Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan

Sustainable Management of Public Buildings
Adnan Awan
Bachelor of Civil and Infrastructure Engineering, RMIT University
Abstract: In light of the increasing number of deteriorating public buildings and with councils facing a
limited budget, there is a strong need to pursue a sustainable management approach to assessing and
monitoring public buildings. Currently, there are a variety of assessment tools and methods readily
available to evaluate public buildings yet many of these methods lack a holistic approach. The aim of this
research paper is to investigate a relationship between the impact levels of various building component
types at their best and worst condition against a four-tier sustainability criterion. Impact levels obtained
from local council delegates will allow for a detailed analysis of the level of impact of specific building
component types against the four aspects of sustainability. The results from the assessment of the three
local council buildings will highlight key trends and relationships observed as well as areas which are of
concern to the operation of public buildings consequently aiming to assist in the improvement of
management and monitoring procedures.
Keywords: Sustainable, Impact, Assessment, Building, Management, Ratings.
1. Introduction
In Victoria, there are 79 councils each of which operate and maintain over 200 public buildings. Many of
these buildings have significantly aged with their structural components deteriorating over time. Local
councils now face a challenging task of managing and maintaining these buildings and their services with
a limited budget and a rapidly growing community. The need for a more sustainable approach to
managing these public buildings is further highlighted by many current assessment methods and tools
which lack a holistic perspective and adopt a one-dimensional criterion for assessing buildings. Current
assessment tools fail to provide a balanced overview of the condition and impact of assets within public
buildings, many of which focus too heavily on certain criteria and thus overlook key indicators that
incorporate the principles of sustainability. Local councils have a large responsibility to constantly monitor
and assess their public buildings and ensure that the condition of their assets will not have a negative
impact on their services. Currently, there are a variety of building assessment tools and methods which
are readily used in today’s industry however, some of these tools and methods are acclimatized for local
conditions and consequently vary in their framework and rating system.
The challenge for local councils is to implement a balanced asset management strategy which addresses
key indicators such as condition and impact levels of assets and components. This research aims to
provide an insight into how to improve the overall sustainability of existing public buildings based on a
building component type level and thus identify the key impact level trends as well as areas which need
further development. By gaining an understanding of the current use of existing assessment tools, this
paper further enhances their effectiveness to a significantly more holistic level. The implementation of
building component types within the assessment of impact levels provides a more detailed analysis of the
condition of assets within a public building and their impact socially, environmentally, economically and on
a functional level. By targeting building component types and groups which have a significant impact at
their best and worst condition, local councils will be able to focus their attention on improving the efficiency
of these component types which ultimately will lead to minimising operating costs, energy consumption
and recurring maintenance costs. If local councils can develop an assessment system which actively
provides feasible information about the condition and impact of their public buildings, a more accurate
evaluation of a building’s performance and functioning can be achieved. This research project will aim to
explore the relationship between the condition and impact levels of building component types against the
four critical underlying factors of sustainability and thus identify whether there is a clear trend among local
councils and their public buildings.

2. Literature Review
Over the years, there have been many sustainable building assessment tools and methods readily used in
the construction industry which have been further developed, adapted and become increasingly effective.
Although the literature covers a vast range of building assessment tools from various countries, this
review will focus on the major tools and methods currently incorporated which occur repeatedly in the
literature. These major assessment tools include the Green Star Rating Tools (GBCA), Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment
Method (BREEAM) and Comprehensive Assessment System for Built Environmental Efficiency
(CASBEE). Evidently, these tools and assessment methods have been used in leading countries with
many of these countries placing strong emphasis on the evolving concept of sustainability. The problem
with existing building assessment methods lies within their framework and rating systems in addition to the
one-dimensional criteria used for assessing the performance of public buildings. This literature review
aims to identify the recurring issue within assessment tools and methods and provide means for possible
adaption.
Throughout the industry, there have been a vast range of building assessment tools and methods, some
of which have become increasingly effective such as the Building research establishment environmental
assessment method (BREEAM) , Comprehensive assessment system for built environmental efficiency
(CASBEE), Green Star Rating Tools (Developed by Green Building Council of Australia) and Leadership
in energy and design (LEED). All of these tools have been adapted and developed in leading countries
and contrast significantly in their framework and rating systems. In light of the emerging concept of
sustainability in buildings, many tools and rating systems have been implemented to assess the
performance of a building through an economic, social, functional and environmental perspective so as to
maintain and manage these buildings in a sustainable manner. Fowler and Rauch (2006) discussed the
various existing assessment methods through a comparative analysis in the ‘Sustainable Buildings
Ratings Summary’. BREEAM was developed in the United Kingdom in 1990 and covers a variety of
building types including offices, homes and schools. Under this assessment method, points are awarded
for each criterion and the points are added for a total score. The overall building performance is awarded
a ranking which consists of ‘pass’, ‘good’, ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’ based on the score obtained. CASBEE
was developed in Japan and is considered to be a relatively new assessment tool. This particular tool is
based on the building’s life-cycle consisting of pre-design, new construction, existing buildings and
renovation. CASBEE utilises the combination of environmental load and quality of building performance
with each criterion scored from level 1 to level 5. Under this method, there are three major categories of
criteria for Building Quality and Performance and Building Environmental Loading respectively. LEED was
developed and trialled in the US in 1998 as a consensus-based building rating system in reference to the
use of existing building technology. In contrast to other assessment tools, LEED uses a whole building
environmental performance approach and there are varying versions of the tool for new construction,
existing buildings and renovations (Sustainable Buildings Ratings Summary 2006). The issue with current
building assessment tools and methods is the contrasting ratings systems implemented and differing
frameworks for the assessment criteria which is adapted to suit local climatic conditions. The challenge is
whether a general consensus can be adopted between assessment methods where there is a clear
similarity in rating systems coupled with a holistic framework for the evaluations of buildings.
With the constantly evolving nature of the construction industry and with an ever increasing number of
deteriorating buildings present, there is a strong demand for a holistic and systematic approach to
sustainably managing public buildings from a local council’s perspective. Consequently, there is a strong
need for assessment tools and methods that cohesively integrate functional, social, environmental and
economic criterion in evaluating public buildings. As Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008) assert, ‘Sustainable
building sets challenging requirements for the assessment tools – in addition to the environmental aspect,
the economic and social aspects need to be considered and included in the assessments’. The framework
of these existing tools and methods is of concern to leaders in the industry as a significant number of
these assessment methods are directly related to specific types of buildings and climates. The current
issue lies within the methodology behind the assessment tools and the importance which favours certain
criteria over another. Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka (2007) further highlight this issue by stating that
although indicators, checklists and assessment tools for sustainability in construction are available, they
still lack a measured and structured approach for the implementation of sustainable practices and

