Barriers and drivers for sustainable building

Tarja Häkkinen
Corresponding author

Kaisa Belloni

VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland

PO. Box 1000, FI-02044 VTT, Finland
Street address Vuorimiehentie 5, Espoo
Tel. +358 20 722 6920, +358 40 727 4561
e-mail: tarja.hakkinen@vtt.fi
kaisa.belloni@vtt.fi

Corresponding author Dr Tarja Häkkinen, Chief research scientist at VTT

Barriers and drivers for sustainable building

Abstract

Barriers and drivers for sustainable building (SB) were studied with help of a literature
review, inquiries and interviews. The premise of the work was that SB is not hindered
because of lack of information, technologies and assessment methods, but because it is
difficult to adopt new methods. New technologies are resisted because those require
process changes and risks and not-foreseen costs are feared for. These hindrances can
be reduced with help of learning what kind of decision-making phases, new tasks, actors,
roles and ways of networking are needed. The barriers were outlined as follows: 1)
steering, 2) costs, risks and value, 3) demand, 4) tendering and procurement, 5) process
phases and tasks, 6) cooperation and networking, 7) knowledge and common
terminology, 8) availability of integrated methods, 9) innovation process. On the basis of
the results the following conclusions were drawn about the most important actions in
order to promote SB: 1) the development of the awareness of clients about the benefits of
SB, 2) the development and adoption of methods for SB requirement management, 3) the
development and mobilisation of SB tools, 4) the development of designers' competence
and team working, and 5) the development of new concepts and services.

Key words:
sustainable building, barriers, sustainable building process, actors

Number of words 9029.

1 Introduction

This paper studies the barriers for sustainable building (SB) on the basis of literature

study and with help of interviews. On the basis of the results the paper discusses what

actions are needed in order to promote SB. The starting point of the work was that SB is

not hindered because of the lack of information, technologies and assessment methods,

but because it is difficult to adopt new processes and working methods in order to apply

new technologies. New technologies are resisted because those require process

changes and risks and not-foreseen costs are feared for. These hindrances can be

reduced and overcome with help of new efficient processes and by learning what kind of

decision making phases, new tasks, actors, roles and ways of networking are needed.

According to the UNEP's vision (UNEP 2009) for Sustainability in the Building and

Construction Sector SB is an active process where

policies and incentives provided by the government support SB and

construction practices

investors, insurance companies, property developers and buyers/tenants of

buildings are aware of sustainability considerations and take active role in

encouraging SB and construction practice.

Sustainable development of buildings and other construction works brings about the

required performance and functionality with minimum adverse environmental impact,

while encouraging improvements in economic and social (and cultural) aspects at local,

regional and global levels (ISO 21932). This paper uses the ISO definition for SBs. SB

process is defined as the overall quality of the process that enables the delivery of SBs. It

is also defined here that the three main prerequisites for SB are 1) the availability SB

technologies, 2) the availability of methods and knowledge for sustainable target setting,

design, procurement, monitoring and management of buildings, and 3) the development

of SB processes and the adoption the new SB technologies, methods and working

models. The draft for ISO 21929 (2010) defines that sustainability impacts can be

categorised as follows:
 Environmental: climate change, deterioration of eco-system, use/depletion of

resources

Economical: economic value, productivity

Social: health, satisfaction, equity, cultural value.

SB technologies include concepts and products with help of which significant

improvements can be achieved in terms of the use of resources, harmful emissions, life-

cycle costs and productivity, and building performance. The premise of the work was that

technologies (especially energy-efficient building concepts and products) and

methodologies (such as assessment methods) are available for SB but full benefits are

not achieved because these concepts and methods are not effectively implemented to

processes. The original presumption of the study was that there are process related

barriers for SB and these barriers include for example the following:

rules of competition and tendering processes

functioning of value chains

possibilities to apply integrated design processes

lack of knowledge and ignorance of existing efficient SB technologies

lack of demand and

drawbacks in SB marketing processes.

On the other hand, the premise was that there are issues that promote the adoption of SB

concepts. These include the following:

beneficial operational costs of SBs,

the possibility to improve the well-being and economy of consumers and the

economy of enterprises because of improved building performance, and

long-term benefits on the economy level because of reduced emissions and

use of natural resources.

2 Research approach

The barriers and drivers for SB were analysed with help of the study of literature and with

help of interviews. The study summarises the earlier research findings (2000 - 2009)

about SB related barriers and drivers. On the bases of the study, the following outline

was developed for the barriers of SB:

Steering and regulations

Costs, risks and market value

Demand and the role of clients

Tendering and procurement processes

Process phases and scheduling of tasks

Cooperation and networking

Knowledge and common terminology

Availability of integrated methods

Innovation

The results of the review are presented in Section 3.

In addition, structured interviews were carried out in order to study the current situation in

Finland and to discuss the effectiveness of alternative actions to remove the barriers and

to improve the potential of SB. The used methods and the results are presented in

Section 4.

3 Review

3.1 Steering and regulation

SB can be promoted at least to a certain extent with help of regulations. Normative

regulations may appear as an effective way to achieve results but because it calls for

societal agreement it is a time-consuming process. The fragmentised nature of the sector

and the high number of actors involved may lead to a situation where regulations are

considered as the only possible way to proceed. On the other hand, rigid normative

steering mechanisms may also hinder the adoption of sustainable innovations and thus
be a barrier for SB. Regulations can be prescriptive or performance based regulations.

The latter approach is often considered better because it better supports innovations, but

on the other hand, defining performance is difficult (Meacham et al. 2005).

The weakness of regulations may also originate from the fact that those can mainly be

directed to new buildings (Koeppel et al. 2007). Dewick and Miozzo (2002) address that

both innovation and regulation are needed to move the industry towards a more

sustainable future. Environmental innovation can be defined as the use of production

equipment, techniques, procedures, products and product delivery mechanisms that are

sustainable. They argue that regulations are needed to stimulate innovation and create

demand for higher priced alternatives, before those become cost-effective along with

learning and experiences.

Pitt et al. (2009) ranked the importance of eight different topics as drivers and barriers for

SB. They selected the topics on the basis of literature and then studied the importance of

those in the UK with help of interviews (Table 1). On the basis of the results the fiscal

incentives and regulations help to drive SB. Such financial implications are consistent

with “affordability” being the biggest barrier highlighted. Priemus (2005) addresses the

importance of institutional barriers for SB. The inadequate ecological inducements in the

taxation system and the fragmentation of responsibility in the construction and real-estate

sectors are the main barriers.

Table 1.

However, research on SB barriers does not typically address the lack or inadequacy of

regulations as barriers for SB. In contrary, a new kind of orchestrating and pioneering role

of the building authorities and other public actors in the building sector is called for.

Rorhacher (2001) states that "An orchestrating type of policy trying to get relevant actors

involved in the transition process and providing institutional and organizational support

seems to be more appropriate to govern the market transformation required than a policy
mainly focusing on regulations, which usually concentrates on defining ecological

minimum standards." Dohrmann et al. (2009) emphasises the significance of large

programmes and strategies as an instrument to promote SB. When searching for state-

wide potential for improved energy-efficiency, the programme planners should be able to

identify market segments with a high potential to lead and realize such change.

Especially large owners and developers and also design/build contractors should be

targets for such programme planners.

Regulations can also be given in terms of required activities (like mandatory

declarations). Building industry, research organisations and standardisation bodies have

made big efforts in order to develop methods and tools for the management of SB. It is

believed that SB can be promoted if there are methods that help to set targets for SB,

assess the results, and show the achievements for clients. Methods as such do not

improve the sustainability of built environment, but the impact will depend on the

implementation of methods.

3.2 Costs, risks and market value

The fear for higher investment costs of SB compared to traditional building and the risks

of unforeseen costs are perhaps the most commonly addressed barriers for SB. Adoption

of SB solutions may be hindered because clients are concerned about the higher risk

(Hydes and Creech, 2000; Larsson and Clark, 2000, Nelms et al. 2005) based on

unfamiliar techniques, the lack of previous experience, additional testing and inspection in

construction, lack of manufacturer and supplier support, and lack of performance

information. Although a fear for new technologies because of risks is a process related

hindrance, it may also reflect the actual defects in the supply of well developed and

tested SB technologies.

