This article was downloaded by:[Escola Politecnica - USP]

On: 9 January 2008

Access Details: [subscription number 776572079]
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713694730

Building environmental assessment methods:

applications and development trends
Drury Crawley; Ilari Aho
Online Publication Date: 01 July 1999
To cite this Article: Crawley, Drury and Aho, Ilari (1999) 'Building environmental
assessment methods: applications and development trends', Building Research &
Information, 27:4, 300 - 308
To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/096132199369417
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/096132199369417

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,
re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be
complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be
independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or
arising out of the use of this material.

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

09613218 # 1999 E & FN Spon

Building environmental assessment methods:

applications and development trends
Drury Crawley1 and Ilari Aho2
1 US

Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, USA

E-mail: drury.crawley@ee.doe.gov
2

Motiva, PO Box 462, FIN-02151 Espoo, Finland

E-mail: ilari.aho@motiva.

The construction and property sector has seen the development of a number of methods for evaluating the
greenness of buildings in the 1990s both for new designs and existing buildings. These range from
very detailed life cycle assessment methods, which account for all the embodied and operational
environmental impacts of building materials, to higher level environmental impact assessment methods,
which evaluate the broader implications of the buildings impact on the environment. In between these
two are environmental assessment methods such as BREEAM, BEPAC, LEED, and GBA. In this paper, we
discuss the potential market applications of these systems and compare and contrast several of the major
environmental assessment methods.
Le secteur de la construction et de limmobilier a ete le te moin du developpement dun certain nombre de
me thodes permettant de valuer les performances ecologiques des batiments dans les annees 1990, tant sur le
plan des nouveaux concepts que des batiments existants. Ces me thodes vont de le valuation tres detailee du
cycle de vie, qui tient compte de limpact speci que et des incidences ope rationnelles des materiaux de
construction sur lenvironnement, jusqua une evaluation de limpact environnemental a un niveau plus eleve.
Entre ces deux extre mes, on trouve des me thodes devaluation environnementale telles que BREEAM, BEPAC,
LEED et GBA. Dans cet article, nous examinons les applications commerciales potentielles des ces systemes;
nous comparons, en les opposant, plusieurs me thodes majeures de valuation environnementale.
Keywords: environmental assessment, green buildings, life cycle assessment, building performance, Green
Building Challenge

Introduction
Throughout the world economy, many industrial
sectors are beginning to recognize the impacts of
their activities on the environment and to make
signi cant changes to mitigate their environmental impact. The construction and property sector is
also starting to acknowledge their responsibilities
for the environment causing a shift in how
buildings are designed, built, and operated. This
shift in attitude comes from conscious public
policy decisions imposing requirements on industrial and economic activities but also from a
growing market demand for environmentally
sound products and services.
300

A central issue in striving towards reduced

environmental impact is the need for a practicable
and meaningful yardstick for measuring environmental performance, both in terms of identifying
starting points and monitoring progress. As for
any other sector, from the construction and
property sectors perspective this can be divided
in two slightly different points of view: measuring
the environmental impact of design, construction
and property management activities (as services
or industrial production processes) and the
environmental impact of buildings (as products).
From the latter point of view the question is about
identifying and quantifying of the environmental
impact of the construction, use and eventual
Bu i l d i n