methods within construction projects. The adaptability of these current tools and methods to be applicable
to other climates and scenarios is a debatable topic and one which needs addressing.
Many early building assessment tools developed, centered their focus on a performance based criteria
and were restricted by a stringent underlying factor in cost. Although, cost plays a critical role in assessing
and maintaining public buildings, the impact of other factors such as sustainable principles and the use of
a multi criterion approach cannot be underestimated. Cole (cited in Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka 2007)
defines the term ‘building performance’ as rather complex as various factors in the building sector have
differing interests and requirements. Haapio and Viitaniemi (2008) assert ‘environmental assessment tools
vary to a great extent. A variety of different tools exist for building components, whole buildings and whole
building assessment frameworks. Ding (2007) addresses the issue of a performance based approach by
contending that the aim of sustainability assessment goes even further than at the design stage of a
project suggesting that there is a lack of concern at the project appraisal stage, a stage in which
environmental principles are best incorporated. In many respects, assessment tools used for evaluating
buildings adopt a single assessment criterion which limits the effectiveness of the results obtained.
Janikowski et al (cited in Ding 2008) contests that using only one assessment criterion cannot be
regarded as a correct approach, suggesting that the importance of implementing a multi-criteria approach
which considers a variety of issues concerning a building is crucial. The implementation of an extended
range of criteria within building assessment methods will provide a more accurate result and evaluation of
the overall performance and functioning of a building.
Building performance has always been a major concern of professionals in the construction industry
however with the emergence of ‘green buildings’, many assessment methods and tools are now starting to
broaden their criteria and framework to achieve a more holistic evaluation of a building (Ding 2007).
Achieving a sustainable level of management of public buildings is an extensive process which requires
the integration of comprehensive building assessment tools and methods. With a large portion of public
buildings in Victoria deteriorating rapidly, the concept of sustainability has become an underlying factor in
monitoring and assessing the impacts of these buildings holistically. Currently, there are a variety of
building assessment tools and methods which are readily available with each tool and method varying
with their respective rating systems and frameworks. Many of these tools implement a single-criterion
approach which disregards and overlooks important and critical performance indicators of a building. In
addition, these tools seemingly focus their assessment on the operational stage of a building without
considering the project appraisal or design stages which underpin the building’s framework and design for
performance. Essentially, the literature covered in this paper follows a similar trend such that it suggests
that although there are performance indicators and methods readily available, many of these assessment
tools lack a structured and measured approach to adopting sustainable practices within the construction
industry (Hakkinen, Vesikari and Pulakka 2007). After reviewing the literature covered in this paper, it is
evident that there is a strong recommendation for assessment and rating tools for buildings to provide a
multi-criteria approach which is comprehensive in the addressing all the performance indicators from a
sustainable perspective, yet establish a clear and systematic concept which can be easily applied to all
public buildings.
3. Method
Public Buildings consist of many building components all of which relate to their overall performance. In
regards to my research question: ‘how does the impact level of building components at various condition
levels affect the sustainability of public buildings from a social, economic, environmental and functional
sense?’, the aim of the research is to create a systematic and holistic approach and thus identify whether
a relationship exists between the impact and condition levels of building component types against a four
tier criterion for sustainability which includes social, environmental, economic and functional aspects.
This research project implemented a four-tier criterion within the framework of assessing the impact levels
of building component types and thus aims to provide a balanced and holistic outlook on the assessment
of public buildings. Each of the four elements of sustainability used in the criteria had their own relative
sub-criteria which provided a greater level of understanding and analysis. The framework for the research
was based upon utilising a spreadsheet which involved using the NAMS building hierarchy to gather the
building component groups and building component types as well as incorporating four aspects of
sustainability (Economic, Environmental, Functional and Social) as the criterion to be assessed. Please

refer to Appendix A for the sustainability assessment criteria hierarchy and Appendix B for the component
group hierarchy used and Appendices C, D, E and F for the defined criteria for each sustainability aspect
used in the research project.
4. Experimental Procedure
In order to investigate the relationship between the impact and condition levels of building component
types using the NAMS Hierarchy against a four tier sustainability criteria, a proposed spreadsheet was
implemented (See Attachment). This spreadsheet aimed to provide an insight into the relative impact
levels of specific building component types at their best and worst condition across a functional, social,
environmental and economic scale. Local councils within Melbourne were contacted via email and
telephone to discuss the objectives of this research and upon consent; interviews were conducted across
three different council municipalities. Each of the council delegates was presented with the defined
criteria and the assessment spreadsheet which was used to collect the data. Each council based their
impact level ratings from 1-5 (very low to very high impact) for building component types on their
respective council building in which the interview actually took place. The reason behind basing the data
on a single council building was to ensure that the data could be correlated and summarized due to the
similarities in the building’s components and operation/functioning. Although each building varied in size
and components, each of the three council buildings assessed were quite similar in their functioning and
operation with only a few discrepancies. Council A (Manningham City Council) based their impact level
ratings on the council depot and city development office building, Council B (Melbourne City Council)
based their impacts on the ‘CH2’ (Council House 2 Building) and Council C (Hume City Council) based
their impact level ratings on their own their own respective local council building.
Council A and B provided a one-to-one interview with the asset/facilities manager providing the impact
level ratings based on their knowledge and experience. Council C provided a three member panel to
assess the impact level ratings which proved to be quite beneficial to the accuracy of the ratings
collected. Due to the nature of the buildings which were assessed, some of the building component types
were not applicable for assessment and therefore, no impact level ratings were provided. Additionally,
some of the criteria were not directly related to specific component types and thus no ratings were
provided. Following the completion of the impact levels recorded, multiple impact level graphs were
generated from the ratings. Each specific building component type presented a unique impact level range
which was restrained by a minimum impact level of 1 and a maximum impact level of 5. Additionally, the
other restraint was the condition level of each component type which was predetermined to be on a broad
scale from best to worst condition. Essentially, each component type will have an impact level range for
each sub criteria within the four tier sustainability criterion.
Due to the extensive size of the assessment, impact ranges for each building component will be
summarized into a concise and clear representation of the relationship between the average impact levels
for each component group and the four aspects of sustainability. The key notion will be to identify critical
areas within the building component groups which appear to have a higher range of impact levels at their
best and worst condition and thus evaluate how these impacts will affect the management and operation
of a public building. Each individual sustainability criterion will be evaluated and dissected based on
building component groups which play a critical role with a higher impact level range. Based on the
discussion with council delegates and analysis of the impact levels recorded from various local councils,
the strength of the relationship between impact levels based on best and worst condition levels will be
identified and discussed further in the discussion and conclusion sections.
5. Results
Upon completion of interviews with various council delegates, three sets of impact level ratings were
recorded based on each council’s respective building with a minimum rating of 1 denoted as very low
impact and a maximum rating of 5 denoted a very high impact. It is to be noted that due to the fact that
each set of impact level ratings were based on a single building and upon discussion with council
members, some building component types as well as certain criteria were not applicable and as a result,
were left out of the assessment criteria.

