Survey Results
Within the UK, BREEAM is now the leading method of assessing commercial buildings along with its residential equivalent, the Code for Sustainable Homes. BREEAM has expanded from the original focus on individual new buildings at construction stage, to encompass the whole life cycle of buildings and communities all over the world – from planning and design to in-use and refurbishment.
However, the system and the process come under a lot of scrutiny with critics stating the systems are overly prescriptive. The Government have attempted to respond to such criticisms with their latest review of both systems and the subsequent BREEAM 2014 updates.
Our Survey results highlight the perceptions and current attitudes towards BREEAM.
The response to our survey found that senior industry figures and executives at all levels are highly supportive of the BREEAM and CSH Assessment Tools. They expressed the belief that they have great potential to positively impact upon energy use within developments.
The overriding message from the survey was overwhelming support from practitioners for Zero Carbon Targets and that opinion of BREEAM and CSH remains positive.
According to the respondents, industry perception of BREEAM and CSH is very positive. Overall 76% are confident in BREEAM and CSH, believing it makes a progressive contribution to industry efforts to promote sustainability within their projects.
The survey indicated that this level of support for BREEAM and CSH is likely to continue into the immediate future.
The vast majority of those polled called for retention of strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions.
Approximately 88% strongly agree that zero carbon should be pursued – as per the current targets for new UK domestic (zero carbon by 2016) and non-domestic developments (zero carbon by 2019).
The level of disagreement with this sentiment was very low - at just 12%, perhaps reflecting the realisation that sustainability is becoming an integral part of smart business strategy.
Improving building performance and cost were among the factors perceived as having most influence over zero carbon building targets.
However, it is believed that the lack of clear policy direction for new low energy non-domestic buildings such as lack of minimum fabric efficiency standards has perhaps hampered industry efforts to form a united front on building performance. Without clear policy drivers, the respondents believe that supply chains within the industry may not be in a position to deliver necessary solutions within required time frames.
Aligned non-domestic sector policy would help reduce building performance concerns by creating opportunities for investment in new technologies and construction methods. Such investment would result in economic efficiency through decreasing technology and building costs as innovation and skill sets increase. Operational cost savings are also implicit.
We asked the respondents which category within the Rating Systems has the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of their projects.
While it is reaffirming to see that Ecology and Materials were seen as influential, over half the respondents cited that Energy has the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of their projects. This result aligns with the above findings in relation to building performance.
Somewhat surprising however, was the lack of influence place on water. This is a rather worrying outcome given that nearly 20 years the World Bank began warning of a looming water crisis. They predicted that the combination of a surging population, a growing global middle class and a changing climate would result in strained water supplies. For companies – from multinational corporations to small businesses if such a prediction is to come true, it will at the very least result in higher costs for a resource that has long been taken for granted.
Although the industry is starting to discuss water use at strategic level, perhaps this lack of acknowledgement reflects the low level of impetus placed on water conservation at the corporate policy level.
We also asked the respondents to do a bit of crystal ball gazing and predict what they see as the key sustainability issues in 25 years’ time. Again, energy came top of the list:
Perhaps surprising, given the current lack of emphasis, water was forecast as the second most important issue with 18%. Climate change was further down the list which was somewhat unexpected given the high profile debates concerning this issue. Approximately 12% of respondents predicted waste to be the key concern.
The vast majority of those who responded - over 68%, work ‘very frequently’ on BREEAM and CSH Projects. Of those polled, many are experts in their field, with 48% having between 5-10 years’ experience and 28% bringing between 10-20 years’ worth of knowledge and expertise.
The Greengage survey determined that BREEAM and CSH Rating Systems and associated zero carbon targets are welcomed and valued within the industry.
The number of BREEAM registered projects continues to rise on an annual basis thus demonstrating that sustainability will continue to be priority. Overwhelmingly, there is strong support for strong sustainability targets and zero carbon ambitions continuing into the future.
Industry perceptions about the rating systems have changed little since they were first introduced with opinion remaining strongly in favour of the systems.
While critics and some users agree that the systems are a burdensome check box exercise, over the last decade they have contributed to the step change in the industry resulting in significant economic as well as environmental benefits.
Looking forward, if implemented alongside strong policy drivers, sustainability assessment tools such as BREEAM and CSH will help the UK in meeting its GHG emissions targets as well as providing significant opportunity and economic value through avoided energy costs.