A. Oppio, S. Mattia, A. Pandolfi, M. Ghellere ERES Conference 2010 Università Commerciale Luigi...

A. Oppio, S. Mattia, A. Pandolfi, M. Ghellere

ERES Conference 2010Università Commerciale Luigi BocconiMilan, 23-26 june 2010

A Multidimensional and Participatory Approach for Green Buildings Assessment

FACOLTA’ ARCHITETTURA E SOCIETA

DIPARTIMENTO BEST Building Environment Science & Technology

Convegno SIEV“Sistemi di valutazione per le nuove pianificazioni”

Venezia22 Novembre 2008

A. OppioM. Ghellere A. Pandolfi

Un approccio multidimensionale e partecipato alla valutazione del progetto : il modello SBTool

Multidimensional valuation and decision making processes

• The development of complex decision making processes has encouraged the involvement of different stakeholders in the evaluation procedures and tools

• Multi-criteria evaluations are increasingly being used in deliberative evaluation processes, addressing research experiences and applications towards this new challenge: to give broader and stronger meaning and consistency to the outcomes of decision making processes

• The need for evaluation tools aiding complex decisions comes from the consciousness about uncertainty that requires to focus more on the process than on the outcomes

Introduction

Introduction The SBTool Model Critical Review of SBTool Addressing SBTool to MCDA Conclusions


A.OppioS.MattiaA.PanfolfiM.Ghellere







Contents

• Green Building Challenge (Gbc) sustainability valuation models– evolution– strenghts and weaknesses

• Theoretical principles of Multicriteria Decision Aid Analysis (Mcda)

• Review of SBTool Model– Valuation process– Analytical Framework– Choice of criteria– Weights assignment to the criteria

• Valuation as tool for supporting decision making processes

Introduction










Theorethical principles of Mcda

Assumptions: Increasing decisional complexity Increasing of conflicts in deliberation processes

Tool for decision making processes: Organizing available information Considering effects of actions Exploring stakeholders’ expectations Minimizing likelihood of disappointment

Common features of methods and techniques: Different options and valuation criteria Involvement of several stakeholder Considering uncertainty

Introduction










The SBTool Model: general features

6 excel file connected 3 levels of valuation

Issues (1. Site selection, Project Planning & Devel., 2. Energy & Resources consumption, 3. Environmental Loadings, 4. Indoor Environmental Quality, 5. Quality of Service, 6. Social and economic aspects, 7. Cultural and Perceptual aspects)

Categories Criteri a

Range of score from -1 to 5: -1 extremely negative performance 0 lowest acceptable performance level 3 good construction practice 5 best practice

Involvement of different stakeholders in the decision making process Design team Evaluator Third subject

The SBTool Model










The SBTool Model: selection and weights’ assignment to the criteria

The selection and the weights’ assignment is committed to a third subject (indipendent) in order to give transparency to the evaluation process

Weights’ assignment is carried out in 2 different ways: ISSUES, CATEGORIES: weights go from 1, that represents a low

importance, to 5, except for issues and categories considered Mandatory. In these cases must be assigned weights higher than 3. The default weighting system gives more importance to the environmental issues (Energy and Resources consumption, Environmental Loadings and Indoor Environmental Quality)

CRITERIA: a score from 1 to 3 is assigned to each criterion, referring to the extent (global or regional; urban or neighborhood; building or site), the intensity (strong or direct; moderate or indirect; weak) and the duration (>50 years; >10 years; <10 years ) of potential effects on the environment.

The SBTool Model










Critical review of the valuation process

Critical Review of SBTool

STRENGHTS WEAKNESSESTransparency Valuation is time-consuming

Involvement of different subjects There aren’t social and economical indicators about the context

Data are easy to plug in The role of Stakeholders in the valuation process is not active

Flexible use Data about environmental loadings are difficult to find

It’s possible to fit the valuation model to different contexts










Critical review of selection and weights’ assignment to the criteria

Critical Review of SBTool

STRENGHTS WEAKNESSESInvolvement of experts Only the third subject has the task to

assign the weights Use of both quantitative and qualitative indicators

Weights of criteria don’t consider the socio-economic features of the context

Choice of criteria linked to the uses of building and the different phases of life cycle