The results from the impact level ratings recorded for each Council’s building are presented with each
aspect of the sustainability criteria assessed individually. For each council, the average impact level
ratings were calculated for each building component group at their best and worst condition. The average
impact level ratings for each building component group consisted of the averages of each individual
building component type which are summarised in graphical format in the section below. The component
types assessed within each building component group can be found in Appendix B.
5.1 Council A – Manningham City Council
For Council A, the building assessed was a single storey council depot and city development office which
had recently been extended after an increase in service demand. The depot building was relatively aged
in regards to the overall structure however had incorporated all the necessary services required for
occupants. In terms of assessment, emergency power and lighting were combined for their impact level
ratings as proposed by the interviewee due to the similarity in their operation and functioning. The majority
of exterior works were found to have little or no effect on any of the four aspects of sustainability with the
exception of water tanks. Council A did not have a fire sprinkler or hydrant system and thus these
components were left out with the exception of the fire alarm system and fire services. After some
discussion, for the interior finishes component group, interior doors, interior windows, interior walls and
wall finishes had no impact on the assessment criteria and thus were excluded. This particular building
had no lifts and as a result, Lifts/Hoist services were excluded. For mechanical services, Air Handling and
Air Distribution units were combined for a set of impact level ratings which included chilled water system,
heating system, and split A/C units. The interviewee from this council suggested that the impact level
ratings for the mechanical services were considered to be relatively similar and an overall impact level
rating across all aspects of sustainability would be more appropriate. For security services, CCTV systems
were the only applicable component type for this building. A combined set of impact level ratings were
provided for domestic cold water, hot water and warm water for this particular building.
5.1.1 Environmental Criteria
Figure 1. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council A.
From an environmental perspective, it was evident that for council A’s depot building, the majority of
the building component groups generally had a lower impact level average at their best condition in
direct comparison to their worst condition. Exterior works was the only exemption as it included
water tanks as a component group type which, at its best condition would be functioning well and
consuming a lot of water usage and management in comparison to its worst condition where there
would be minimal or no water usage. This is explained by the impact level range of 4-2 from best to
worst condition for water tanks under the water quality and management sub criteria. The most
critical aspects of the environmental criteria evidently appeared to be energy efficiency and user
comfort which presented relatively high impact levels for building component group types at their
worst condition. It is interesting to note that fire and security services had an equal level of impact at
best and worst condition with both component group types providing low to moderate levels of
impact with ranges of 2-2 and 3-3. This may suggest that these component groups play a critical
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire Services Interior
Finishes
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Building Component Group
Average Impact Level @ Best Condition
Average Impact Level @ Worst Condition

role in regards to the environmental impact of a building as indicated by their ratings for energy
efficiency and user comfort. The largest discrepancy between best and worst condition for a
building component group was electrical services where the difference in the average impact level
was 2.3. At its best condition, electrical services had only an average impact level of 1.5 however at
its worst condition; it had an average impact level of 3.8. The difference between the best and worst
condition for electrical services highlights the importance of managing the condition and functioning
of this particular building component group in regards to minimising its environmental impact.
5.1.2 Economic Criteria
Figure 2. Economic Impact Level Average for Council A.
From an economic perspective, it is observed from the graph above that the average impact level of
a building component group at its best condition is lower than the average impact level at its worst
condition. Electrical services evidently recorded the highest average impact level for council A’s
building with a rating of 3.6 at its worst condition. However, the significance of the economic impact
of this particular building is highlighted by the notion that nine out of the ten building component
groups had an average impact level rating of 3 or more at their worst condition. This suggests that
close monitoring and management of all building component groups is crucial in mitigating any
significant economic impact as a result of building components reaching a condition level which is
simply unsustainable. Life cycle cost and additional capital investment appeared to be the
underlying factors towards the overall economic impact of this particular building with impact level
ranges reaching 3 and 4 respectively. It is interesting to note that the majority of component group
types had an equal impact at best and worst condition for the additional capital investment criteria
emphasising their value towards the building. Land value and local economy didn’t seem to have a
significant impact on any of the building component types. Additionally, electrical services again had
the greatest difference in average impact level at best and worst condition with a discrepancy of
2.2.
5.1.3 Social Criteria
Figure 3. Social Impact Level Average for Council A.
From a social perspective, it was rather surprising to observe from the graph above that the majority
of building component groups had a similar impact at their best and worst condition. Eight out of the
ten building component groups had the same average impact level at their best and worst
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Building Component Group Average Impact Level @ Best Condition
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Finishes
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