A costing analysis, using real cost data for a broad range of sustainability technologies

and design solutions, contradicts the assumption of high costs of SB and demonstrates
that significant improvements in environmental performance can be achieved at very little

additional cost; Ala-Juusela et al. (2006) claim that SBs can offer major cost savings

when in use but this is not adequately communicated to a wide audience. Also Bon and

Hutchinson (2000), Hydes and Creech (2000) and Zhou and Lowe (2003) claim that the

primary barriers to the implementation of SB are the misperception of incurring higher

capital costs and the inadequate market value. Zhou and Lowe (2003) state that

"Investors and developers hold the misconception that capital costs will raise when they

apply the sustainable construction methods; they lack to understand the economic

benefits of sustainable construction. Furthermore, the challenge for investors includes the

difficulties to obtain financial supports and a lack of visible market value." Bordass (2000)

states that a lifecycle-thinking is often ignored because those who pay the upfront costs

do not receive the benefits or those benefits are rapidly discounted. According to Bartlett

and Howard (2000), the cost consultants have been overestimating the capital costs of

energy efficient measures and underestimating the potential cost savings. Higher costs

may also come from the increases in the consultant’s fees and indirectly because of the

unfamiliarity of the design team and contractors with SB methods (Hydes and Creech

2000). The more recent studies by Sodagar and Fieldson (2008), Sayce et al. (2007) and

Lam (2009) still present that one obstacle for the wide uptake of environmental building

design is the fear for extra construction cost. To overcome this barrier financial incentives

and innovative fiscal arrangement should be available so that the extra costs could be

accepted with help of financing arrangements and claimed back later trough increased

rents. On the other hand Carter (2007) addresses the economical benefits from

producing SBs because of reduced volumes of waste, being able to anticipate coming

legislation, access to investment capital, and improved brand and reputation.

Cole and Sterner (2000) have studied the limitations of Life cycle costing (LCC)

methodology in SB projects. These include: the lack of motivation to use LCC,

methodological limitations and difficult access to reliable data. Sterner (2000) writes that

lack of relevant input data and limited experience in using LCC calculations are the main
obstacles for the use of LCC. LCC also ignores items that have no owner, such as the

natural environment (Gulch and Baumann 2004). The most common technique of making

incoming and outgoing payments from different times comparable is discounting the

future payments to a net present value. Gluch and Baumann (2004) suggest the use of

different discount rates depending on the assessed contribution to negative impact on the

environment. For those costs that will have negative impacts on the environment, the rate

of 0% should be used. Kohler (2008) points out that when cost-benefit analysis is applied

to buildings it has to take into account that buildings not only procure costs and benefits

to individual owners and users, but also - as part of the environment - they constitute a

collective good and procure other types of social costs and benefits. The analyst should

always determine whose costs and benefits to count and over what time period.

In order to be willing to invest on SBs, clients should be able rely on the positive effect of

SB on the market value and/or the use value of the building. The increase in market value

may be difficult to achieve because such aspects of SBs like energy-efficiency and low

environmental impacts are not directly visible. However, Waddel (2008) claim that

improved energy-efficiency and corresponding lower operational costs is becoming an

issue which affects the attractiveness and market value. Also banks and other financing

institutions increasingly rate environmental and social impacts as important. In order to

support the use of sustainability aspects in marketing, labelling systems have been

developed (like BREEAM (BREEAM) in the UK, LEED (LEED) in the US and PromisE

(PromisE) in Finland). According to Lockwood (2008) the shift towards "green building"

took place in the USA around 2007. Since then it has been seen as an issue that affect

positively the market value of properties and reduces risks.

The social aspects of SBs include health and user satisfaction. These social aspects

have an influence on economic aspects, because they affect tenant's turnover rates,

letting and selling prospects as well as the risk of loosing the tenant. Lützkendorf and

Lorenz (2005) claim that because of this the market for SB will increase significantly.
They argue that making sustainability considerations mandatory within lending

procedures would substantially support the realization of SB. Heerwagen (2000) highlight

that SBs contribute positively to business performance and organisational effectiveness:

1) SBs are relevant to business interests across the full spectrum of concerns, from

portfolio issues to enhanced quality of individual workspace; 2) the high performance of

SBs will influence of the outcomes of organisations such as workforce attraction,

retention, quality life, work output, and customer relationships; 3) SB can provide cost

reduction benefits and value added benefits.

Mills (2003) claims that insurers will become more interested in energy-efficiency and

renewable energy because: 1) different kinds of loss-prevention benefits have become to

knowledge; 2) insurers are major players in real estate markets also as commercial

building owners and landlords; 3) competitive pressures continually motivate insurance

and risk-management companies to develop new services that differentiate firms from

others. Insurers use different kinds of strategies, which may include the use of financial

incentives or the design of new types of insurance policies and products that promote

risk-reducing sustainable energy technologies and strategies. However, barriers also

remain for example because of the lack of quantitative documentation of benefits and

uncertainties Lorenz and Lützkendorf (2007) address the key role of property valuation

processes in achieving a broader market penetration of SB. However, the lack of

experience and data hinders the integration of sustainability issues into property

investment, valuation and risk assessment process.

3.3 Demand and the role of clients

The demand and the willingness of clients eventually determine the development of SB.

On the other hand, the demand is closely related to such issues as supply, the availability

knowledge (Section 3.7) and methods (Section 3.8), and the costs and value (Section

3.2) of SB. Rohracher (2001) discusses the problematics of supply and demand as

follows: "Sustainable refurbishment suffers from the deadlock of supply and demand.
Construction companies are not actively offering sustainable options of building

refurbishments as they cannot identify sufficient demand. Breaking this deadlock and

developing a market for sustainable refurbishment is an important challenge for a

sustainability oriented technology policy." Few investors have a significant desire to own

SBs (Bon and Hutchinson 2000), but Bordass (2000) found that UK’s pioneering SBs

have often been procured by owner-occupiers, who are less constrained by market

norms.

The state and municipal organisations that own and develop public buildings affect

significantly the development of SB, if they decide to make use of SB methodologies.

This is not only based on the share of public buildings compared to the whole building

stock, but also on the strength of example and the effect of cooperation. By setting

sustainability targets, public building processes may initiate private construction and

design companies into SB methodologies. Bossnik (2004) emphasises the importance of

municipal organisations in the role of drivers of SB in situations where obvious market

pull is absent. The Federal Research and Development Agenda (Anon 2008) address the

multifaceted role of the Federal government in ensuring the building sector's effective use

of natural resources: The role is important in the research and development of new

technologies. Federal departments such as General Services Administration operate

large building programmes and can promote the use of new technologies. Professional

societies and research institutions working with their federal counterparts will develop the

ideas into working models. Finally, public and private sector partnerships will create the

products and industry alliances that will ultimately influence the marketplace.

Waddel (2008) points out that there are corporate policies and market related issues that

may promote SB. SB may become more important for companies when they have

committed to corporate social responsibility and related reporting. For example retailers

regard environmental responsibility as a competitive issue. Leading actors have extended

the consideration of environmental aspects to life-cycle performance of retail buildings

and this has affected their behaviour as users and owners of buildings.

The client or the developer is the crucial actor in SB process. They must be able to show

leadership to the design team and procurement team and force innovation through their

supply chain. According to Sodagar and Fieldson (2008) "client can choose different

positions. The profundity of efforts can vary between passive, active, proactive and

industry leadership. It is important for the success of SB how the client selects the design

and procurement team and how their formulate benchmarks for the performance of

building. The design team must understand the client's budget, programme, functional

requirement and corporate responsibility values."

3.4 Procurement and tendering processes

One of the most important obstacles for successful SB is the difficulty to describe the

requirements. SB process should be able to express the targets and requirements

clearly, preferably quantify those and address methods in order to enable comparisons,

quality control and monitoring. Because SB is about "achieving the required performance

with the minimum of environmental impact and at the same time encouraging economic,

social and cultural improvement at a local, regional and global level" (ISO 2008) the

challenge is big.

According to Sodagar and Fieldson (2008) SB is hindered if there is no knowledge to

develop a project brief which shows the targets and mitigating strategies for sustainability

impacts and finally remains as a guide for facility management, refurbishment and for the

end of life. Adetinji et al. (2008) mention the focus on price of the procurement practices

and the low-risk culture as the main barriers for SB supply chain. As the procurement

practices focus on price, the sustainability issues are not dealt with as contractual

deliverables but rather as issues of faith. Ang et al. (2005) discuss the Dutch

performance-based approach to building regulations and public procurement. They

address that procurement processes are fundamental to improve building performance

and thus also SB. Inconsistent requirements and imperfect communications give rise to

many of the construction industry's problems. They state that "we need to change to

procurement that draws upon knowledge of requirements at all stages of the project, that

includes life cycle costs-benefit analysis and that takes a holistic view of the value

provided by the building of facility, including environmental and social benefits. It is widely

assumed that traditional forms of procurement and tendering, supported by prescriptive,

solution-based specifications, and at the lowest price only, are suitable for routine

projects but will hinder innovation in other types of projects. However, experience shows

that alternative methods of tendering like Design & Build, Public-Private Partnership and

the UK type Public Finance Initiative contracts do not guarantee satisfaction either.