Stakeholders are not involved both in the choice and in the weights’ assignment of the criteria

Impacts of criteria on the context Reasons of selection and weights’ assigment of the criteria are not explicited










Development of SBTool

GENERAL GOALS To assess social and economic dimension of sustainability beside the

environmental one To open the decision making process to a broader number of subjects by the

active involvement in the evaluation process of: Decisional Stakeholder (DS): subject committed to take final decisions Non Decisional Stakeholder (NDS): holders of interest without any decisional power

on project/plan To find a balance between subjective aspects (preferences) and objective

aspects (data about the context: environmental, social and economic impacts)

Addressing SBTool to MCDA

To solve main weaknesses of the software











Introduction The SBTool Model Crtitical Review of SBTool Addressing SBTool to MCDA Conclusions




PESI - CRITERI (file Region)

IMPATTI CRITERIO

CONDIZIONI CONTESTO

PESI - CRITERI (file Project

Setting)

SOGGETTO TERZO

identificazione diretta

preferenze

input dati

dimensione locale

dimensione regionale

Actual version

Local level

Regional level

THIRD SUBJECT

Weights -criteria

Weights -criteria

IMPACTS OF CRITERIA

CONTEXT

direct identification

preferences

input of data








Analisi degli Stakeholders

Stakeholder X Stakeholder Y Stakeholder Z

StakeholderDecisionaleAnalisi di popolarità delle preferenze

pre

f

pre

f

pre

f

pref

PU

NT

I

SCELTA CRITERI ED ASSEGNAZIONE PESI

Analisi del contesto

Contesto Ambientale

Contesto Economico

Contesto Sociale

PU

NT

I

Enti di ricerca e statistica

dat

i

dat

i

dat

i

Analisi degli impatti dei criteriPUNTI

Variable subjectivity

Constant objectivity

Variable objectivity


Development of SBTool/2



New version









Use of different kind of analysis for selecting and weighting criteria:1. Stakeholders’ analysis (Decisional Stakeholder, Non Decisional

Stakeholder) + Analysis of shared preferences 2. Context’s analysis3. Analysis of impacts of criteria

Weights’ assignment at different valuation levels:– Issues = f(Preferences of all the stakeholders; Context’s analysis)– Categories = f(Preferences of all the stakeholders)– Criteria = f(Preferences of Decisional Stakeholders; Impacts of criteria)

Mixed use of objective and subjective data at key levels of valuation (issues and criteria)










Stakeholders’ Analysis


1. All of the stakeholder involved both institutional and informal2. Decisional Stakeholder (DS), who has the task of final decision (generally

Public Administration)3. Questionnaire:

– Characters of the stakeholder– Interest in the project– Role in the design process– Weights of criteria– Role in the valuation process– Capability of addressing vauation porcesses – Level of cooperation or conflict with other stakeholders– Resources

Field of application: Issues and categories




4. Score from 0 to 3 to the question in red

5. Mean Index of influence:Index of influence= average of score assigned







Analysis of shared preferences


1. To define the Homogeneity Index of Preferences Homogeneity Index (Oi)= N° NDS eliciting the most shared preferencel/ Tot N° NDS

[%]

2. For each criterion to balance the NDS preferences with the DS ones:Weight of criterion= [NDS weight(Oi0,67)] + DS Weight[1-

(Oi0,67)]where 0,67 is a reduction coefficient of the Oi in order to consider both the DS and

the NDS preferences

3. To distribute 50 scores among the issues and 100 scores among the categories proportionally to the weight of the criterion in its own evaluation level

Field of application: Issues and categories












Report of NDS features



stakeholder 1 stakeholder 2 stakeholder 3 stakeholder 4 Moda autModa corr

Pop

Utilizzare scelte sostenibili di progetto 0 1 3 1 1 1 0,6

Limitare il consumo di energia e risorse 3 2 2 3 3 3 0,7

Limitare l'inquinamento dell'ambiente 3 3 3 3 3 3 0,9

Garantire il miglior comfort interno possibile 3 3 2 3 3 3 0,8

Garantire una qualità di servizio elevata 0 0 1 0 0 0 0,7

Garantire un benessere socio-economico 1 1 1 1 1 1 0,8

Rispettare i valori culturali del luogo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,9