Re s e a r c h & I n

f o r m at io n

(1999) 27(4/5), 300308

BUILT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

dismantling of a building in a given location and

time span.
Two basic methodological frameworks have been
developed for assessing the environmental impact
of a given object: Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Life Cycle Assessment (LCA). In
principle both share the aim of objectively inventorying and assessing the environmental impacts of
their objects of study, but they differ in one
fundamental sense (Fig. 1). In EIA the focus is put
on assessing the actual environmental impacts of an
object located on a given site and in a given context,
whereas LCA is formulated to assess the non-site
speci c potential environmental impacts of a
product regardless of where, when or by whom it
is used.
Thinking about a building as a product, as an object
of environmental performance assessment, it becomes clear that buildings fall somewhere in
between the strict scopes of EIA and LCA. Buildings incorporate a variety of characteristics of an
inherently site and context dependent nature,
making buildings from this perspective natural
objects for an EIA study. Among the most obvious
examples of such characteristics are choices of
energy carriers (often at least partly dictated by
locally available infrastructure), induced transport
requirements to and from the site, buildings
impacts on surrounding properties etc. On the
other hand buildings even though extremely
complex in comparison with many others can be
also considered as generic industrial products
serving a well de ned functional need over a
de nable life cycle, thus tting also into the scope
of LCA. Hence most of the currently applied

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

site and context specific actual impacts
on the environment
applied on large capital stock
investments, infrastructure projects etc
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
non site specific potential impacts on
the environment
standardized principles (ISO 1404x)
applied on the product level

building environmental assessment methods

discussed in more detail later are in a sense
crossbreeds of the two approaches (Bryan, 1998).

Applications for environmental

assessment in the building sector
Environmental management systems in the
real property sector
The introduction of environmental management
systems, in compliance with the ISO 14000 series
standards or the EMAS scheme within the European Union, is also gradually taking place in the
property sector. Establishing an environmental
management system aims to change an organizations management practices and operational patterns in order to reach improvements in the
environmental performance and, consequently, in
the long term business performance of the organization.
Among the rst steps in establishing an environmental management system (both in terms of ISO
14000 and EMAS) is the conduction of an environmental review of the companys activities and
processes. From a property companys (be it a
developer, property holding company, institutional
building owner, etc.) perspective it is (or at least
should be) obvious that a major contribution to the
companys total environmental impact comes from
the construction, operation and maintenance of the
buildings and facilities the company provides to its
customers. Hence an environmental state-of-the-art
review of a property company should build on an
analysis of the companys property portfolio.

Community

Buildings

Building products and components

Construction materials

Fig. 1. Conceptual differences between environmental impact assessment (EIA) and life cycle assessmen t (LCA).
301

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

CRAWLEY AND AHO

Building environmental assessment methods, if

properly formulated and implemented, provide a
good set of tools for this purpose.
As the information produced by such a review is (in
theory) only intended to serve the property
companys efforts in producing plans and programmes for reducing environmental impact, the
methods and tools used do not need to be either
standardized nor transparent. From this point of
view the only actual requirements on the content of
the applied environmental assessment methods are
de ned by the amount, type and quality of
information needed to serve the companys speci c
internal targets.

Public instruments for property marketing

The primary intention behind the development of
schemes for environmental labelling, rating and
declaration of products is to provide consumers
with the means for making purchase decisions
based on the environmental characteristics of
available product alternatives. Industrial and commercial faith (at least in certain sectors) in the
market transformation impacts of such schemes is
visualized in the fact that there is already a large
number of variable schemes existing, developed
either for different kinds of consumer product
groups or for assessing products from different
standpoints.
The main difference between the different approaches can be found in the amount of information directly provided to the consumer and in the
level of aggregation of this information. Whereas
environmental labelling only declares that a product meets certain prede ned environmental requirements, the idea behind rating systems is to
inform the consumer also on the products performance relative to available alternatives. Environmental product declarations, on the other hand,
provide a structured account on a products
`environmental content, but usually do not allow
direct comparisons between products because of
the disaggregated nature of the information provided.
Building environmental assessment methods can in
principle be envisaged to apply for all three
purposes. (In practice, however, the usefulness to
the average consumer of an environmental product
declaration of a building might in all its complexity
be questioned.) Building environmental labelling or
302