Selecting the most suitable procurement route and form of contract will require better

analysis explicitly to relate to such characteristics of the project as the client's ambitions

and risks. A lack of tools is still evident." Ang et al. (2005) also address that in a

successful project, all performance requirements should refer to a separate library of

assessment methods.

3.5 Process phases and scheduling of tasks

Process related possible barriers for SB include the models of cooperation and

networking, models of communication, roles of different actors, decision making and

management processes and the scheduling of tasks. The right timing and the presence of

all needed actors in specific phases of the SB project are often addressed as key issues

for the success of the projects. A number of studies emphasize the importance of the

availability of all needed expertise and knowledge in very early stages of projects. A big

part of SB potential is lost if the possibilities, targets and right design options are not

considered early enough. This concerns not only the building projects but also the

preceding planning process (Rydin 2008). Access to basic services and the supply of

sustainable energy services are examples of planning issues that have an important

effect on SB.
Horman et al. (2005, 2006) have analysed the necessary features for SB projects; they

address the indications shown in Table 2.

Table 2.

Williams and Dair (2007) address the importance of scheduling: SB is hindered, because

certain stakeholders - as designers - are involved to the process too late. Riley et al.

(2003) emphasize the role of construction organizations in SB projects. They suggest that

it is important for SB that construction organizations are included in the team during

design. The role of construction organizations is essential in providing estimating

services. Accurate estimation of costs in early phases of SB projects supports projects to

select high performance and SB features based on the owner's budget.

Ang et al. (2005) emphasise the role of the project manager who represents the client. An

evaluation process for technical solutions has to be organized, verification methods and

roles of auditors has to be established. Active involvement in demand specification by

end user is one of the drivers of process innovation and supply; thus the management of

end-user participation is extremely important. However, the performance-based

procurement and tendering does not solve the problem of requirements that cannot be

verified objectively. One major technical barrier that hinders SB is the absence of a

common framework that integrates the aspects and tasks of SB with construction

practices at an operational level (Matar et al. 2008).

3.6 Cooperation and networking

SB strives to minimize the consumption of natural resources for all phases of the life cycle

of buildings. These are affected by different processes from planning to design,

construction, use and renovation and the management of resources requires new kind of

networking (Halme et al. 2005). SB also requires the overall management of building

performance and life-cycle impacts and thus it requires effective communication and
cooperation. The models of cooperation can be partly developed with help of integrated

methods and information technological solutions (Section 3.8). However, the question is

also about new kind of participation of different actors in various process tasks and

phases, new roles and real team working.

Horman et al. (2006) address the importance of cooperation in SB projects. They suggest

the use of Design-Build-Operate-Maintain (a delivery method that integrates the

designers, contractors and operation and the maintenance managers under one contract

to the owner). Also Deane (2008) states that the preferred design model for delivering a

SB is an integrated design process, which includes all involved parties (the owner, the

developer, the designers, the builder, the tenant and the facility operator) from the

beginning. Additional requirements are needed in the delivery processes for SBs in order

to achieve their performance benefits (Horman et al. 2005). SB projects require intense

interdisciplinary collaboration, highly complex design analysis, and careful material and

system selection, particularly early in the project delivery process. Ballard and Kim (2007)

point out that the power to implement the project roadmap is distributed roughly in the

following order: owner, owner agent, process manager (design and construction),

specialist (design and construction), and supplier. Everybody can act but within the limits

of their own power to create more value and less waste. The present construction sector

is characterised by a complex supply chain, the various players of which may have

competing interests. This hinders the consideration of the sustainability requirements.

The public sector could have a remarkable role in initiating the transformation of the

supply chain towards better cooperation and joint goals (Anon 2007).

Femenías (2005) summarises factors that hinder the development of processes in

construction sector as shown in Table 3.

Table 3.
One of the real challenges of sustainable development is that it requires innovation, new

knowledge and learning within organisations in the public and private sectors (Rydin

2008). She states that "there is also an opportunity to learn through partnership projects.

Research results show that core teams of people working together on a joint task over

time provide the best opportunity for learning. This is learning by doing."

Rohracher (2001) points out that SB cannot be properly constructed without a much

closer interaction of suppliers, professionals and users than currently. SB requires high

compatibility of architectural, structural and HVAC design, construction and user

behaviour. Table 4 shows requirements for SB according to Rohracher (2001).

Table 4.

SB is hindered not only because of problems in the communication and interaction

between separate actors and firms but also because of management and communication

related issues within organisations. For green ideas to be enacted at all levels of an

organisation, the environmental key actors would need to be empowered with decision-

making mandates. A concrete suggestion would be to admit the environmental key actors

into the business management Stenberg 2006). Hong-Minh and Naim (2001) say that

strong segmentation of an organisation's departments hampers the companies' abilities to

be fully end-customer focused, as there is no holistic view of the supply chain.

Companies should share information about good practices in order to be able to benefit

from learning from each other's experiences. Robinson et al. (2005) address that

knowledge management and sharing are essential drivers for all innovations in large

construction organisations.

3.7 Knowledge and common language

SB may also be hindered because of ignorance or lack of common understanding what

sustainability is. The wide content of SB also makes it difficult to assess the profitability or

cost impacts of SB.

Although many of the actors involved in the construction sector claim to strive for

sustainability, the uniformity of the language does not mean that there is uniformity in the

practice related to this discourse (Rohracher 2001). Stenberg (2006) also addresses that

the plurality of meanings of green building and SB can result in widely differing problem

formulations and contradictory solutions. This hinders cooperation, which in turn hinders

the creation of innovative solutions. Stenberg (2006) also investigated what is the main

source of environmental information for the decision-makers in the Swedish construction

sector. According to her findings, the trade magazines reinforce established and

dominant views of SB, which may cause that environmental consideration are grounded

on biased information.

Williams and Dair (2007) address the lack of knowledge as the main problem which is

related to several different barriers. Rydin et al. (2006) claim that while designers

demonstrate confidence in their ability to access and use knowledge in general, this

confidence falls when the specific issue of SB is addressed. Mills and Glass (2009)

assessed the ability of construction design managers to integrate sustainability into

building design, with particular emphasis on the importance of skills. They emphasize that

it is highly important to be able to communicate sustainability in a project’s brief. The

study suggests that the appropriate skills for managing sustainable design appear crucial

in overcoming barriers and proceeding with delivery of SB designs. Necessary skills for

managing/leading the design of a SB were summarised as follows: Awareness,

Communication, Comprehension, Experience, Lateral Thinking, Leadership, Negotiation,

Passion and Technical Knowledge. SB knowledge should also be available as

specialized service packages, as many companies are too small to stay competent in the

whole range of issues involved (Rohracher 2001).

Ala-Juusela et al. (2006) presents lack of information is a big problem in energy-efficient

building especially in the residential sector. The normal house builder who makes the
decisions about energy systems has often very little knowledge about energy-efficiency.

The companies that sell houses should be obliged to inform the customer about life-

cycle-efficient solutions instead of just selling the cheapest alternative without considering

higher running costs.

Bosch and Pearce (2003) have analysed the contents of documents which give guidance

for sustainability in public facilities. They recognised that while detailed good quality SB

guidance is available for designers and owners significantly less information is targeted

for facility managers. There are protocols for building diagnostics and for performing post-

occupancy evaluations but much less attention has been paid for issues like monitoring,

education, commissioning, and proactive maintenance. Sodagar and Fieldson (2008)

point out that in order to design a truly SB, the design team need to have an access to

best available information on products and materials and tools with help of this data can

be transferred and used in calculations. This will only be achieved by the construction

industry working together towards a common goal.

3.8 Availability of integrated methods

The efficient use of all information needed in SB and the efficient cooperation of all actors

needed call for the availability of methods that enable the management and sharing of

information.

According to Shelbourn et al. (2006) one of the key issues in making construction

projects more sustainable is overcoming the obstacles of capturing and managing the

knowledge needed by project teams to affect such change: "Although indicators,

checklists and assessment tools for sustainability in construction are available, there is

still a need for a structured approach for the implementation of sustainability practices

and methods within construction projects." According to Kohler and Lützkendorf (2002)

the crucial issues for design tools include their scope, the number of performance

aspects simultaneously addressed and the degree of integration into the usual design
environment (e.g. through sharing data with other design tools). Building performance

assessment practices also lack continuity throughout the building life cycle (Sullivan et al.