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

Scegliere un sito appropriato (vicino a zone ricreative, evitando possibilmente di utilizzare aree sensibili ecologicamente)

0 2 0 1 0 0 0,5

Prevedere il riciclo di risorse 0 1 3 3 1 1 0,3

Favorire la mobilità sostenibile (mezzi collettivi, mobilità ciclabile, mobilità pedonale)

0 3 1 1 2 2 0,4

Utilizzare gli spazi verdi e le risorse naturali 0 0 2 1 0 0 0,4

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

Limitare del consumo di energia non rinnovabile (riscaldamento, elettricità, energia per produrre materiali)

1 1 1 1 1 1 0,9

Utilizzare fonti energetiche rinnovabili 3 3 3 3 3 3 0,9Limitare la quantità dei materiali da costruzione impiegati 2 2 2 2 2 2 0,9Limitare i consumi di acqua potabile 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

aria 3 2 1 0 3 3 0,4suolo 2 2 1 3 2 2 0,4acqua 1 2 3 3 1 1 0,3altri inquinamenti (luminoso, surriscaldamento locale, erosione, valore ecologico)

0 0 1 0 0 0 0,7

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

assenza inquinanti interni 1 0 1 0 1 1 0,5ventilazione 1 3 1 3 1 1 0,4temperatura ed umidità 3 3 1 0 1 1 0,4illuminazione 3 1 1 3 3 3 0,4

rumori 1 2 3 0 1 2 0,3

inquinamento elettromagnetico 0 0 2 3 0 0 0,6

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

sicurezza da eventi eccezionali 0 0 3 0 0 0 0,7avere spazi e servizi adeguati 0 0 0 0 0 0 0,8poter controllare gli impianti 0 0 1 0 0 0 0,7poter cambiare la conformazione dell'edificio in caso di necessità 0 0 2 0 0 0 0,9

ridurre gli interventi di manutenzione 0 0 1 0 0 0 0,8

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

accessibilità degli utenti agli spazi, anche di quelli disabili 2 1 3 1 1 1 0,6confort visivo (privacy, viste verso spazi esterni) 3 3 1 1 1 0 0,3integrazione delle attività del nuovo edificio con quelle di contesto 0 0 0 1 0 0 0,5limitare i costi dell'edificio sia iniziali che di gestione 1 3 3 3 3 3 0,4creare benefici sociali ed economici esterni (affitti accessibili, creazione di un mercato di beni e servizi, strutture commerciali)

1 0 0 1 1 0 0,5

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00

0 0 0 00 0 0 00 0 0 0

1,50 2,00 2,00 2,00







Preferences of all the stakeholders





importanza incidenza importanza coeff. Omog.

ASite selection, Project Planning, Urban Design and Development 0,50 0,60 1 0,60 0,7 3,27 3 3

B Energy and Resource Consumption 2,00 0,53 3 0,70 2,5 11,50 12 11C Environmental Loadings 3,00 0,40 3 0,90 3,0 13,97 14 14D Indoor Environmental Quality 2,50 0,46 3 0,80 2,8 12,89 13 13E Service Quality 1,50 0,53 0 0,70 0,8 3,71 4 4F Social and Economic aspects 1,00 0,46 1 0,80 1,0 4,66 5 5G Cultural and Perceptual Aspects 0,00 0,40 0 0,90 0,0 0,00 0 0

51 50

ASite selection,Project Planning, Urban design and Development

A1 Site selection 3,00 0,67 0,22 0,50 2,1 74,30 74 74

A2 Project planning 0,00 0,75 0,33 0,37 0,1 2,94 3 3

A3 Urban design and site development 0,50 0,73 1,00 0,40 0,6 22,76 23 23

B Energy and Resource ConsumptionB1 Non-renewable energy consuption for operations 0,50 0,40 1,00 0,90 0,8 10,84 11 11

B2 Electrical peak demand for facility operations 0,50 0,40 1,00 0,90 0,8 10,84 11 11

