores for each indicator and the overall point for the principle are shown in the
following table. The SRD 1 has a score of 0.793 compared to 1.833 in SRD 2. The difference is attributable to the better provision of community facilities in
SRD 2. For example, it has a kindergarten, a sport field and a community club within its boundary. It also provides video cameras monitoring the whole SRD.
Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources
Indicator 6: Proximity to school 6a) is there a kindergarten within 600m walking distance? 0 1.5 point Site observation
(13% weight)
6b) is there a primary school within 600m walking distance? 0 0 Site observation
Indicator 7: Access to public place 7a) is there a park, green plaza or square of at least 700m2 area within 600m 0 3 points Site observation
(12% weight) walking distance?

8a) supermarket 0 0 Site observation

Indicator 8: Access to daily-use stores 8b) food market 0 0 Site observation
and facilities (within 600m walking 8c) bank 0 0 Site observation
distance) (14% weight) 8d) sport facilities 0 0.375 Site observation
8e) restaurant 0.375 0.375 Site observation
8f) library 0 0 Site observation
8j) hospital 0 0 Site observation
8g) children playground 0 0.375 Site observation
Indicator 9: Universal accessibility 9a) are there barricade-free facilities for disabled and elderly people? 0 0 Conversation with the designers
(12% weight)
10a) is an active frontage created? 0 0 Site observation
10b) are there speed limits and traffic calming measures taken within the 1 point 1 point Site observation
Indicator 10: Walkable streets SRD?
(12% weight) 10c) are there continuous sidewalks along both sides of streets within the 0 1 point Site observation
SRD?
11a) are there community facilities as centers for community activity? 0 1 point Conversation with the SRD managers
Indicator 11: Community involvement 11b) are the local community consulted during the planning, design and 0 0 Conversation with the developers
(12% weight) construction process?
11c) is a resident committee put in place after occupation? 1 point 1 point Conversation with the SRD managers
12a) is the layout plan free of intersections between pedestrians and vehicle 0 0 Site observation
Indicator 12: Safety in public areas movement?
(14% weight) 12b) are surveillance cameras and guards provided through the project site? 0 1 point Conversation with the SRD managers
12c) are there dead zones or obscured spots that are hardly to see from the 0 1 point Site observation
surroundings?
13a) does the layout consider scenic axes, continuity and skyline of the 1 point 1 point Conversation with the designers
Indicator 13: Urban integration surrounding area?
(11% weight) 13b) does the layout consider aesthetic concerns including wall positioning, 1 point 1 point Conversation with the designers
color harmonization, planted trees positioning, and illumination?
13c) does the layout consider connectivity to surrounding vicinity? 1 point 1 point Conversation with the designers
Overall principle score NA 0.793 1.833 NA

298
Principle 3: Providing quality infrastructure

There are 3 indicators and 6 measures within this principle area. The 3 indicators embrace the provision of internet connection, water and wastewater
treatment, and on-site waste disposal facilities. Both SRDs perform well in the first two indicators but fail to provide on-site waste disposal facilities. Both of
them score 1.95 in this principle.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

Indicator 14: Quality of information 14a) is there high-speed internet connection to the 3 points 3 points Conversation with the SRD managers
system y (29% weight) SRD?
15a) is there quality potable water supply to the SRD? 1.5 points 1.5 points Guilin Statistical Yearbook 2009
Indicator 15: Quality of water and 15b) does the wastewater discharge to a qualified 1.5 points 1.5 points Environmental Impact Assessment
wastewater system (36% weight) municipal treatment plant? reports for the SRDs
16a) are there drop-off points within the SRD for 0 0 Site observation
potentially hazardous wastes such as paints and
Indicator 16: Waste disposal facilities batteries?
(35% weight) 16b) is there recycling station for classification, 0 0 Site obersation
collection and storage of material including paper,
cardboard, glass, plastics and metals?
16c) it there compost station for collection and 0 0 Site observation
composting of food wastes?
Overall principle score NA 1.95 1.95 NA

299
Principle 4: Providing effective public transport

This principle area involves 4 indicators and 6 measures. The scores for each indicator and the overall points for the principle are shown in the following table.
The SRD 1 has an overall score of 2.01, which is much better than the score of 0.66 of SRD 2. There is no public transport service within the walking distance
of SRD 2. Residents of SRD 2 have to walk about 400m along the river bank to reach a city road and walk another 400m to get a bus stop. In contrast, there is
a bus stop sitting outside of the main entrance of SRD 1 (about 100m) and there are three routes operating from 6am to 11pm. However, the conditions of the
bus waiting area are not good. There are no seats or timetables provided for the commuters.
Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources
Indicator 17: Access to public transport 17a) is there a bus stop within 400m walk distance? 3 0 Site observation
(30% weight)
Indicator 18: Effectiveness of public 18a) does a bus arrive in the stop every 10 mins during 3 0 Site observation
transport (26% weight) daytime?