2004).

From the viewpoint of the usability of methods, the design phase is especially

problematic. The existing SB rating methods support designers with help of indicators

and basic principles. Additionally, designers need life cycle assessment tools, energy

consumption estimation methods and service-life prediction methods that support them to

compare alternative solutions. However, the assessment methods bring much extra work

for the process. Design for SBs needs integrated methods that provide the process with

product information and integrated calculation, optimisation and simulation facilities that

enable the comparison of design options easily or with reasonable extra work. Product

model based building (BIM) will probably partly solve these problems as illustrated for

example in Häkkinen (2007) from the view point of product information and in Lam et al.

(2004) from the view point of simulation. The lack of powerful methods for SB design

concerns not only design for new buildings but also design for sustainable management

of buildings.

Consideration of environmental aspects is hindered, if the information about

environmental consequences of alternative choices is not available. The problem is not

only about the mere access to data but also the availability of automatic calculation

procedures. According to Tucker et al. (2003), the ability to assess designs automatically

from drawings to reduce environmental and economic cost impacts will enable building

design professional to make informed decisions. They introduce an LCADesign tool that

integrates a wide range of modules from a database including IFC definitions and

products' life cycle data. Also Jonge (2005) points out that it is a problem for sustainable

housing investments that there are no tools with help of which the combination of existing

technologies could be considered and compared within design process.

At present, the assessment process is usually carried out when the design of the project

is almost finalized. Environmental matters should be considered in an early stage of

design, because alterations to the brief may be expensive. According to Ding (2008) the

assessment tools should also be reconfigured so that they do not rely on detailed design

information before that has been generated by the designer. Current environmental

assessment methods are designed to evaluate building projects at the later design stage.

It is also problematic that SB assessment tools do not typically include financial aspects

in the evaluation framework. Environmental and financial issues should be considered

concurrently as parts of the evaluation framework. This is particularly important at the

feasibility stage where alternative options for a development are assessed. Sustainability

should be pursued with help of an integrated approach which is able to recognise the

sustainability aspects in all selections (Sodagar and Fieldson 2008).

The final design of buildings is a product of a long-term negotiation process between

different actors. Sophisticated computer-based planning tools are not sufficient for this

kind of process but those should be accompanied by rather simple assessment

procedures which may be employed at various stages of the project. Moreover there is a

need to integrate sustainability criteria already into calls of tenders and into the

assessment procedures of architectural competitions (Rohracher 2001).

According to Häkkinen et al. (2007) an industrialised building process is characterised

with two main elements: a building concept based approach and efficient information

management. Building concept based approach enables 1) the product development of

the end product, 2) repetition of the basic elements of the building from one project to

others and 3) customisation of the end-product considering the specific needs of the case

and the client. Information management enables 1) the consideration of wide spectrum of

aspects including building performance, environmental aspects, life cycle costs and

service life, and 2) rapid adapting of the design to the specific requirements of the case.

The lack of these elements hinders SB.

Effective tools are needed not only in the stages of design and building but importantly

also in the operational stages of buildings and other construction assets. Decision

support tools are needed in order to support understanding about the value, risks,

performance and condition, remaining service life, needed maintenance and optimal

scheduling of life cycle operations of buildings and other construction assets (Vanier

2001), (Lorenz and Lützkendorf 2007).

3.9 Innovation

Sustainable development requires changes compared to the current situation. There are

different strategies to proceed (Huber 1995) (either with help of reducing consumption,

improving efficiency or developing substitutive and less harmful solutions) but in all

cases, innovations are needed. The innovation process needs technology experts that

are capable and willing for innovations. In addition the process needs actors that promote

innovations with help of coordination, communication and network building (Gerlach

2000).

Rohracher (2001) emphasizes the importance of users in the innovation process of SB.

One of the key issues is to establish platforms or networks between designers and user

groups such as consumer associations. Broadening the design process in such a way

improves the possibilities to design widely-accepted products which are better adapted to

the needs of customers. There is also a need for instruments and processes where new

products or technologies can be used within a limited scope to learn about how those

products are used. Rohracher has analysed how the transition to SB can be managed.

He addresses different strategies to manage technical change towards sustainability:

"The most important strategies include the better integration of various actors at the

supply side, shift to a market for innovative and ecological building services, and

improvement of user-producer relationships and integration of consumers into the

innovation process. SB will put strain to the construction industry, which is often
characterised by a large fraction of SMEs, with a rather low grade of innovation and high

labour intensity. SB may require high-tech components and new kind of technical

solutions supplied by specialized companies. Hence new kind of services and

consultancy and more intense co-operation become important." SB innovations also need

certain freedom. Performance-based specifications - in contrast to prescriptive, solution-

based specifications - have proven to be good in attracting high-performance designers

and in inspiring innovation in design and building technology (Ang et al. 2005).

Foxon et al. (2004) have criticized the lack of connection between the innovation policy

and sustainability policy in the UK and recognised that a change is happening because of

greater understanding of innovation processes and their importance for sustainability:

"The policy-making process may create opportunities for the innovation of technologies

towards sustainability, by influencing the rate and direction of innovation. The sustainable

innovation system may provide potential scope for improved policy targets and

measures." Zhou & Lowe (2003) point out that the UK government’s policies encourage

the construction industry to move from traditional construction methods towards

sustainable method. In response, a number of guidance and incentive mechanisms exist

to encourage the take up of more sustainable solutions. SB has also been improved with

help of innovative research. However, they also state that "during the last decade,

sustainable construction has emerged within the UK as a subject of policy, research and

innovation, but the demand for sustainable construction is still low". Bossnik (2004)

emphasises the importance of municipal organisations in the role of clients in

construction projects as drivers of innovations for SB.

The transition to sustainability needs to be managed. Halme et al. (2005) have studied

drivers for energy-efficient housing. They state that there is not a single barrier that keeps

energy-efficient housing from taking-off but a whole range of issues has to be considered.

The commercialisation of energy efficient single-family houses is as problematic as the

commercialisation of any environmentally sustainable product, because it becomes in

conflict with the current industry structures, organisations and institutions and with the

general behaviour of different actors. Special measures are needed to promote

commercialisation.

4 Results of the interviews

4.1 Methods

The aim of the study was to find out what the most important issues that the Finnish

building professionals consider as barriers for SB. 48 claims were formulated about the

barriers of SB. These claims were formulated a) with help of the literature study and

discussion, and b) with help of the SB related articles and news published in the two

trade magazines with the widest circulation among the building professionals

(Tekniikka&Talous and Rakennuslehti). The claims described the availability of

information, tools and methods and the roles, awareness and tasks of clients,

municipalities, owners, developers, contractors, designers, home buyers, tenants, facility

managers and manufacturers and the quality of services for maintenance, renovation and

energy production. The list of claims is presented in Table 5.

A web-based questionnaire was created and the interviewees were asked to define the

significance of the suggested barriers with using the grading: major barrier, moderate

barrier, minor barrier, not a barrier. The web-link together with an information letter was

sent to 350 building professionals. The web-link was also available for two of weeks on

the web pages of The Finnish Association of Consulting Firms SKOL and RIL - Finnish

Association of Civil Engineers. Altogether 158 responses were received.

The target group consisted of experts and managers but excluded the highest leaders

with no everyday contact to building processes. The target group represented

contractors, developers, big owners, facility managers, planners, designers, and product

manufacturers.
Respondents were also asked to define their role in the building process. The

respondents represented architects and other designers (40%), contractors and builders

(17%), owners (16%), manufacturers and suppliers of products and services (14%) and

state or municipal authorities (7%) and others (6%).

In addition to answering the questionnaire, a selected group of 20 people was asked to

participate in a personal interview. The selected people were chosen based on their

known experience on SB and their position in the building process. The aim was to cover

the process actors as widely as possible. Finally, the selection consisted of designers,

product manufacturers, developers, contractors, owners and authorities. The objective of

the interviews was to find out the interviewees opinions and views about the most

important methods how to promote SB. The starting point of the session was the

interviewee's response to the questionnaire concerning the barriers for SB. The focus

was on the issues that the person had described as moderate or significant barrier for

SB.

The results of the study are presented in Section 4.2.1 with regard to the web inquiry and

in Section 4.2.2 with regard to the interviews.