conditions respectively. With the exceptions of electrical services and water services, the eight
other building component groups provided an average impact level rating of at least 3 at their best
or worst condition. These particular building component groups further underline the level of social
impact that this particular building collectively exerts and the importance of their functioning towards
the community as well as employees. In addition, community benefits and equity, neighbourhood
character and employee well-being were the major contributors towards the overall social impact of
the building. Lighting, air distribution/handling units, sanitary plumbing and fire services were some
of the building components types which presented impact level ranges of 4-4 from best to worst
condition. Water tanks had the highest impact level with a range of 4-4 which highlighted the
significance of this component type towards community benefits and equity. Overall, it is evident
that this particular building and its component groups play a critical role in exerting social impact
with employee well-being and community benefits providing the foundations for controlling and
managing their influence.
5.1.4 Functional Criteria
Figure 4. Functional Impact Level Average for Council A.
From a functional perspective, it is clearly evident from the graph above that each building
component group’s worst condition has a significantly higher impact level average compared to its
best condition. Most importantly, the severity of a building component type’s impact level at its worst
condition is further exemplified from a functional aspect. Impact of failure and response as well as
level of service proved to be some of the major contributors towards the overall functional impact of
each building component group. Emergency power and internal/external lighting provided the
highest impact level range with 1-5 and 2-5 respectively for their best to worst condition in regards
to the impact of failure and response criteria. Additionally, these two component types as well as
water tanks, fire alarm and fire services all provided an impact level rating of 4 for their worst
condition in regards to the level of service criteria. It is also worth noting that in terms of compliance
to building standards and regulations, each component type provided an equal impact level at their
best and worst conditions respectively which further highlights the significance of complying with
specific codes and building standards which have to be legally met regardless of a component’s
condition. Overall, electrical services had the highest impact level average at its worst condition with
a rating of 4.2 whereas water services and external fabric provided the equal lowest impact level
average of 2.7 for their worst condition. Interestingly, external fabric which includes external walls,
roof, windows and doors provided the highest impact level average of 3.2 for its best condition with
impact level ranges of 3-3 and 4-4 respectively in comparison to security services which had the
lowest impact level average of 1 at its best condition and 3 at its worst condition which directly
coincided with the impact of failure and response criteria.
5.2 Council B – Melbourne City Council
The assessment of council B was based upon the Council House 2 building which is otherwise known as
‘CH2’. This particular multi-storey building in comparison to the other two council’s buildings was the most
advanced in terms of passive design and sustainable measures implemented throughout the building.
Although this building had its unique individual characteristics, it also had similar concepts within the
building which could be compared with the other two council’s respective buildings which were assessed.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

In terms of assessment, power conditioning was excluded from the electrical services group as it was not
applicable, stairs and rails as well as water tanks were the only component types within exterior works
rated, fire communications was incorporated within the fire services component type, fixtures and fittings,
interior windows and wall finishes were not applicable to the criteria upon discussion and some of the
mechanical services component types were combined with other component types for assessment as was
the case with security services component group.
Figure 5. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council B.
From an environmental perspective, it can be seen from the graph above that eight out of the ten
building component groups have a greater impact level average at their worst condition in direct
comparison to their best condition. The two exceptions were security services which did not have
any associated environmental impact and exterior works which included water tanks as well as
stairs and rails. For the exterior works component group, it is evident that there is a greater impact
level average at its best condition with a rating of 3.5 as opposed to its worst condition with an
impact level average of 3. The reason for the higher impact level at its best condition can be best
explained by the fact that the water tanks component type had an impact level range of 4-1 from
best to worst condition under the water quality and management criteria which certainly affected the
overall environmental impact level average for the best and worst condition. The highest impact
level average at worst condition was provided by the lift/hoist services and plumbing services
component groups with a rating of 5. The ratings for the lift/hoist services component group were
the direct result of the impact level range associated with the energy efficiency criteria of 3-5 from
best to worst condition. Similarly, the ratings for the plumbing services component group were the
direct result of the water quality and management criteria which presented an impact level range of
3—5 from best to worst condition. In regards to environmental criteria, water quality and
management, material sustainability, energy efficiency, air and noise pollution as well as user
comfort collectively proved to be critical factors in assessing the overall environmental impact of
each component group. The majority of impact levels for component types at their worst condition
reached a rating of 5 under the water quality and management and user comfort criterion which
highlights the significance of the impact of these component groups if they reach a poor condition
level whilst functioning.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

Figure 6. Economic Impact Level Average for Council B.
From an economic perspective, it can be observed from the graph above that nine out of the ten
building component groups have a ‘very low’ impact level when operating at their best condition
with the impact level averages varying between 1-1.4. Lifts/hoist services was the only exception
with an impact level average of 2.5 at its best condition. At worst condition it is evident that lifts/hoist
services and exterior works accounted for the highest impact level average of 4 which consisted of
component types including stairs and rails, water tanks and vertical transport. Security and fire
services provided the lowest impact level ranges which were 1-2 from best to worst condition.
Generally, within the life cycle cost sub criteria, the impact level ranges across numerous building
component types were 1-2 and 1-3 respectively with the exceptions of water tanks and emergency
power which had an impact level range of 1-4. Equally, the additional capital investment criteria
presented a large number of impact level ranges of 1-2 and 1-3 across all component groups and
types which indicated that there is a low to moderate level of impact from this building and its
components towards additional capital investment costs. Interestingly, within the local economy
criteria all component types which were assessed were given an impact level rating of 5 at worst
condition which stipulates that more than 50% of materials and services are non-locally produced
as mentioned in the defined criteria. Building component types appeared to have no relation to the
land value criteria.
5.2.3 Social Criteria
Figure 7. Social Impact Level Average for Council B.
From a social perspective, Council B’s building appeared to have a mixed assessment towards
social impact at each building component group’s best and worst condition. Electrical services,
exterior works, external fabric, interior finishes and lifts/hoist services all evidently presented greater
impact level averages at their best condition in direct comparison to their worst condition. These
particular component groups had higher impact level ratings at their best condition for local
community engagement, neighbourhood character but most significantly, employee well-being. This
can best explained by the reasoning that at their best condition, the component groups mentioned
appeared to have benefited a larger portion of the community and employees within the building
which stipulated the higher impact level averages recorded ranging from 2.7-5. However, these
particular component groups still presented relatively moderate levels of impact at worst condition
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