rating schemes exist in a number of countries

already or are being developed. Most common
examples of such schemes are, of course, BREEAM
in the UK and LEED in the US.
In order for an environmental assessment method
to form an acceptable basis for a public labelling or
rating scheme certain fundamental requirements
must be met, both from a philosophical and a
practical point of view.
Methodological transparency is one of the most
fundamental requirements. Both consumers and
companies operating on the market must be able to
access and understand the assumptions, data and
other methodological issues in uencing the outcome of assessments and consequent ratings of
different buildings. This is a key issue both in terms
of the consumers making conscious choices and
meaningful comparisons and in terms of building
sector companies being able to improve their
performance and thus effectively compete on the
market.
Another important requirement, somewhat related
to the above, is that assessments leading to a public
rating should in principle be fully performancebased and that they should not include featurebased judgements of the buildings technical
characteristics. Rating or labelling buildings on
the basis of their technical features (e.g. envelope Uvalues, inclusion of low ow sanitary xtures,
inclusion=exclusion of prede ned materials, etc.)
might rst of all exclude buildings with certain
technical details from obtaining a good rating
regardless of the buildings overall performance.
Secondly, and more importantly, feature-based
assessment inevitably encourages the building
sector towards `feature-based design and maintenance of buildings and not towards achieving
good performance, a fact which obviously is a
major contradiction with the fundamental targets of
building labelling and rating. In practice, however,
tools and methods available for the assessment of
many key aspects of building performance (e.g.
indoor climate) are currently not developed to the
extent that would enable practical, strictly performance based assessments to be made.

Building performance specication and

targeting
One of the most natural applications of environmental assessment methods is the speci cation of

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

BUILT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

environmental targets for a construction project.

However, in addition to having a framework
provided by an environmental assessment system,
meaningful performance speci cation also requires a set of benchmarks against which targets
are set and ef cient tools adapted for the clients
use for verifying the proposed designs compliance with the targets. Applying the current
environmental assessment methods typically requires special `environmental assessment expertise, and hence are applicable as speci cation and
targeting tools only in larger projects where external expertise can be afforded.
The GBA system developed in conjunction with the
Green Building Challenge process (described in
more detail below) has to a certain extent tried to
address this problem by incorporating a `nesting
principle in its structure. The idea of nesting is to
allow the system to be used consistently on different levels of detail, e.g. to be able to assess (or set
targets for) energy consumption either on the level
of statistically or otherwise derived indicator
values, on the level of simulated energy performance predictions for the operations phase or
ultimately on the level of full life cycle energy
analysis (including cradle-to-grave or lust-to-dust
calculations of all building elements and materials,
construction site energy consumption). Hence
nesting would allow for performance targets to be
speci ed on the highest abstraction level and the
compliance of designs with the targets to be
veri ed using methods indicated on the highest
level of detail. However, nesting as implemented in
GBA needs further development before it serves
this purpose in a practicable way.

information on and characteristics of the technical

details of the system.
How can environmental assessment methods help
in design? The primary bene t from these schemes
is that they can provide a structured means of
incorporating performance targets and criteria into
the design process. An example of this is the
nesting principle in the GBA method, already
discussed above, which (at least in principle)
enables overall criteria to be de ned and evaluated
during the `design-assessment process (Fig 2).
Design guidelines are of a different nature. The
purpose of these is (or should be) to provide
(technical) guidance on the interrelationship between technical implementation and performance,
e.g., what are the impacts of a technical solution on
a performance indicator, how to design and
dimension a system to reach a given performance
level, etc. Hence the common denominator of
design guidelines and performance assessment
systems is materialized in performance indicators
or criteria. For building design these represent
targets, objectives and=or requirements, whereas
for performance assessment they represent the
basic output of analysis.

Performance based building codes

Even though environmental assessment methods

are not originally intended to serve as design
guidelines it seems that they, in the absence of
better alternatives, are increasingly being used as
such.

Development of building codes and regulations

has in many countries been directed from featurebased towards performance-based requirements.
This is especially the case for building energy
codes for which the change is visualized by a shift
from regulations concerning, for example, maximum allowable U-values of individual envelope
components to regulations on the calculated energy performance of the design. Environmental
assessment methods might provide a means for
incorporating holistic environmental performance
requirements in national building regulations, and
thus signi cantly reducing the environmental impact of new construction.