4.2.1 Results of the web-based inquiry

The most important barriers pointed out by the respondents to the web-based inquiry are

shown in Table 5. The number indicates the share of respondents that had assessed the

stated claim as a major or moderate barrier.

Table 5.

The respondents addressed the lack of awareness of clients, competence of designers

and other actors, availability of tools, lack of economic incentives, lack of sustainable

renovation concepts and relevant new services for maintenance and energy supply.

Correspondingly, the most important measures towards SB would include the

development and delivery of SB information for professional clients and as well as for

home buyers, development and use of tools for measurement, monitoring and

comparison of SB solutions, support for designers in order to enable competence

improvement, development and use of economic incentives in order to increase the

attractiveness of SB investments, and the development of sustainable renovation

concepts, maintenance services and energy services.

4.2.2 Results of the personal interviews

Regulations, innovations, tools

The opinions of the interviewed people varied with regard to the basic question whether

to promote SB with help of regulations or to try to proceed with help of voluntary methods.

Generally it was believed that normative rules are not the most effective way but since

voluntariness has not cause significant changes also regulations are needed. The critique

towards regulations was not directed to regulations as such but mainly to the slow

progress and frequent updates.

Promoting SB through regulations can be time consuming due to the nature of the

process. In spite of that, Finland has renewed the SB related regulations quite often. This

was considered problematic by the industry. Some of the interviewees were also worried
that the updated regulations do not really encourage innovation for improved sustainable

solutions.

The majority of the interviewees said that new methodologies, labelling systems, and

other SB supporting tools are needed in order to promote SB. The current tools and

labelling systems were criticized for being too complicated and time consuming in use.

New, easy-to-use tools should be developed. Other ways to promote the effective use of

the tools are a) to develop the serviceability of the tools and their use processes and b) to

develop integrated methods with help of which the assessment and calculation could be

made half automatic.

Economic incentives received positive support from the interviewed people. However, the

effective implementation was considered complicated which it surely is. Several

interviewees also addressed that the regulating bodies should reinforce their role in

providing SB related information and organizational support.

Costs, risks and value

On the basis of the results, unjustified fear of costs is not considered as an important

barrier. A majority of the actors seem to have a realistic understanding about the actual

cost of SB. This is interesting since in the past the higher cost has been seen as one of

the main barriers and this claim is still frequently repeated in trade magazines (see

Section 4.1). However, the interviewees emphasized the importance of risks because of

lack of experience and comprehensive information for new SB solutions. New solutions

should be thoroughly investigated and the suppliers should provide good quality

information designers and builders in order to convince the actors about the reliability of

the new solutions. It was also suggested that the authorities should reinforce their role in

providing information and supporting the development of information. One possibility

might also be to make use of the labelling systems in order to improve the availability of

information about acceptable SB solutions.

One of the most important barriers emphasized by the interviewees was the fact that SB

solutions are not adequately valued by clients. There is a lack of comparable,

quantitative and reliable data on which market value estimates could be based.
Information should be gathered about risks, uncertainties and benefits as well as about

realized profits and losses. it is difficult to ensure the comparability and impartiality of the

results. Several of the interviewed people considered the labelling systems as the best

possibility to influence this barrier.

The market value of a property is as great as the clients are willing to pay for. This links

the value related barriers to the lack of demand which was also addressed as a barrier in

the interviews. At present, the home buyers are not willing to pay for SB although the

benefit include lowered operational costs, improved building performance and to

improved environmental performance. The interviewees suggested that perhaps the best

way to proceed is to try to influence the general opinion. Many of the respondents

addressed that there are several barriers for SB that can be influenced by actions of the

building professionals but big efforts should be made in order to increase the public

awareness and knowledge about SB and its benefits. This should happen through

improving the availability and quality of information. In addition, some interviewees also

pointed out that if users were able to receive more information about the effect of their

own selections and behaviour on the environmental impacts and life cycle costs, this

would increase the demand for SB.

Demand

All of the interviewed people emphasized the role of public owners; they should act as

forerunners, show good example and integrate others to SB processes. To a certain

extent this is already the case. The interviewed people identified the client as the crucial

actors for the successful implementation of SB. Clients should also be able to show

flexibility and understand that this is a new way of working and hence requires more time

than traditional building. Clients should also understand that effective communication and

cooperation between the project team is of great importance and that all needed actors

should be included early enough to the process. On the other hand, SB should not be

seen too complicated. The true commitment of the client is of utmost importance and this

should continue through the whole process.

Procurement and tendering

Problems related to procurement and tendering process were not much addressed by the

interviewees. The main problems are related to process timescale (not enough time to

make educated choices) and lack of available information.

Process phases and scheduling of tasks, Cooperation and networking

The most important changes that are needed to the building process in order to enable

SB are the forms of communication and early involvement of all parties. Hence

cooperation and networking are very important for making SB gain momentum both

within the building teams as well as within the industry. However, the sharing of

knowledge is also considered problematic because of strategic reasons. This requires

familiarizing and developing new ways for sharing strategic knowledge between actors. In

addition, although technological solutions have been developed and improved for years,

much is still to be done before a wide range of actors have really adopted these

technologies.

Knowledge and common language

According to the interviews general level of knowledge should be increased significantly.

This is true both with regard to building professionals as well as with regard to public,

users of buildings and home buyers. Good quality information and classification systems

should be developed for products and buildings. Education system should be updated

both on the professional level as well as already in the elementary and high schools. For

the professionals, also personal SB qualification systems were suggested. Common

language is important; this barrier could, however, be removed with help of classification

systems and standardised information formats.

5 Discussion and conclusions

Table 6 summarises the main barriers for SB.

Table 6.

The Finnish interviewees especially emphasised the importance of demand, role of

clients and especially public clients; the competence, role and collaboration of the
designers; the lack of knowledge and tools in design process, tendering process and in

comparison of buildings; and the need of economic incentives in order to promote SB. In

addition, the Finnish interviewees also addressed that SB concepts and services should

be developed. On the basis of the results the following conclusions were drawn about the

most important measures in order to enable and reinforce SB processes.

1) The development of the awareness of home buyers about the potential of SB.

This can happen with help of school education. In addition, researchers and

committed building professionals should distribute good quality and easily

understandable information about the potential of SB. In order to enable this kind

of work, relevant programmes and projects should be developed and offered by

authorities.

2) Development and adoption of methods for SB requirement management

It is important that professional building clients and especially public actors

develop and take in use effective methods for SB requirement management. With

help of these methods the clients should be able to state requirements that are a)

performance based, b) measurable and c) which are monitored and kept up

during the whole process.

3) Development and mobilisation of SB tools

In spite of big efforts, the building trade still lacks effective methods and tools,

with help of which it is possible to a) consider SB aspects in all stages of design,

b) compare alternative solutions and buildings. It is necessary to develop

methods and tools in terms of objectiveness, quality of information, and reliability

of results. However, it is also of utmost importance to develop the usability of

tools and the mobilisations of tools. This requires that the actors are involved in

the development process and ensure real adoption of tools to processes. The

effective use of methods and tools also requires the integration of tools to design
 and building tasks and the development of intelligent methods for information

management.

BIM and BIM based tools may have an important role in the sustainability

management of buildings. To achieve this it is necessary to describe processes

and develop methods with help of which it is possible to collect, share and use

environmental information during design, construction and operation. This work

can utilize BuildingSMART IDM methodology (ISO 29481-1:2010) and adapt the

tasks and methods to the general descriptions of BIM related tasks. In order to

enable the sharing and transfer of the demanded information between information

services and software tools, it is necessary to agree upon the standards to be

applied (IFC, IFD). The sustainability assessment requires that the model

structure supports the calculations and the needed parameters are available

through the model as required by the assessment tools. In addition, it is

necessary to define the quality and type of data needed in different stages of

building process. It is also necessary to develop and describe principal solutions

for information services in order to ensure that the needed information is available

through open interfaces so that it can be unambiguously linked to the building

models in different stages and this information is outlined in such a way that it

supports the usage of it during the use and maintenance of buildings.

4) Development of designers competence and team working

In spite of few for-runners, designers still lack wide competence in SB. This is

connected to the fact that designers lack effective and integrated SB design tools

(item 3 in this list).

However, to overcome this barrier it is also important to improve professional

education in the field of SB. This requires the awareness of professors and the

availability of research funding with help of which relevant master and doctoral

thesis can be worked out.

 It is also necessary that the clients that are committed to SB pay attention to the

competence and collaboration of the whole design team, and the competence of

the chief architect and his/her ability to lead SB design. In addition, it is necessary

that the clients that are committed to SB are also ready to compensate for new

tasks and competences required from the actors of the SB project.