which highlights their overall social impact importance. Conversely, fire services, mechanical
services, plumbing, security and water services all had a greater impact level average at worst
condition ranging from 2-4.6. Although these building component groups may have some benefit at
best condition, the interviewee from council B suggested that at their worst condition, these
particular component groups would present substantially larger impact levels and serious concern.
This is emphasised by the fact that within these component groups, all the component types
excluding the fire alarm system presented impact levels of 1 at their best condition suggesting that
there is ‘very low’ impact whilst operating at their optimum. Fire services evidently provided the
highest impact level range which was 1-5 from best to worst condition within the employee well-
being criteria. Overall, the majority of component types assessed had a strong influence on
employee well-being as opposed to local community engagement, community benefits and equity
and neighbourhood character.
5.2.4 Functional Criteria
Figure 8. Functional Impact Level Average for Council B.
From a functional perspective, it is clearly evident that nine out of the ten building component
groups had a lower impact level average at their best condition compared to their worst condition
which was to be expected. The only exception was interior finishes which had an average impact
level range of 5-4 which is best explained by the fact that this particular component group was only
assessed on its compliance to building standards and regulations where the impact level range was
also 5-4. Due to the fact that no other functional criteria were assessed for this component group,
its impact level averages are quite misleading. One of the key concepts which were a clear trend
among all building component groups was that compliance to building standards and regulations
had either an equal range between best and worst condition or only a minor difference. In this case
across all component types assessed, the impact level range was 5-4 from best to worst condition.
The other main trend identified was that all component types at best condition within the impact of
failure and response and level of service sub criteria had presented an impact level of 1 which
stipulates that within this building, all component types functioning at their optimum level provide
only a ‘very low’ impact. Level of service provided a low to moderate response for all component
types with typical impact level ranges of 1-2 and 1-3 respectively. In terms of impact of failure and
response, multiple component types at their worst condition such as emergency power, stairs and
rails, roof, sanitary plumbing and lifts presented very high impact levels of 5.
5.3 Council C – Hume City Council
The assessment of council C was based upon their typical municipal multi-storey council building which is
now 6 months old. This particular building was quite similar to Council B’s building in terms of its multi-
storey nature and the relatively young age of the structure. On the contrary, this building had its own minor
differences in regards to services and components. In regards to assessment, lighting-flood/security,
power conditioning and conversion were excluded from electrical services, only stairs/rail and water tanks
were assessed for exterior works, fire services and communications were combined into the fire alarm
system component type, ceiling finishes and interior doors were rated for the interior finishes component
group with all other component types not being applicable across the criteria. In addition, some of the
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

component types within the mechanical services group were combined to give a more accurate rating and
special services was excluded from the security services component group.
Figure 9. Environmental Impact Level Average for Council C.
From an environmental perspective, it can be observed from the graph above that each building
component group at its worst condition has an impact level average of at least equal to or greater
than its impact level average at its best condition. The security services building component group
had no ratings across all seven assessment criteria for environmental impact. Seven out of the ten
building components had an impact level average which was greater at its worst condition
compared to its best condition with only two of these component groups exceeding an impact level
greater than 3 at their worst condition. External fabric and interior finishes had the same impact
level average across both best and worst conditions which were strictly due to their individual
ratings for the material sustainability criteria where the impact ranges were 3-3 and 5-5 respectively.
These two component groups did not have any effect on any other assessment criteria for
environmental impact. Water quality and management, energy efficiency and user comfort were the
major critical assessment criterion which determined the overall environmental impact of each
component group. Water quality and management had a typical impact level range of 2-3, energy
efficiency had a typical impact level range of 1-2 and user comfort had a typical impact level range
of 2-5 across the majority of component types.
Figure 10. Economic Impact Level Average for Council C.
From an economic perspective, it can be clearly seen from the graph above that security services
and exterior works provide the highest impact level averages at their worst conditions with ratings of
5 and 4 respectively. For security services, all of its impact levels under the life cycle cost criteria for
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Building Component Type
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

each component type at its best condition were rated as 1 with ‘very low’ impact however, at their
worst condition each of the three component types within security services produced an astounding
rating of 5 which signalled ‘very high’ impact towards life cycle cost. Exterior works was essentially
assessed solely on its life cycle cost which presented an impact level range of 1-4 consisting of the
water tanks component type. Generally, the overall trend appeared that at their best condition, all
component groups had either the same or less impact as compared to their worst condition. Life
cycle cost and additional capital investment were the major underlying factors towards the overall
economic impact of each building component group.
5.3.3 Social Impact
Figure 11. Social Impact Level Average for Council C.
From a social perspective, it can evidently be observed from the graph above that there are two
clear trends among the best and worst conditions of component groups and the impact level
averages. One of the trends is that at their best and worst conditions, component groups such as
exterior works and lifts/hoist services have the same level of impact with ranges of 3-3 and 3.5-3.5.
The other trend is that at their best condition, component groups such as electrical services, fire
services, interior finishes, plumbing, mechanical, security and water services all have a lower
impact level as compared to their worst condition where their impact level averages reach a
maximum of 5. It also interesting to note that the external fabric component group had no effect
socially and thus was not rated. The major factors within the social criteria included community
benefits and equity and employee well-being. Under the community benefits and equity criteria, the
major impact level range across many component types was 3-2 from best to worst condition and
under the employee well-being criteria; the major impact level ranges were 1-5 and 3-5 respectively
which indicates the severity of the social impact of these component types if they are at their worst
condition.
5.3.4 Functional Impact
Figure 12. Functional Impact Level Average for Council C.
From a functional perspective, it apparent from the graph above that there is a clear trend that
applies across nine out of the ten building components. This trend is quite similar to the
environmental, economic and social criterion where the building component groups have a much
smaller impact level average at their best condition as compared to their worst condition. The
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel

exception here is exterior works where the impact level average is the same at best and worst
condition with a rating of 5. This can be explained by the fact that the exterior works component
group did not have any impact levels for impact of failure and response or level of service criteria.
This particular component group had an impact level range of 5-5 for both component types which
included stairs and rails and water tanks. These impact level ranges were in accordance with the
compliance to building standards and regulations criteria and thus the average impact levels for this
component group can be misleading. One of the other major trends within the functional criteria was
that all the component types and groups assessed for the compliance to building standards and
codes criteria had an impact level range of 5-5 which highlights the importance of legally meeting
compliance codes and standards. The impact of failure and response criteria was most critical
among water services, security services, lifts/hoist services, plumbing, interior finishes and external
fabric in which all of these component groups had an impact level range of 1-5 from best to worst
condition. In regards to the level of service criteria, component groups such as security services
and mechanical services were considered to have fairly high impact level ranges which were 1-5
and 1-4 respectively. Overall from a functional sense, once a building component reaches its worst
condition, it is evident that the average impact level is a minimum of 3.3 which is severe enough to
cause serious concern in regards to the operation of a building.
6. Discussion
Each of the councils interviewed had an individually selected building which was assessed based on
similarities however varied slightly in their location, features, operation and components used. It is
apparent that among each of the council buildings assessed, the location, features and overall functioning
of the building proved to play a significant role in influencing the impact levels of building component types
across various aspects of the sustainability criterion. Depending on these parameters, each building had
its own requirements and objectives which needed to be satisfied and thus impact level averages
fluctuated to some extent across various environmental, economic, social and functional criteria.
Manningham City Council (Council A) was assessed on its single story council depot and city
development office building located in Doncaster East which undoubtedly would have been factor in
assessing various building component types and their relative impact levels. This particular building
consisted mainly of employees with customers visiting for construction and planning purposes.
Additionally, in comparison with the other two council buildings assessed, this particular building had aged
significantly even after the recent extension and also did not have any lift services. As a direct result of the
age of the structure and its components, this building evidently provided slightly higher impact levels for
building components at their best condition in comparison to council B and C’s buildings.
Melbourne City Council (Council B) was assessed on its multi-story ‘Council House 2’ office building which
was located along Collins St within Melbourne’s CBD. In comparison to the other councils, this particular
building implemented state of the art passive design and sustainability concepts and thus led the way in
regards to the development of a holistic green environment. The ‘CH2’ building utilized natural light,
cooling and heating to provide comfort for occupants with many components providing multiple benefits
and as a result, conserving energy and water. Consequently, this particular building had comparatively
lower impact levels across building component types at their best condition than council buildings A and
C.
Hume City Council (Council C) was assessed on its local council building located in Broadmeadows. This
particular building had an extremely high capacity of occupants which included employees and customers
which was significantly greater in comparison to council A’s building. As was the case with council B, this
building also provided lift services. In regards to overall efficiency and sustainability, Hume City Council
was comparable to Council B with respect to it being built to 5-star green building standards and the
relative age of the structure. Additionally, this building also had incorporated natural light and various other
sustainable measures throughout the structure to ensure conservation of energy. Due to the relative
youthful age of the structure, the average impact levels for building components at their best condition
were fairly low to moderate which was rather comparable to council B’s impact level averages.
Although each council presented various differences in their structures assessed, there was evidently a
selection of trends and relationships evident between impact level averages and their parameters at best