B3 Renewable Energy 2,00 0,40 3,00 0,90 2,6 35,20 35 35

B4 Materials 2,50 0,40 2,00 0,90 2,2 29,73 30 30

B5 Potable Water 3,00 0,33 0,00 1,00 1,0 13,39 13 13

C Environmental LoadingsC1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 0,00 0,73 3,00 0,40 0,8 9,39 9 9

C2 Other Atmospheric Emissions 0,50 0,73 3,00 0,40 1,2 13,67 14 14

C3 Solid Wastes 1,50 0,73 2,00 0,40 1,6 19,09 19 19

C4 Rainwater, Stormwater and Wastewater 1,50 0,80 1,00 0,30 1,4 16,35 16 16

C5 Impacts on Site 2,50 0,61 0,80 0,58 1,8 21,49 21 22

C6 Other Local and Regional Impacts 3,00 0,57 0,00 0,64 1,7 20,02 20 20

D Indoor Environmental QualityD1 Indoor Air Quality 0,00 0,67 1,00 0,50 0,3 13,53 14 14

D2 Ventilation 0,00 0,73 1,00 0,40 0,3 10,82 11 11

D3 Air Temperature and Relative Humidity 0,00 0,73 1,00 0,40 0,3 10,82 11 11

D4 Daylighting and Illumination 0,00 0,73 3,00 0,40 0,8 32,47 32 32

D5 Noise and Acoustics 0,50 0,80 2,00 0,30 0,8 32,36 32 32

D6 Control of electromagnetic emissions 0,00 0,60 0,00 0,60 0,0 0,00 0 0

E Service QualityE1 Safety and Security During Operations 0,00 0,53 0,00 0,70 0,0 0,00 0 0

E2 Functionality and efficiency 1,00 0,46 0,00 0,80 0,5 13,33 13 13

E3 Controllability 1,50 0,53 0,00 0,70 0,8 22,89 23 23

E4 Flexibility and Adaptability 1,50 0,40 0,00 0,90 0,6 17,11 17 17

E5 Commissioning of facility systems 1,00 0,46 0,00 0,80 0,5 13,33 13 14

E6 Maintenance of Operating Performance 2,50 0,46 0,00 0,80 1,2 33,33 33 33

F Social and Economic aspectsF1 Social Aspects 0,50 0,68 0,29 0,47 0,4 48,87 49 49

F2 Cost and Economics 0,00 0,70 1,50 0,45 0,5 51,13 51 51

G Cultural and Perceptual AspectsG1 Culture & Heritage 0,00 0,40 0,00 0,90 0,0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0

G2 Perceptual aspects 0,00 0,40 0,00 0,90 0,0 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 0

Stima delle preferenze definitive di tutti gli stakeholderpunti assegnati

punti automatici

peso definitivo

punti arrotondati

SD







Context analysis: new socio-economic indicators


1. New socio-economic indicators Energy intensity Number of renewable energy system Crime rate Poverty range Family per capita Gross domestic product Families that state to have at least a problem in their house for 100 families Families average monthly expenses for furniture, household electrical

appliances and house services House space

2. Detailed framework of the possible connections between context indicators and evaluation criteria by an objective tree for each issues, according to the hierarchic structure of SBTool and calculation of criteria affected by each indicator for each issue (indicator’s incidence)

Field of application: Issues










Context analysis: operating steps


1. Benchmarking of context indicators: are used as benchmark performances for some values

Value -1: negative performance Value 3: best practice

2. Performances’ valuation of context indicators 3. Results for per issues

Vote for issue = Σ(score of indicator i incidence of indicator i)

4. Distribution of 50 scores to the issues in inverse relation to the level of context’s sustainability in order to give most importance to solving the criticisms of the context and to avoid to increase the existing imbalances of territorial development.