However, it is important to conceptually separate

product design and product assessment. Building
design (and systems design in general) is a topdown process in which the original overall concept
is being gradually worked towards detailed implementation (Fig 2). Performance assessment, on
the other hand, takes place in a bottom-up direction, synthesizing the overall environmental performance of a given design starting from

Verifying the compliance of building designs with

the magnitude of existing regulations and norms is
a time and labour consuming task, both in terms of
the designers producing necessary documentation
energy and environmental regulations require
documentation beyond what is needed for actual
construction and in terms of local and regional
of cials carrying out the actual compliance veri cation. With design budgets already constrained,

Building design

303

RM

ABSTRACT

O
RF
AN

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

Users needs
PE

O Ge
bj
ec ne
tiv ral
es

CRAWLEY AND AHO

CE
SE
SS

E
Q xt e
ua r n
lit al
ie
s

AS

Functional
requirements

M
EN
T

SY

Functions
and operating
principles

EM

In
op t er
er na
tie l
s

ST
S
D

CONCRETE

ct B
er as
is ic
tic
s
ra
ha
C

N
IG

Pr

ES

Technical
implementation

ne
C

om

po

ul
e
M
od

te

nt

DETAILED

Sy
s

O
E n pe
v i r at
ro io
nm na
en l
t

HOLISTIC

Fig. 2. The interrelationship and conceptual differences of systems design and performance assessment .

construction clients and their designers might not

welcome the extra cost of documenting the buildings environmental performance for regulatory
purposes.
Some countries have already taken steps towards
accepting environmental assessment as an alternative route to complying with building regulations. One of the rst examples is presented in the
current Norwegian building code where compliance with energy performance requirements
can be shown not only by using prede ned
envelope insulation levels or providing a calculated
energy consumption, but also by performing a
(more or less detailed) LCA study on the building
and comparing the results with the life cycle energy
use of a `standard building. This, of course,
provides a host of new opportunities and degrees
of freedom for building design, possibilities which
can be used to compensate for the additional cost of
carrying out detailed assessments during the
project. This could provide an additional incentive
for construction clients to take on environmental
assessment as standard practice in construction
projects.
304

However, it should be noticed that a considerable

amount of education and training is needed both on
the local and regional authorities side and on the
design professionals side before mandatory instruments can effectively operate on the market. The
transition from traditional feature based building
codes to performance requirements has already, in
the case of energy regulations, turned out to be a
large step for both professions.

Environmental auditing of existing buildings

The vast majority of the building stock was built
in the past and has been in use for several
decades, especially in Europe. The focus of construction activities has gradually been shifting
from new construction to renovation and refurbishment projects. Also the fact that building
stocks in general are renewed at a rate of 1 2%
annually implies that the largest improvement
potential in the environmental performance of
buildings lies in incorporating effective environmental measures in renovations.
Environmental assessment methods in general, and

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

BUILT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

the `building inventory components contained

therein in particular, provide a good starting point
for renovation and refurbishment design. Assessment methods can be used both in identifying the
most critical components of the environmental
performance of existing buildings, in analysing
the potential impact of different renovation alternatives and in selecting and implementing the most
cost ef cient measures for environmental improvements.

Examples of existing assessment

methods
Many of the existing building environmental assessment methods can meet some of the needs
addressed in the prior section. In this section, we
compare and contrast the appropriate applications
and scope of assessment for the four most widely
known assessment methods. The scope and application of the assessment methods varies widely;
each assessment method is described brie y below.

BREEAM, Building Research Establishment

Building Research Establishment Environmental
Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) was developed by the Building Research Establishment in
the UK and is most widely used of the methods
described here. A voluntary, consensus-based,
market-focused assessment method, BREEAM
uses three scales for environmental impact: global,
local, and indoor issues (Prior, 1993). When a
building has been evaluated using BREEAM, the
result is a single score. Versions of BREEAM have
been developed for new and existing buildings in
the UK and versions have been or are being
developed for Hong Kong, Australia, and Canada.