and worst condition across the three different councils. By conducting a detailed analysis of each of the
four aspects of sustainability for each individual council, a set of similar impact level ranges and ratings
were observed across multiple building component types and groups. Within each of the four aspects of
sustainability, there also appeared to be a selection of criteria which seemingly had a strong influence on
the impact level averages of the building component groups.
Figure 13. Comparison of Average Environmental Impact Level at Worst Condition.
Environmentally, the clear trend was that the majority of building component groups had a greater impact
level average at their worst condition as compared to their best condition which can be observed from the
figure above. Water services had similar impact level averages at worst condition across all three councils
with a range of 3-3.8. Similarly, mechanical services had average impact level ranges of 1.8-3.9 and 1.5-
3.5 across councils B and C. In addition, water services had similar impact level averages which ranged
from 2-3.8 from best to worst condition across all three councils. It was interesting to note that security
services had no environmental impact across council buildings B and C. In terms of assessment criteria,
the major contributors to the overall environmental impact levels across the three council buildings
consisted of water quality and management, energy efficiency and user comfort. These three criterions
provided the majority of impact level ratings for building component types and evidently can be seen as
the absolute measures in regards to managing the environmental impact of these council buildings.
Economically, the major contributors in reference to the assessment criteria were the life cycle cost and
additional capital investment. These two factors accounted for the majority of the impact levels recorded
for the economic criteria and thus can be viewed as the underlying concepts which need to be closely
monitored and managed in order to minimise the economic impact of a building and its components.
Interestingly, the majority of component groups at their worst condition had only a low to moderate impact
level average across the three councils with the exceptions of only a select few component groups. At
their best condition, building component groups had an average impact level range which was between 1-
2.6 indicating that if these component groups can be managed in such a way that they function at a fairly
good condition, then the economic impact will be very low to low. This particular trend is clearly evident in
figure 14 below. The exterior works component group appeared to have a comparable impact level
average at its worst condition across the three different council buildings which varied slightly from 3.5-4.
Generally, the average impact level at best condition was lower than the average impact level at worst
condition which was evident among the economic assessment of each of the council’s buildings.
Figure 14. Comparison of Average Economic Impact Level at Best Condition.
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Council A
Council B
Council C
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Council A
Council B
Council C

Socially, there were quite a few building component groups which presented fairly moderate to high
impact level averages at both best and worst condition across all three councils assessed. Exterior works
had an equal impact level average at both best and worst condition for councils A and C with ranges of 4-
4 and 3-3 respectively. Contrastingly, council B had a greater impact level at its best condition as opposed
to its worst condition across multiple component groups with a moderate to high social impact within the
two condition level parameters. Another trend which was noticeable was that the fire services and
plumbing component groups had a significantly high impact at their worst condition across all three
councils with ratings varying between 3.5-5 for fire services and 3-5 for the plumbing component group. In
terms of the social assessment criteria, employee well-being was the clear social impact parameter across
all of the council buildings assessed with a significant portion of building component groups providing an
impact level of at least 3 or more at their worst condition. This particular trend suggests that there is
serious impact towards employee well-being across the majority of building components if they are
functioning at a level which is at or near their worst condition. Component types such as internal/external
lighting, fire services, air distribution, sanitary plumbing and water services all provided impact level
ratings between 3-5 which correlated to moderate-very high social impact across councils A, B and C.
One key trend to note was that the neighbour character and local community engagement criterion proved
to have little or no influence on building component types and thus minimal effect on the overall social
impact levels of each of the council’s buildings.
Figure 15. Comparison of Average Functional Impact Level at Worst Condition.
Functionally, as evident from the graph above, there was a clear trend among eight of the ten building
component groups assessed for each council’s building where the average impact levels at worst
condition were quite similar with a variation of only 3 to 4.3. This particular trend suggests that a
significant number of building component groups assessed at their worst condition have a moderate to
high functional impact towards the overall building and its operation. Additionally, councils B and C which
had lift services incorporated had similar average impact levels for the lifts/hoist services component
group at its worst condition which deviated slightly from 4.3 to 4.7. Across councils B and C, building
component groups at their best condition typically had low to moderate functional impact levels with a
range of 2 to 3. From a functional assessment perspective, impact of failure and response, level of service
and compliance to building standards and regulations collectively played a critical role in providing the
average impact levels at best and worst condition and consequently the overall functional impact of each
council’s building. It was interesting to note that among each of the councils assessed, the compliance to
building standards and regulations had an equal impact at best and worst condition stipulating that this
particular criteria was a vital parameter which seemingly was strongly adhered to for all component
groups.
7. Conclusions
Three local councils were interviewed and assessed in regards to the impact levels of their main council
building. Each council was assessed on its own selected building which in many ways was similar in size
and shape yet differed slightly in the services, features and components implemented within the buildings.
It is worth noting that councils B and C had lifts in their building however, council A did not have any lifts.
This research paper aimed to investigate the relationship between the impact levels of various component
0
1
2
3
4
5
Electrical
Services
Exterior
Works
External
Fabric
Fire
Services
Interior
Finishes
Lifts/Hoist
Services
Mechanical
Services
Plumbing Security
Services
Water
Services
ImpactLevel
Council A
Council B
Council C