Impact analysis of criteria


1. Valuation of impacts of criteria on the context: ray of action (RA), intensity (INT), duration (D):

RA : proportionally to the territorial extension INT: proportionally to indirect or direct effect D: proportionally to the phases of life cycle

2. Multiplication, for each criterion, of impact factors and definition of total impact index of criterion:Global impact of the criterion = (RA impact x INT impact x D impact)

3. Distribution of 50 score among the criteria of the same category proportionally to the total impact index of each criterion

Field of application: Criteria










Impact analysis of criteria





n°par. On Nome parametro

Raggio di azione globale/regionale = 3,

centro abitato/quart = 2, edificio/sito = 1

Intensità forte/diretta = 3,

media/indiretta = 2, debole = 1

Durata costr+ 1/2vita oper.= 3, <1/2 vita operativa = 2,

progetto/costruzione = 1

Contrib. effetti

ASite selection, project planning, urban design and development

A1 Site Selection 22 OK

A1.1 x Pre-development ecological value or sensitivity of land. 2 2 3 12 27,27 27 27A1.2 Pre-development agricultural value of land. 2 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A1.3 x Vulnerability of land to flooding. 2 3 1 6 13,64 14 14A1.4 Potential for development to contaminate nearby bodies of water. 3 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A1.5 Pre-development contamination status of land. 2 3 3 0 0,00 0 0A1.6 x Proximity of site to public transportation. 2 1 1 2 4,55 5 4A1.7 Distance between site and centres of employment or residential occupancies. 2 1 1 0 0,00 0 0A1.8 x Proximity to commercial and cultural facilities. 2 1 1 2 4,55 5 5A1.9 Proximity to public recreation and facilities. 2 1 3 0 0,00 0 0A2 Project Planning 16 1 OK

A2.1 Feasibility of use of renewables. 1 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A2.2 Use of Integrated Design Process. 1 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A2.3 x Potential environmental impact of development or re-development. 2 2 3 12 37,50 38 38A2.4 Provision of surface water management system. 2 2 2 0 0,00 0 0A2.5 Availability of potable water treatment system. 2 3 1 0 0,00 0 0A2.6 x Availability of a split grey / potable water system. 2 2 1 4 12,50 13 12A2.7 Collection and recycling of solid wastes in the community or project. 2 2 1 0 0,00 0 0A2.8 Composting and re-use of sludge in the community or project. 2 2 2 0 0,00 0 0A2.9 Site orientation to maximize passive solar potential. 1 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A3 Urban Design and Site Development 13 OK

A3.1 Development density. 1 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A3.2 x Provision of mixed uses within the project. 1 2 2 4 15,38 15 15A3.3 Encouragement of walking. 2 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A3.4 Support for bicycle use. 2 2 2 0 0,00 0 0A3.5 x Policies governing use of private vehicles. 3 3 1 9 34,62 35 35A3.6 Provision of project green space. 2 2 3 0 0,00 0 0A3.7 Use of native plantings. 2 1 1 0 0,00 0 0A3.8 Provision of trees with shading potential. 2 2 2 0 0,00 0 0A3.9 Development or maintenance of wildlife corridors. 2 2 3 0 0,00 0 0

Analisi degli Impatti dei criteri

PUNTI ANALISI







Report of weights


ISSUES: 50 scores from stakeholder s’ preferences 50 scores from context’s analysis

CATEGORIES: 100 scores from stakeholder s’ preferences

CRITERIA: 50 scores from DS’s preferences 50 scores from impact analysis of criteria










Results and further developments

The process suggested to solve the current criticisms of SBTool is coherent with the purposes highlighted in the critical analysis of the evaluation model

Quite attention has been paid to the integration between multicriteria analysis and participation methods, in order to strengthen the iterative and interactive nature of the appraisal process

The final decisions are assumed consciously by the actors involved in the decision-making process for the opportunity of verifying the impacts of their choices according to the available information and their expectations into a transparent evaluation process

The implemented tool could be considered as a kind of social decisional multicriteria analysis since it makes explicit, rational and efficient the selection between multiple and/or conflicting goals, contributing to improve the transparency and to strengthen the legitimacy of decisions taken

Conclusions




A. Oppio, S. Mattia, A. Pandolfi, M. Ghellere ERES Conference 2010 Università Commerciale Luigi...

Documents

Transcript of A. Oppio, S. Mattia, A. Pandolfi, M. Ghellere ERES Conference 2010 Università Commerciale Luigi...