BEPAC, University of British Columbia

Building Environmental Performance Assessment
Criteria (BEPAC) was developed at the University
of British Columbia and launched in 1993 (Cole et
al., 1993). Similar to BREEAM, BEPAC can be
used to evaluate the environmental performance
of new designs and existing buildings. BEPAC
results in a composite weighting of ve major
areas: ozone protection, environmental impacts of
energy use, indoor environmental quality, resource conservation, and site and transportation.
BEPAC is primarily used in Canada.

LEED, US Green Building Council

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
(LEED) (USGBC, 1998) was developed through
consensus of the US Green Building Council. It
will be launched in a pilot programme in 1999 in
the US as a voluntary, market-based assessment
method intended to de ne a green building. In
evaluating a building using the LEED criteria,
there are minimum, mandatory requirements in
areas such as building commissioning, energy
ef ciency, indoor air quality, ozone depletion=CFCs, smoking ban, comfort, and water.
Once the mandatory requirements are met, a
building can earn `credits in 14 areas. Depending
on the total credits, a building receives a rating
level of `bronze, `silver, `gold, or `platinum.

GBA, Natural Resources Canada and

University of British Columbia
The Green Building Assessment (GBA) framework
(Larsson and Cole, 1998) was developed to provide a new, common assessment method for
evaluating green buildings throughout the world.
Thirteen countries used the GBA to compare the
environmental features of their `best green buildings culminating in the Green Building Challenge
98 (GBC 98) conference held in Vancouver in
October 1998 (NRC, 1998). Building on the Canadian experience with BEPAC, an international
framework committee (IFC) comprising representatives of 13 countries reviewed and developed
the GBA. The IFC worked to ensure that the GBA
took a comprehensive view of environmental
issues within buildings, organizing the assessment
in six major areas: resource consumption, environmental loadings, quality of indoor environment,
longevity, process, and contextual factors. Further,
as described earlier, the GBA used a nesting
structure (criteria and subcriteria) to accommodate the large variation in information and detail
available on buildings (Cole and Larsson, 1998).
The GBA was implemented in a software tool
the Green Building Tool or GBTool. Data at the
individual subcriteria level were compiled in the
GBTool for the 34 buildings evaluated for GBC 98.
Each national team developed weighting for subcriteria and criteria, which were applied and
composite, weighted scores for the six criteria
presented. One of the weaknesses of the GBA is
that individual country teams established scoring
weights subjectively when evaluating their build305

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

CRAWLEY AND AHO

ings. Most users found the GBTool dif cult to use

because of the complexity of the framework. We
anticipate that these perceived weaknesses will be
addressed in adjusting the GBA for use in GBC
2000.

Applications and scope

In Table 1, the potential applications described in
the previous Section Applications for environmental assessment in the building sector are
used to contrast these four assessment methods
BREEAM, BEPAC, LEED, and GBA. These are
based upon our experience using the four assessment methods. As can be seen in the table, most
methods do not meet all the identi ed application
needs for building environmental assessment
although GBA comes closest. As found while
assessing the 34 buildings for GBC 98, determining embodied energy was extremely dif cult and
costly. Several countries decided speci cally not
to address it in their assessment.
In Table 2, the outline of the GBA method is used
(resource consumption, environmental loadings,
indoor environment, longevity, process, and contextual factors) to further compare the same four
assessment methods. The scopes noted in Table 2
are based with our experience using each of the
methods. It is interesting to note that all four
methods effectively deal with resource consumption issues. Beyond consumption, they vary in
focus and hence, in scope and potential applicability.