5) Development of new concepts and services

SB also requires the development of new concepts and services. Especially three

types of concepts and services are needed: new, reliable and functional SB

concepts for building refurbishment; new maintenance services that support

sustainable operation of buildings; and new concepts for energy services of

buildings considering decentralised solutions and use of renewable energy. The

research and development of new concepts and services requires first of all the

awareness, activeness, motivation and forwards orientation of the suppliers of

concepts and services. This can be supported with help of R&D programmes,

which offer financial support for the development, and also with help of economic

incentives which support demand for SB concepts and services.

6 Summary

Barriers for SB were studied on the basis of literature and on the bases of interviews

carried out in Finland in 2009. On the basis of the results, conclusions were made about

the actions that are needed in order to promote SB. The starting point of the work was

that SB is not hindered because of the lack of information, technologies and assessment

methods, but because it is difficult to adopt new processes and working methods in order

to apply new technologies. New technologies are resisted because those require process

changes and risks and not-foreseen costs are feared for. These hindrances can be

reduced and overcome with help of new efficient processes and by learning what kind of

decision making phases, new tasks, actors, roles and ways of networking are needed.

The barriers were outlined as follows: 1) steering and regulations, 2) costs, risks and
market value, 3) demand and the role of owners, 4) tendering and procurement

processes, 5) process phases and scheduling of tasks, 6) cooperation and networking, 7)

knowledge and common terminology, 8) availability of integrated methods, 9) innovation

process. The Finnish interviewees especially emphasised the importance of demand, role

of clients and especially public clients, the role and collaboration of the designers and the

lack of methods and tools. In addition, the Finnish interviewees also addressed that new

SB concepts and services should be developed. On the basis of the results the following

conclusions were drawn about the most important actions in order to promote SB

processes: 1) the development of the awareness of home buyers about the potential of

SB, 2) the development and adoption of methods for SB requirement management, 3) the

development and mobilisation of SB tools, 4) the development of designers competence

and team working, and 5) the development of new concepts and services.
References