types and groups at best and worst condition across a sustainability criterion which included
environmental, economic, social and functional aspects. Each local council’s building was analysed
separately across each of the four aspects in order to accurately determine any visible trends and
relationships among building component groups and their impact levels. This method was implemented to
account for the variations between each council’s building due to various factors including the age of the
structure, number of stories, type of components, features and materials. After analysing each council’s
building individually, it was apparent that there were some obvious trends and relationships that frequently
occurred across various aspects of sustainability and certainly among component types and groups.
Some of the clear trends evident across each council’s building varied based on the condition parameters
of best to worst as well as the four aspects of sustainability. From an environmental impact perspective,
the clear trend observed was that the majority of building component groups had a greater impact level
average at their worst condition as opposed to their best condition. Additionally, the critical factors that
influenced the economic impact for building component types appeared to be water quality and
management, energy efficiency and user comfort. From an economic impact perspective, the overall
impact level averages for best and worst condition across all councils was stipulated as being low to
moderate which suggests that the overall economic impact for the buildings assessed is at a manageable
level between the two condition parameters. The critical economic criteria observed was found to be life
cycle cost and additional capital investment which accounted for the majority of the impact levels recorded
for this aspect. From a social impact point of view, one of the major trends identified suggested that a
significant number of building component groups presented fairly moderate to high impact level averages
at both best and worst conditions across all three council buildings. This trend highlighted the importance
of the social impact of each of the buildings assessed with employee well-being and community benefits
and equity being the major influencing factors. Finally from a functional impact perspective, the obvious
trend among the three council buildings was the majority of building component groups at their worst
condition each had relatively high impact level averages suggesting that building component groups at
their worst condition can have a serious negative impact towards the operation of the overall building.
Impact of failure and response, level of service and compliance to building standards and regulations
collectively influenced the impact levels of component types with compliance to building standards and
regulations having an equal impact at best and worst condition due to legality requirements which strongly
needed to be adhered to.
Upon verbal discussion with each of the local councils, it was evident that there was overwhelming group
of building components which play a critical role in regards to impact, management and maintenance of a
building. These components consisted of solar panels, insulation panels, lifts, lighting, external façade
systems, ventilation, security, HVAC systems and electricity power. Furthermore, council delegates
suggested that there needed to be greater management of building control systems which affected
efficiency as well intense focus on the level of control, time schedules of components as well creating
backlogs with regards to cost and operation.
8. Recommendations
The aim of this research paper was to identify the relationship between the impact levels of various
building component types at their best and worst condition against the fours aspects of sustainability
which were assessed. After completing this research and analysing the results, the following
recommendations can be made:
 Greater numbers of local councils need to be interviewed with a focus on assessing multiple
buildings within each council in order to improve the accuracy of the impact level data, averages
and level of detail.
 Each aspect of the sustainability criteria could become more specific with the intention of making
clear distinctions between impact level categories from very low impact to very high impact.
 A deeper analysis of the impact levels obtained could provide a clearer understanding of the
relationships and trends observed in conjunction with a greater level of statistical analysis.
9. Acknowledgement

Firstly I’d like to acknowledge the help of Manningham City Council, Melbourne City Council and Hume
City Council and their delegates who donated their valuable time to assist me by providing impact levels
and answering my queries in person. Secondly, I’d like to acknowledge the help of Pushpitha Kalutara, a
PhD student at RMIT University who assisted me with creating the NAMS building hierarchy, assessment
criteria and general queries throughout my research work. Lastly, I’d like to thank my supervisor Kevin
Zhang for constantly assisting me with general queries and ideas as well frequently meeting with me to
discuss my research project.
10. References
Alpopi, C, Manole, C, and Colesca, S.E 2011, ‘Assessment of the Sustainable Urban Development Level
through the use of indicators of Sustainability’, Journal of Theoretical and Empirical Research in Urban
Management, vol. 6, no 2, pp.78-87, viewed 24 April 2013, Questia
Arnel, T 2003 International Developments in Green Building, Australian Green Building Commission,
viewed 21 August 2013,
<http://www.buildingcommission.com.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/6927/AGBM_Final_Report_-
_body_text.pdf >.
Brganca, L, Pinheiro, M, Jalali, S., Mateus, R, Amoeda, R & Correia Guedes, M (Eds) 2007, Portugal
SB07- Sustainable Construction Materials and Practices, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hall, C, T 2012, Sustainability in Public Buildings Achievable without Capital Outlay, Sustainability in
Public Buildings, viewed 21 August 2013, <
http://seedengr.com/documents/SustainabilityinPublicSectorbyCTHRev2.pdf >.
Ding, K.C, G 2008, ‘Sustainable Construction – The role of environment assessment tools’, Journal of
Environmental Management, vol. 86, pp.451-464, viewed 24 April 2013, Elsevier Collection.
Fowler, K.M, Rauch, E.M 2006, Sustainable Buildings Ratings Summary, Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, viewed 24 April 2013, < http://www.usgbc.org/Docs/Archive/General/Docs1915.pdf>.
Haapio, A & Viitaniemi, P 2008, ‘A critical review of building environmental assessment tools’,
Environmental Impact Assessment Review, vol. 28, pp. 469-482, viewed 24 April 2013, Elsevier
Collection.
Hakkinen, T, Vesikari, E and Pulakka, S 2007, ‘Sustainable Management of Buildings’, SB07- Sustainable
Construction Materials and Practices, pp. 233-240, IOS Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Hes, D 2007, 3rd Edition ESD Design Guide – Office and Public Buildings, Department of the Environment
and Water Resources, viewed 19 April 2013.
Mickaityte, A, Zavadskas, E.K, Kaklauskas, A & Tupenaite, L 2008, ‘The Concept Model of Sustainable
Buildings Refurbishment’, International Journal of Strategic Property Management, vol.12, pp.53-68,
viewed 19 April 2013, Taylor and Francis Online.
Sabol, L 2008, Measuring Sustainability for existing buildings, Design + Construction Strategies, viewed
19 April 2013, < http://www.dcstrategies.net/files/2_sabol_measuring_sustainability.pdf>.
Setunge, S and Zhang, K 2010, A reliability based approach for sustainable management of public
buildings, International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment (ICSBE-2010), viewed 19 April
2013, < http://www.civil.mrt.ac.lk/ICSBE_2010/vol_02/6.pdf >.
Way, P, Lyons, S 2009, Building Condition and Performance Assessment Guidelines Practice Note 3 -
Buildings, IPWEA –NAMS.AU, viewed 24 April 2013, IPWEA Database.
Zuo, J, Xia, B, Zillante, G and Zhao, Z 2012, ‘The future of sustainable building assessment tools – A case
study in Australia, CRIOCM 2012 Conference, 17-18 November 2012, Shenzen, China.