Existing (and developing) LCA tools and EIA

tools must work better with the assessment methods.
International work to develop common assessment
methods such as the GBA have revealed many
common themes, even if the relative weighting
differ signi cantly from country to country. These
methods can be successfully applied at the local,
regional, national, and international level through
local weighting of the issues the criteria represent. In
the end, the combination of these localized weightings to all the environmental issues facing the
construction and property sector become that
community or countrys valuing of what a green
building truly is. Much works remains to ensure that
methods provide an objective means of assessing the
environmental performance of new building designs and existing building re t potentials. As the
GBA is adapted for use in GBC 2000 and beyond, it
may be adapted to ensure objectivity.
We see the following four major development paths
as vitally important for environmental assessment
of buildings:
Methodological development should be directed to address both the assessment of buildings
(product assessment) and the assessment of
property=construction companies (business
process assessment). The rst of these approaches is serving the purposes described in
this paper. The second line of development
only brie y touched upon in this paper and
even less in actual R&D would serve the
purposes of environmental management (business process development). Issues that should
be addressed include business process modelling from the environmental point of view,
de ning environmental ef ciency indicators
and development of environmental accounting
in the real property sector.

Conclusions
Signi cant advances in environmental assessment
methods have been seen in the last ten years.
However, signi cant work also remains for tools
to support environmental assessment methods.
Table 1. Applications of environmental assessmen t methods
Assessment
method

Application
Environmental
management

BREEAM
BEPAC
LEED
GBA

306

X
X

Product
marketing

Building
performance
targeting

Design
guidelines

X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X

Performancebased codes

Environmental
auditing in existing
buildings
X

X
X

BUILT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODS

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

Table 2. Scope of environmental assessmen t methods

Scope

Resource consumption
Embodied energy
Operation energy
Land
Water
Materials
Environmental loading
Airborne emissions
Solid
Liquid waste
Other loadings
Indoor environment
Air quality
Thermal quality
Visual quality
Noise and acoustics
Controllability of systems
Longevity
Adaptability
Maintenance of performance
Process
Design and construction
Building operation
Contextual factors
Contextual factors
Loads on immediate surroundings

Full consistency between materials LCA,

building products LCA and building assessment should be assured through combined
effort of the research communities involved in
these elds. Current (and most likely also
future) building assessment methods rely more
or less blindly on the results of full LCA studies
on building materials and components, which
naturally means that con dence in the applicability of such results must be extremely
high.
Design guidelines for green buildings are
clearly needed in the market. The fact that the
demand for guidelines for the design of green
buildings has not yet been met in a satisfactory
manner has resulted in many of the current
assessment methods, such as BREEAM, being
used in practice as design guidelines.
There is a clear need for new development
methods for `community assessment. Incorporating community related issues (e.g. transport implications) into building assessment

Assessment method
BREEAM

BEPAC

LEED

GBA

X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

X
X

schemes has proven to be problematic both

from the theoretical point of view and practice,
and might even in some cases lead to wrong
conclusions.

References
Bryan, H. (1998) Ef cacy of environmental assessment
systems in addressing energy concerns, in Conference Proceedings of the 23rd National Passive Solar
Conference, June, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA,
pp. 305 311.
Cole, R.J., Rousseau, D. and Theaker, I.T. (1993)
Building Environmental Performance Assessment Criteria: Version 1 Ofce Buildings, December. The
BEPAC Foundation, Vancouver, Canada.
Cole, R. J. and Larsson, N. K. (1998) GBC 98 Assessment
Manual: Volume 1, Overview, April. Natural Resources Canada Ottawa, Canada.
Larsson, N. K. and Cole, R. J. (1998) GBC 98: context,
history and structure, in Conference Proceedings,
Green Building Challenge 98. October. Vancouver,
Canada. Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada, pp. 15 25.
307

Downloaded By: [Escola Politecnica - USP] At: 19:40 9 January 2008

CRAWLEY AND AHO

Natural Resources Canada (1998) Conference Proceedings,

Green Building Challenge 98. October. Vancouver,
Canada Natural Resources Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
Prior, J. (ed.) (1993) Building Research Establishment
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM), Ver-

308

sion 1=93. New Of ces, Building Research Establishment, Garston, United Kingdom.
US Green Building Council (1998) LEED Buildings Green
Building Rating System Criteria, US Green Building
Council, San Francisco, California.