19a) is a safe, well-lit and openly waiting area 0 0 Site observation

Indicator 19: Transport facilities (22% provided for bus or train?
weight)
19b) are there timetable information and seats 0 0 Site observation
provided?

Indicator 20: Use of bicycle (22% 20a) is there off-street parking area provided for 1.5 points 1.5 points Site observation
weight) bicycle parking
20b) is there a sheltered and security space for bicycle 0 1.5 points Site observation
storage?
Overall principle score NA 2.01 0.66 NA

300
Principle 5: Improving housing affordability and local economy

There are 2 indicators and 3 measures addressing this principle area. The scores for each indicator and the overall points are shown in the following table. The
SRD 1 has an overall score of 0.9, which is less than the score of 1.80 of SRD 2. The difference is due to SRD 2 having a diversity of building types including
townhouse style buildings, medium-rise buildings and high-rise buildings. On the other hand, there is only one building type in SRD 1- medium-rise buildings
(7-stories). Both of them provide different housing sizes including two-bedroom apartments and three-bedroom apartments.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

Indicator 21: Housing affordability 21a) is there diversity of housing types? 0 1.5 Site observation
(60% weight) 21b) is there diversity of housing size? 1.5 1.5 Conversation with the developers
Indicator 22: Creating new business 22) is an economic assessment conducted to examine 0 0 Conversation with the developers
complementing the existing ones (40% the needs of existing business in the area?
weight)
Overall principle score NA 0.9 1.8 NA

301
Principle 6: Improving resource and energy efficiency

There are 5 indicators and 12 measures within this principle. The scores for each indicator and the overall principle points for the principle are shown in the
following table. SRD 1 has an overall score of 1.285, as the SRD 2 is scored of 0.715. The difference of the scores between them is due to the land use type.
SRD 1 is a development constructed on land previously developed while SRD 2 has included some vegetable planting plots in the development. The weak
performance of both SRDs in the water, energy and material efficiency areas may reflect the current construction practice in Guilin which has neglected these
issues. During the conversation with the developers and designers of the case study SRDs, they indicated that except complying with the building codes and
standards, they were reluctant to engage in resource and energy efficiency practices such as reuse of greywater and onsite generation of renewable energy
because they were worried about the increased costs of such approaches.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

Indicator 23: Use of land (19% weight) 23a) does the project use of brownfield, infill or previously 3 points 0 Environmental Impact Assessment
developed land? reports for the SRDs
24a) is there consideration of the use of materials with low 0 0 Conversation with the designers and
Indicator 24: Use of material (21% health impact? contractors
weight) 24b) is there consideration of the use of recycled materials? 1 1 Conversation with the designers and
contractors
24c) is there consideration of the use of low embodied 0 0 Conversation with the designers and
materials? contractors
25a) is there a greywater recycling system connected to toilets, 0 0 Site observation
Indicator 25: Use of water (20% weight) baths and washing machines?
25b) is there consideration on water use reduction through 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
efficient equipment and controls?
25c) are only captured rainwater, recycled wastewater and 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
recycled greywater used for landscaping irrigation?
26a) is there consideration on maximizing the thermal 1.5 points 1.5 points Conversation with the designers
Indicator 26: Use of energy (21% efficiency of building envelops?
weight) 26b) is there consideration on energy end use reduction 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
through efficient equipment and controls?
27a) is there consideration on minimizing energy demand 1 point 1 point Conversation with the designers
through orientation and passive design?
Indicator 27: Generation of renewable 27b) is there onsite renewable energy generation installation? 0 0 Site observation
energy (19% weight) 27c) are buildings that are not fitted with active solar devices 0 0 Conversation with the designers
designed to allow future installation?
Overall principle score NA 1.285 0.715 NA

302
Principle 7: Reducing environmental impact on local and global environment

There are 5 indicators and 14 measures within this principle. The scores for each indicator and the overall points for the principle are shown in the following
table. These indicators examine the environmental impact attributable to the construction and operation of the SRDs. The scores of the two case study SRDs
are very close. SRD 1 has an overall score of 1.95, as the SRD 2 is scored at 2.13.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

28a) is there consideration of building group layout to avoid blocking 1 point 1 point Conversation with the planners and
Indicator 28: Reducing thermal impact wind in summer? designers
(18% weight) 28b)is there consideration of positioning of air conditioning heat 0 1 point Conversation with the SRD managers
discharge
28c) is there consideration of roofing, cladding and paving materials? 0 0 Conversation with the designers
29a) is there permeable paving, percolation sumps, percolation 1 point 1 point Site observation
Indicator 29: Reducing stormwater trenches and outdoor spaces that allow rain percolation?
runoff impact (18% weight) 29b) is there consideration on roofs designed to harvesting rain water? 0 0 Conversation with the designers
29c) is there a flood risk assessment conducted to minimize the peak 0 0 Conversation with the developers
runoff rate to watercourses and other receiving bodies?
30a) is there any air pollution source identified and properly treated? 1.5 points 1.5 points Site observation
Indicator 30: Preventing air pollution
(22% weight)
30b) is there consideration of use of plants for atmospheric 0 0 Conversation with the designers
purification such as CO2 sequestration?