Appendix A – Sustainability Assessment Criteria
Appendix B – Building Component Group -Type Hierarchy
• Distribution Boards, Emergency Lighting, Emergency Power, Lighting -Internal/External, Lighting-
Flood/Security , Micscellaneous, Power Conditioning, Power Conv ersionElectrical Services
• Buildings, Channels, Civ il Works, Fencing, Furniture, Gates, Hard Stand
• Miscellaneous , Signs, Stairs & Rails, Water TanksExterior Works
• External Walls, Roof
• Windows and DoorsExternal Fabric
• Fire Alarm Sy stem, Fire Communications, Fire Serv ices, Fire Sprinkler Sy stem
• Hy drant Sy stemFire Services
• Ceiling Finishes, Fixtures & Fittings, Floor Finishes, Interior Doors, Interior Walls
• Interior Windows, Wall FinishesInterior Finishes
• Vertical Transport
Lifts/Hoist Services
• Air Distribution, Air HandlingUnits, Building Management System, Chilled Water System, Compressed
Air/Pneumatics, CondensedWater System, Fan Coil Units, Heating System, HVAC Control System, Split
A/C Units, Ventilation System
Mechanical Services
• Sanitary Plumbing
Plumbing
• Access Control Sy stems, CCTV Sy stem, Intrudent/Duress Alarm Sy stem
• Special Serv icesSecurity Services
• Domestic Cold Water, Domestic Hot Water
• Warm WaterWater Services
Sustainability
Social
Local Community
Engagement
Community
Benefits and Equity
Neighbourhood
Character
Employee Well-
Being
Environmental
Water Quality and
Management
Material
Sustainability
Energy Efficiency
Waste
Management
Air and Noise
Pollution
User Comfort
Usage of
Hazardous Goods
and Materials
Economic
Life Cycle Cost
Land Value
Local Economy
Additonal Capital
Investment Cost
Functional
Impact and Failure of
Response
Level of Service
Compliance to
Building Standards
and Regulations

Appendix C – Defined Environmental Criteria
Appendix D – Defined Economic Criteria
Linguistic
Terms
Environmental Criteria
Water management (En1) Material sustainability
(En2)
Energy
efficiency (En3)
Waste management
(En4)
Air and noise
pollution (En5)
User comfort (En6) Usage of hazardous
goods and materials
(En7)
Very High
(5)
High usage of water in the f unction
of the building component (More
than 50% of water used out of total
consumables f or the f unction)
Very low usage of recy clable
materials and materials with
low embodied energy (Less
than 10%)
More than 50% of
energy usage is
non-renewable
More than 50% out of
total waste generated
is non- recy clable
More than 50% of
emissions cause
noise and air
pollution
More than 50% of emissions
contribute to increasing
temperature and reducing air
quality of the indoor
env ironment
Usage of more than
30% of hazardous
materials out of total
constituent materials
High (4) 30%-50% of water usage 10%-30% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 20%-30%
Medium
(3)
10%-30% of water usage 30%-50% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-20%
Low (2) 0%-10% of water usage 50%-80% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10% Less than 10%
Very Low
(1)
No water is used Very high usage of recy clable
materials and materials with
low embodied energy (>80%)
No energy used No waste generated No emissions
cause noise and
air pollution
No emissions contributed No usage of hazardous
materials
Terms
Economic Criteria
Life cycle cost (Ec1) Land value (Ec2) Local economy (Ec3) Additional capital investment (Ec4)
Very
High (5)
Higher degradation rate, hence less than 50% of predicted
serv ice lif e can be acquired. Consequently , a lot of lif e cy cle
cost including operation, routine, maintenance and
replacement costs are occurred
Building component’s current resale
v alue (Salv age v alue) is less than
50% of its costs such as demolitions
More than 50% of
materials and serv ices
are non-locally produced
The building component is highly adhered with property quality
standards (PQS). The building component’s replacement cost
contributes more than 50% of its v alue to maintain PQS causing a
v ery high impact on additional capital inv estment
High (4) 50%-60% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50%
Medium
(3)
60%-80% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30%
Low (2) 80%-100% 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10%
Very
Low (1)
Same predicted serv ice lif e or more can be acquired No demolition; only residual v alue All material and serv ice
are locally producible
No PQS adhered to the building component

Appendix E – Defined Social Criteria
Appendix F – Defined Functional Criteria
Terms
Social Criteria
Local Community engagement
(Sc1)
Community benefits and equity (Sc2) Neighbourhood character (Sc3) Employee well-being (Sc4)
Very High (5)
The serv ice prov ided by the
component attracts more than 50%
of the community
More than 50% of the community is benef ited by the
serv ice prov ided by the building component
More than 50% of constituents of
the building component are related
to heritage and aesthetics
More than 50% of constituents are related to hav e
an ef f ect to the well-being of the employ ee or
employ ees who operate the component
High (4) 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50% 30%-50%
Medium (3) 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30% 10%-30%
Low (2) 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10% 0%-10%
Very Low (1)
No interest at all No benef it is giv en No heritage v alue or aesthetics at all No relation to employ ee well-being at all
Terms
Functional Criteria
Impact of failure and
response (Fn1)
Minimum level of service
(Fn2)
Compliance to building standards
and regulations (Fn3)
Very High (5) Length of interruption and
response time is greater than
24hrs
More than 70% of user
requirements f rom the building
component hav e not been
obtained
More than 80% of constituents are
related to compliance with building
standards and regulations
High (4) 12hrs to 24hrs 50%-70% 50%-80%
Medium (3) 2hrs to 12hrs 20%-50% 20%-50%
Low (2) 1/2 an hour to 2hrs 10%-20% 10%-20%
Very Low (1) Less than 1/2 an hour 0% to 10% 0%-10%

Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Ähnlich wie Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan

Ähnlich wie Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan (20)

Sustainable Management of Public Buildings - Adnan Awan