1. Adetunji, I., Price, A.D.F. and Fleming, P. Achieving sustainability in the

construction supply chain. Engineering sustainability 161 Issue EC3. p. 161 - 172
2. Ala-juusela, Mia, Huovila, Pekka, Jahn, Jenni, Nystedt, Åsa & Teemu Vesanen.
2006. Energy Use and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Construction and
Buildings. Final report for UNEP. Espoo. 79 p.
3. Ang, George, Groosman, Marcel and Scholten Nico P.M. 2005. Dutch
performance-based approach to building regulations and public procurement.
Building research and information. p. 107 - 119
4. Anon. 2007. Accelerating the development of the sustainable construction market
in Europe- report of the taskforce on sustainable construction. composed in
preparation of the communication "A Lead Market Initiative for Europe"
COM(2007)860Final
5. Anon 2008. Federal Research and Development Agenda for Net-Zero energy,
high-Performance Green Buildings. National Science and technology Council.
Committee on Technology. Report of the Subcommittee on Buildings Technology
Research and development. 74 p.
6. Ballard, Glenn and Kim, Yong-Woo. 2007. Implementing lean on capaital
projects. Proceedings IGLC-15, July 2007, Michigan, USA. p. 88 - 97
7. Barlett, E. and Howard, H., (2000) Informing the decision makers on the cost and
value of green building, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor &
Francis Ltd. London, 315 –324
8. Bartlett, Ed and Howard, Nigel. 2000. Informing the decision makers on the cost
and value of green building. Building Research and Information. p. 315 - 324
9. Bogenstätter,U., (2000) Prediction and optimisation of life-cycle costs in early
design, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd. London,
376 – 386
10. Bon, R. and Hutchinson, K., (2000) Sustainable construction: some economic
challenges, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd.
London, 301- 304
11. Bordass, W., (2000) Cost and value: fact and fiction, Building Research &
Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd. London, 338-352
12. Bosch, Sheila and Pearce, Annie R. Sustainability in Public Facilities: Analysis of
guidance documents. Journal of performance of constructed facilities. 2003. p. 9 -
18
13. Bossnik, Bart, A. G. Managing drivers of innovation in construction networks.
Journal of construction engineering and management. 2004. p. 337 - 343
14. BREEAM 2010. BRE environmental Assessment Method.
http://www.breeam.org/
15. Carter, Elliot. 2007. Making money from sustainable homes: a developer's guide.
Published by CIOB. PDM Consultants. 26 p.
16. Cole, R. and Sterner, E., (2000) Reconciling theory and practice of life cycle
costing, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd. London,
368 – 375
17. Deane, Michael. 2008. The builder's role in delivering sustainable tall buildings.
The structural design of of tall and special buildings. 17(2008) 869–880
18. Dewick, P. and Miozzo, M. 2002. Sustainable technologies and the innovation–
regulation paradox. Futures 34 (2002), p. 823–840
19. Ding, Grace K.C. 2008. Sustainable construction the role of environmental
assessment tools. Journal of environmental management 2008. p. 451 - 464
20. Dohrmann, Donald R., Reed, John H., Bender, Sylvia, Chappell, Catherine ,
Landry, Pierre. 2009. Remodeling and Renovation of Nonresidential Buildings in
California. Program Measurement and Evaluation, 10.69 - 10.81. Building
Magazine 16.01.2009
21. Femenías, Paula. 2005. Demonstration projects for SB. What's in them for utility?
Chalmers University of technology. Institution of Architecture. p. 73 - 83
22. Foxon, Tim, Makuch Zen, Mata Macarena and Pearson Peter. 2004. Innovation
systems and policy-making processes for the transformation to sustainability. In:
Kalus Jacob, Manfred Binder and Anna Wieczorek (eds.) Governance for
industrial transformation.17 p.
23. Gerlach, Anne. 2000 sustainable entrepreneurship and innovation. Centre for
sustainability management, University of Lueneburg. 9 s.
24. Gluch, Pernilla and Baumann Henrikke. 2004. The life cycle costing (LCC)
approach: a conceptual discussion of its usefulness for environmental decision-
making. Building and environment. p. 571 - 580
25. Halme, Minna, Nieminen, Jyri, Nykänen, Esa, Sarvaranta, Leena & Savonen,
Antti. Business from Sustainability. Drivers for Energy Efficient Housing. Espoo
2005. VTT Tiedotteita . Research Notes 2310. 61 p. + app. 1 p.
26. Heerwagen, J., (2000) Green building, organizational success and occupant
productivity, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd.
London, 353 –367
27. Hong-Minh, S.M. Barker, R. and Naim, M.M. 2001. Identifying supply chain
solutions in the UK house building sector. European Journal of Purchasing &
Supply Management 7 (2001) 49 - 59
28. Horman, Michael J., Riley, David R., Lapinski, Anthony R., Kormaz, Sinem,
Pulaski, Michael H., Magent, Christopher S., Luo, Yuopeng, Harding, Nevienne &
Dahl, Peter K. Delivering green buildings: Process improvements for sustainable
construction. Journal of Green Building. 2006. p. 123 - 140
29. Horman, Michael J., Riley, David R., Lapinski, Anthony R., Pulaski, Michael H.,
Magent, Christopher S., Luo, Yopeng and Har, Nevienne. 2006. Delivering Green
buildings: process improvement for sustainable construction. Journal of green
building. p. 123 - 140
30. Horman, Michael J., Lapinski, Anthony R. and Riley, David R. 2005. Lean
processes for sustainable project delivery. Journal of construction engineering
and management. June 2005. 10 p.
31. Huber, J. 1995. Nachhaltige Entwicklung: Strategien für einme ökologische und
soziale erdpolitik. Berlin. Ed. Sigma.
32. Hydes, K. and Creech, L., (2000) Reducing mechanical equipment cost: the
economics of green design, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor &
Francis Ltd. London, 403 – 407
33. Häkkinen, Tarja 2007. Sustainable building related new demands for product
information and product model based design. ITcon Vol. 12, pg. 19-37
34. Häkkinen, Tarja; Vares, Sirje; Huovila, Pekka; Vesikari, Erkki; Porkka, Janne;
Nilsson, Lars-Olof; Togerö, Åse; Jonsson, Carl; Suber, Katarina; Andersson,
Ronny; Larsson, Robert; Nuorkivi, Isto. 2007. ICT for whole life optimisation of
residential buildings. VTT, Espoo. 207 p. VTT Research Notes : 2401. ISBN 978-
951-38-6948-9
35. ISO 15392. 2008-05-01. Sustainability in building construction - General
principles
36. ISO 21929, draft. 2010. Prepared by Technical Committee ISO/TC 59
Subcommittee 17 Sustainability in building construction (WG 2 Sustainability
indicators. Convenor Tarja Häkkinen). Sustainability in building construction –
Sustainability indicators
37. ISO 29481-1:2010. Building information models - Information delivery manual -
Part 1: Methodology and format
38. Part 1 - Framework for the development of indicators and a core set of indicators
for buildings
39. Jonge, Tim de. 2005. Cost effectiveness of sustainable housing investments.
Thesis Delft University of Technology. Delft, the Netherlands. 28 February 2005
40. Koeppel, Sonja & Ürge-Vorsatz, Diana. 2007. Assessment of policy instruments
for reducing greenhouse emissions from buildings. Report for the UNEP SBCI. 81
p.
41. Kohler, Niklaus. 2008. Long-term design, management and finance for the built
environment. Building Research & Information. p. 189 - 194
42. Lam, K.P., Wong, N.H., Mahdavi, A., Chan, K.K. Kang, Z. and Gupta, S.
SEMPER II: an internet based multi-domain building performance simulation
environment for early design support. Automation in construction. Vol. 13. 651 -
663
43. Lam, Patrick T. I., Chan, Edwin H. W., Chau,C. K., Poon, C.S. and Chun, K.P.
2009. Integrating Green Specifications in Construction and Overcoming Barriers
in Their Use. Journal of Professional Issues in Engineering Education and
Practice. 135(2009), Issue 4, 142-152
44. Larsson, N. and Clark, J., (2000) Incremental costs within the design process for
energy efficient buildings, Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor &
Francis Ltd. London, 413 – 418
45. LEED. 2010. Green Building Certification system.
http://www.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=1988
46. Lockwood, Deloitte and Charles. 2008. The dollars and the retrofit for green
buildings. Published by Deloitte. 7 p.
47. Lorenz, David & Lützkendorf, Thomas. 2008. Sustainability in property valuation:
theory and practise. Journal of property investment and finance. 26(2008). 482 -
521
48. Lützkendorf, Thomas and Lorenz, David. 2005. Sustainable property investment:
valuing sustainable buildings through property performance assessment. Building
Research and Information. p. 212 - 234
49. Lützkendorf, Thomas and Lorenz, David. 2007. Integrating sustainability into
property risk assessments for market transformation. Building Research and
Information. p. 644 - 661
50. Matar, Mohamed M., Georgy, Maged E. Ibrahim and Moheeb Elsaid.2008.
Sustainable construction management: introduction of the operational context
space (OCS). Construction management and economics. 26(2008) 261 - 275
51. Meacham, Brian, Bowen, Robert, Traw, Jon and Moore, Amanda. Performance-
based building regulation: current situation and future needs. Building Research
and Information. 33(2005). 91 - 106
52. Mills, Evans. 2003. The insurance and risk management industries: newplayers
in the delivery of energy-efficient and renewable energy products and services. .
Energy Policy 31 (2003) 1257–1272
53. Mills, Frederick T. and Glass, Jacqueline. 2009. The Construction Design
Manager’s Role in Delivering Sustainable Buildings. Architectural engineering
and design management. 5(2009) 75–90
54. Nelms, Cheryl, russel, Alan D. and Lence, Barbara J. 2005. Assessing the
performance of sustainable technologies for building projects. Canadian Journal
for Civil Engineering. p. 114 - 128
55. Pitt Michael, Tucker, Matthew, Riley, Mike and Longden, Jennifer. 2009. Towards
sustainable construction: promotion and best practices. Construction Innovation.
9(2009) 201-224
56. Priemus, Hugo. 2005. How to make bhousing sustainable? The Dutch
experience. Environmental planning and design. p. 5 - 19
57. Promise 2010. Rakennusten ympäristöluokitus.
http://www.motiva.fi/rakentaminen/rakentamisen_projekteja/promise_-
_rakennusten_ymparistoluokitus
58. Riley, David, Pexton, Kim and Drilling, Jennifer. 2003. Procurement of
sustainable construction services in the United states: the contractor's role in
green buildings. UNEP Industry and Environment. Sustainable building and
construction. p. 66 - 71
59. Robinson, Herbert S., Carrillo, Patricia, M., Anumba, Chimay J. and Al-Ghassani,
Ahmed M. 2005. Knowledge Management practices in large construction
companies. Engineering, construction and Architectural Management. p. 431 -
445
60. Rohracher, Harald. 2001. Managing the technological transition to sustainable
construction of buildings: A socio-technical perspective. Technology analysis &
strategic management. p.137 - 150
61. Rydin, Yvonne. 2008. Reassessing the role of planning in delivering sustainable
development. FiBRE. SDRN/RICS Lecture: Sustainability and the built
environment 12th Dec 2006. 6 p.
62. Rydin, Yvonne, Amjad, Urooj, Moore, Susan, Nye Michael and Withaker, Martine.
2006. Sustainable construction and planning. The academic report. Centre for
environmental policy and governance. The LSE SusCon Project. Published by
CEPG. England. 34 p.
63. Sayce, Sarah, Ellison, Louise and Parnell, Philip. 2007. Understanding
investment drivers for UK sustainable property. Building Research and
Information. 35(2007) 629 - 643
64. Shelbourn M A, Bouchlaghem D M, Anumba C J, Carillo P M, Khalfan M M K and
Glass J (2006) Managing knowledge in the context of sustainable construction,
ITcon Vol. 11, pg. 57-71
65. Sullivan, D.T.J.O., Keane, M.M., Kelliher, D. and Hitchcock, R.J. 2004. Improving
building operation by tracking performance metrics throughout the building
lifecycle (BLC). Energy and Buildings 36(2004) 1075 - 1090
66. Sustainable Construction 2004. Working Group Sustainable Construction;
Method & Techniques. October 2003. Contract B4-3050/2003/352567/SER/B4
67. Stenberg, Ann-Carlotte. 2006. The social construction of green building. Thesis
for the degree of doctor of philosophy. Chalmers university of technology.
Sweden. 197 p. p. 178 - 183
68. Sterner, E., (2000) Life cycle costing and its use in the Swedish building sector,
Building Research & Information 28(5/6), Taylor & Francis Ltd. London, 387 –
393
69. Sodagar, Behzad and Fieldson, Rosemary. 2008. Towards a sustainable
construction practice. Construction information quarterly. p. 101 - 108
70. Tucker, S.N., Ambrose, M.D., Johnston, D.R., Newton, P.W., Seo, S. and Jones,
D.G. LCADesign: Ann integrated approach to automatic eco-efficiency
assessment of commercial buildings. 2003. Construction Informatics Digital
Library http://itc.scix.net/. Paper w78-2003-403. 10 p.
71. UNEP 2009. SBCI Sustainable Building and Climate Initiative. Vision for
sustainability on building and construction.
http://www.unep.org/sbci/AboutSBCI/Background.asp.
72. Waddel, Helen. Sustainable construction and UK legislation and policy.
Management, procurement and Law 161 Issue MP 3. 2008. p. 127 - 132
73. Vanier, D.J. 2001. Why industry needs asset management tools. Journal of
computing in civil engineering. Vol 15, no. 1, Jan. 2001, pp. 35 - 43
74. Williams, Kate and Dair, Carol. What is stopping sustainable building in England?
Barriers experienced by stakeholders in delivering sustainable developments.
Sustainable Development 2007. p. 135 - 147
75. Zhou, Lei and Lowe, David, J. 2003. Economic challenges of sustainable
construction. Engineering, Project Management Division, UMIST, Manchester,
UK. Published by: The RICS Foundation. 2003. Proceedings of The RICS
Foundation Construction and Building Research Conference 1st to 2nd
September 2003. School of Engineering and the Built Environment. University of
Wolverhampton. Pp. 113 - 126
Table 1. Drivers and barriers for sustainable building (Pitt at al. 2009).

Ranking Drivers Barriers

1 Financial incentives Affordability
2 Building regulations Lack of client demand
3 Client awareness Lack of client awareness
4 Client demand Lack of proven alternative technologies
5 Planning policy Lack of business case understanding
6 Taxes/levies Building regulations
7 Investment Planning policy
8 Labelling/measurement Lack of labelling/measurement standard
Table 2. Features of SB projects according to Horman et al. (2005, 2006)

Features of SB projects
1 early adoption of sustainable objectives (in the phase of capital budgeting)
2 alignment of sustainable objectives to the business case and budget of the
project
3 identification of such sustainability aspects that naturally fit with the project and
operational purpose of the building
4 selection of an experienced design and construction team early in the project
5 time to align team members' goals with the project goals (ensuring that the team
members share the goal).
Table 3. Factors that hinder the development of construction processes according to Femenias
(2005).