31a) is there restriction on the pumping of groundwater? 1.5 points 1.5 points Conversation with the SRD managers
Indicator 31: Preventing water 31b) if any potential source of water pollution identified in the SRD 1.5 points 1.5 points Site observation
pollution (21% weight) such as vehicle maintenance area and waste disposal area, are there
counter-measures being installed?
32a) is there any noise source identified and treated? 0.75 point 0.75 point Site observation
Indicator 32: Preventing noise, light,
vibration and odor impact (21% weight) 32b) is there any light pollution source identified and treated? 0.75 point 0.75 point Site observation

32c) is there any vibration source identified and treated? 0.75 point 0.75 point Site observation

32d) is there any odor source identified and treated? 0.75 point 0.75 point Site observation

Overall principle score NA 1.95 2.13 NA

303
Principle 8: Maintaining site ecology

There are 5 indicators and 12 measures with this principle. The scores for each indicator and the overall points for the principle are shown in the following
table. These indicators address the issues related to the construction process. Since both SRDs are built in the same city and completed at a similar time, it is
not surprising that they have employed the similar construction technologies and complied with the same requirements by the Environmental Impact
Assessment report. It is a compulsory requirement before getting construction approval. Thus both of them achieve the same score of 1.6. They are strong in
addressing site disturbance issues that are required by the EIA report, but have not attempted to achieve a ‘green’ certificate for any building, and fail to save
energy and water consumption during the construction process.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

33a) is the construction company certificated by a 0 0 Conversation with the developers
Indicator 33: Acquisition of green green certificate such as ISO14001?
certificate (20% weight) 33b) is there any building certificated by a green 0 0 Conversation with the developers
building labeling system?
Indicator 34: Construction 34a) is there a construction management program in 3 points 3 points Conversation with the contractors
management program (19% weight) place?

35a) is there consideration of outflow of mud and 0.75 point 0.75 point Environmental Impact Assessment
Indicator 35: Avoidance of site turbid water? reports for the case study SRDs
disturbance (21% weight) 35b) is there consideration on noise and vibration? 0.75 point 0.75 point Ditto
35c) is there consideration of ecosystem 0.75 point 0.75 point Ditto
conservation?
35d) is there consideration of scenic appearance? 0.75 point 0.75 point Ditto
36a) is there consideration of reducing the generation 1 point 1 point Conversation with the contractors
Indicator 36: Reduction of construction of construction waste?
waste (20% weight) 36b) is there consideration of sorting and recycling of 1 point 1 point Ditto
construction waste?
36c) is there consideration of re-using construction 0 0 Ditto
site soil?
37a) are there measures to reduce energy use in 0 0 Ditto
Indicator 37: Energy and water saving construction process?
in construction process (20% weight)
37b) are there measures to reduce water use in 0 0 Ditto
construction process?

Overall principle score NA 1.6 1.6 NA

304
Principle 9: Providing sustainability management

There are 4 indicators and 6 measures with this principle. The scores for each indicator and the overall points for the principle are shown in the following
table. These indicators are concerned with post-occupation management. Except for community facilities and open space, which are under the management of
the property management companies, both SRDs fail to address other post-occupation management and monitoring programs on energy & water consumption
and transport patterns. Both of them only achieve a score of 0.81 in this principle.

Indicators Measures SRD 1 Scores SRD 2 Scores Data Sources

Indicator 38: SRD user guide 38a) is there guidance provided to the residents including 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
(24% weight) information such as energy and water conservation tips, etc.?
Indicator 39: Community facility 39a) does the SRD have provision for community 3 points 3 points Conversation with the SRD managers
management management of facilities, open space, grey water scheme,
(27% weight) meeting places, etc.?

Indicator 40: Transportation demand 40a) is there a transportation program with reduction targets? 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
management
(23% weight)
40b) is there a system for monitoring improvement toward 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
the targets?
Indicator 41: Management system for 41a) are there reduction targets for the use of energy and 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
operational energy and water usage water?
(26% weight) 41b) is there a system for monitoring improvement toward 0 0 Conversation with the SRD managers
the targets?
Overall principle score NA 0.81 0.81 NA

305
306