Factors that hinder the development of construction processes

1 temporary and unique nature of the building project that lacks of organisational memory and
incentives for learning
2 fragmented building process that involves actors from different professional cultures
3 decentralised decision-making process and the ad-hoc decision making at the building spot
4 individual actors' low interest and attitude for learning and comparatively low level of
education.
Table 4. Requirements for SB processes according to Rohracher (2001)

Requirements for SB processes

1 introduction of new methods and tools for the assessment of buildings, whole building
approach, and better understanding about the interaction of components and the general
performance of SBs
2 use of new materials and new technical solutions
3 integration of new actors (new manufacturers of new products, new services, integrative
planning processes)
4 better mutual adjustment and interaction of developers, designers and construction companies
5 new competencies and new understanding of sustainable construction by actors involved
6 new procedures like new ways of certifying and quality control
Table 5. List of claims presented for the assessment of building professionals.

The number indicates the share of respondents (in %) that had assessed the claim as a
major or moderate barrier.
The grey boxes highlight those claims that were considered assessed important (major or
moderate barriers) by at least 75% of the respondents.

%
CLIENTS
1 Lack of assessment methods which enable the comparison of buildings in terms of 79
sustainability
2 Lack of methods that support SB requirement setting 85
3 The client lacks an actor who supports him in setting targets for SB and in interpreting these 69
targets as design requirements and procurement criteria
4 The resources and knowledge are inadequate in order to ensure proper supervising and the 68
realization of the client's targets for SB
5 New kinds of solutions are risks with regard to costs and quality 72
6 SB raises investment costs 57
7 SB does not improve the market value of the property 38
8 Short pay-back time is more important than long-term positive effects 73
9 Even though the design fulfils the SB requirements, it is impossible to verify the quality of the 66
end-product
10 The practices for long-term warranties and insurances are missing 65
MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES
1 Impossibility to consider new GHG-saving solutions for energy generation because the former 66
choices and decisions are binding
2 The potential of energy-efficient building is not linked with the definition of regional energy 59
capacity
3 The municipal authorities do not use the right to set requirements for SB as lot assignment 62
criteria
4 The municipal authorities do not use the right to set requirements for SB performance in the 58
connection of building permits for renovation
5 The improvements in the energy-efficiency of buildings impairs the profitability of local power 26
plants
CONTRACTORS AND DEVELOPERS
1 It is not cost-effective to produce both SBs and normal buildings in parallel 45
2 It is not worth-while to change the construction process (there is a low number of demanding 73
home buyers)
3 There is no reliable method to show to the client that the operational costs decrease with help 63
of SB
4 The time perspective of property developers is only couple of years; thus the long-term 76
benefits are not essential
BUYERS OF HOMES AND FLATS
1 The buyers do not state requirements for SB because they have no information about the 90
alternatives and possibilities of SB
2 The buyers do not want to pay extra for SB performance 72
3 Buyers do not have information about the effect of SB on operational costs 86
USERS
1 The monitoring and allocation of the benefits of SB for tenants is rare 80
2 The current economical benefit from energy efficiency is relatively small and there is no 60
knowledge about cost risks
DESIGN
1 The designers are not able to interpret the SB requirements set by the client to be considered 60
as design criteria
2 There is lack of integrated design methods 74
3 There is no adequate knowledge in order to consider potential new alternatives (for example 81
solutions of renewable energy and distributed systems of energy generation)
4 Methods and data required for the comparison of drafts in terms of sustainability are missing 72
5 SB solutions may have unknown risks, of which the designer may become responsible 69
6 The process lacks an actor or a team, which manages the overall design of SB 77
7 There are no adequate incentives for designers in order to support them to develop 84
knowledge and methods for SB design
CONTRACTORS
1 Contractors are not able to explain the SB criteria for sub-contractors 67
2 There are no resources to supervise the realization of SB requirements 64
3 There are no methods to verify the compliance of sub-contract's work with the SB 68
requirements
4 There is no knowledge to set adequate criteria in the procurement process of products in 71
order to ensure the intended overall performance of the building
5 The design documents do not show adequate performance and capacity requirements for the 69
products (the consequence is the competition on the basis of price)
MANUFACTORERS
Manufacturers do not provide adequate information about the sustainable performance of 60
their products
Manufacturers do not put adequate efforts for the development of improved 67
sustainable performance of products
CONTRACTORS AND BUILDING MAINTENANCE MANAGERS
1 The main contractor is not able to take care that the operation and use of the SB is 72
adequately guided in order to ensure the intended performance
2 The maintenance services do not cover the guidance of users, monitoring of building 76
operation and repairs in order to ensure the intended building performance
ENERGY GENERATION
1 The alternative possibilities to generate low-carbon-footprint heat are not considered in 76
decision making because the existing district heat is always given the priority
2 There are no input tariffs for building specific solutions of renewable energy generation 64
3 The developers of regional energy potential are missing from the overall process 67
REFURBISHMENT
1 The concepts of SB refurbishment are missing 79
2 There are no actors who would be able to offer integrated solutions 66
3 Clients are afraid that the improvements in energy efficiency cause risks for the 60
overall building performance
4 SB renovation tasks are not cost effective even in the connection of other renovations (the 67
pay-back time is long)
5 The economical incentives are inadequate in order to make a sustainable refurbishment 84
investment profitable in a relatively short time.
Table 6. Barriers for sustainable building.

Regulations and The lack of normative regulations is not addressed as an important barrier for
steering SB but the fragmentised nature of the sector and the high number of actors
involved emphasise that SB regulations are needed to a certain extent. The
inadequacy of effective economic incentives is a barrier; those are needed to
stimulate SB innovation. The role of authorities and policy makers is
important in creating opportunities for the innovation of SB technologies and
services.
Demand and the The demand and the willingness of clients eventually determine the progress
role of clients of SB. The lack of demand is a barrier for SB. Research addresses the
importance of active creation of demand with help of policies, offering
information about the costs and benefits of SB and with help of trying to
engage users closely to the building processes. The lack of accurate
information about the cost and value of SB means that clients are unable to
make decisions based on good knowledge. Mobilization of the use of
sustainability assessment methods and publication of good quality
information about SB costs and benefits is extremely important in order to
create demand. The owners of state and municipal buildings should use their
influence in encouraging SB. This is already the case but not in adequately.
Costs, risks and The lack of accurate information about costs and value of SB weakens the
market value demand and is thus a barrier for SB. On the other hand, the risk that is
caused by new technologies not adequately tested is a barrier for SB. The
lack of consideration of SB benefits in financing hinders SB. Improving
sustainability considerations in lending procedures and the creation of
property databases including SB indices could promote SB. A better linkage
of SB with the corporate policies and market related issues could also be one
way to promote SB and support the increase of demand.
Tendering and The concept of SB (covering aspects of building performance and their
procurement effects on satisfaction and productivity as well as life cycle impacts) is a
processes challenge for requirement setting, tendering and procurement processes
because. If targets cannot be set measurably, it hinders the monitoring and is
a barrier for SB. Lack of information, methods and tools in tendering
processes is a barrier for SB.
Process phases SB requires that influencing factors can be considered early enough in order
and scheduling of include those to the decision making. These factors may be additional to the
tasks information needed in traditional building processes. Problems in the right
timing, scheduling and commitment of all needed actors early enough may
cause a barrier for SB.
Cooperation and SB requires the overall management of building performance and life-cycle
networking impacts and thus it also requires effective communication and cooperation.
The models of cooperation can be partly developed with help of integrated
methods and information technological solutions. However, the question is
also about real team working and the participation of different actors in
various process tasks and phases. The lack of collaborative working methods
is a barrier for SB.
Knowledge and A common goal requires a common understanding and common language.
common One of the hindrances of SB is that misunderstanding and inefficiency is
terminology caused by addressing different things with the terms of SB. The successful
finish of SB standardisation will reduce the meaning of this barrier.
Availability of Because of the abundance of information needed in SB processes, it requires
integrated effective methods for the information management. The lack of appropriate
methods methods suitable for different phases of design and building and for
comparison is a barrier for SB. The defective implementation of these
methods to different process phases is a serious barrier.
Innovation The lack of technology policy that supports innovations and the inability of the
process building sector to adopt innovative ways of working is a hindrance for SB.