Energy
Waste
Water and Sewage
Transport
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
englishdeutsch
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Decision making process

Name der Fallstudie
Evaluation of the Hedebygade Block
Evaluierung des „Hedebygade Block“-Projekts

Decision making process - stages
The environmental evaluation includes two levels:
a. Comparing the predefined success-criteria with the actual performance of the building
b. Assessment based on Green Accounting (using different benchmarks)

a. Comparing the predefined success-criteria with the actual performance of the building
In nine projects, the developers had defined success-criteria for the project. These criterias used in the varaious projects were quite different, and related to different standards; some of them relate to the norms in the Building Regulations (i.e. comparing with new buildings), others to "buildings that has not been renovated", or "traditionally renewed buildings". Of the nine projects where success-criteria were defined, three were able to meet the criterias (corresponding to a success rate on 33% for Hedebygade) ? see table below.

The goals defined in the individual projects in the Hedebygade block
The goals defined in the individual projects in the Hedebygade block

The low success rate indicates a gap between the expectations of the initiators (consultants) and the actual goals achieved. The defined goals might have been defined very optimistic, as the projects were competing with others in a selection process; all in all 16 projects were proposed, and only 8 selected. This might have caused the consultants to produce very ambitious goals (to increase the chance of implementation). The lesson is that such success criteria should be looked critically upon, which could lead to more realistic criteria.

b. Assessment based on Green Accounting (using different benchmarks)
The "Green Accounts" is a concept developed by DBUR (Danish Building and Urban Research). It can be used both as a process-tool (for monitoring the consumption in the building) and as an evaluation-tool (to compare the consumption level to other buildings). Recently, a tool for assessing bio-diversity of the green outdoor spaces of the building was included in the Green Accounting-tool. This was used to assess the green outdoor spaces in Hedebygade.

The green accounts were made to compare the individual buildings to each other (on energy-and water consumption and CO2-emissions), and to compare the buildings? performance to different benchmarks:
- heat consumption to the goals defined in the building regulations for new buildings, BR95
- The goals described in the municipality?s "Guidelines for green urban renewal"
- the measures in the ELO-certification, a national annual environmental audit for all multi-storey buildings larger than 1.500 m2
- to an ordinary building in the block (DP14)
- the average for Copenhagen

For each of the 7 buildings in Hedebygade with a green project (DP1, DP2, DP3, DP4, DP5, DP6, DP7), the consumption in 2003 was used as a baseline for the evaluation. For each building the consumption of heating, electricity and water per person was calculated, as well as the CO2-emissions (see example in figure 2).

Key figures from the evaluation
Key figures from the evaluation

Only two buildings were able to reach the level for heat consumption in BR95 (heat consumption per sqm.), or lower. As an average, the CO2-emission of the 7 buildings was app. 10% below the average of Copenhagen.

The evaluation shows that there are significant differences between the buildings (see chart below as an example).

One illustration from the green accounts in Hedebygade, comparing the CO2-emissions in the 7 green buildings with a reference building (DP14) and the average in Copenhagen.
One illustration from the green accounts in Hedebygade, comparing the CO2-emissions in the 7 green buildings with a reference building (DP14) and the average in Copenhagen.

The different units used to assess the buildings (consumption per m2, consumption per person, CO2-outlet per person)) give very different results. For instance, the building with the highest heat consumption (project 5) is the one with the lowest CO2-outlet per person; this is because the high heat consumption is out-weighted by low electricity consumption and a low consumption of space (the flats have not been merged). Only in few cases these assessments give the same indication of successfulness of the project. A main reason for the differences is probably population density ? in buildings where more residents share the same facilities, the consumption per person decreases. As a part of the urban renewal, some of the flats were merged, and others remained relatively small, including DP5, which has the overall lowest CO2-emmission of the 7 buildings.

Recent studies have shown that the residential composition strongly influences the consumption rates per person (Gram-Hanssen & Jensen, 2000; Jensen 2002). This adds some insecurity of whether the Green accounts reflect the green efforts or the residential composition, and makes it difficult to precisely estimate the effects of the ecological project as a whole, and of the individual technologies. One reason for the relatively high consumption in Hedebygade is probably that the renovated flats in Hedebygade are relatively small (50-60 m2), and occupied by relatively few persons per dwelling, which notoriously gives a higher consumption of electricity, heat and water per person (Gram-Hanssen & Jensen, 2000; Jensen 2002). Indicators on space are, however, not systematically included in the evaluation, perhaps because there is no tradition for using this in environmental assessments. Thus, one has to be careful about interpreting the green accounts, if they are used for evaluation of technical issues. Also, the residents in this area generally do not live long time the same place, and might not have an "owner-attitude" that includes a responsibility for the operation and maintenance of the buildings, including the possibilities of reducing consumption and environmental effects. Indicators on space are, however, not systematically included in the evaluation, perhaps because there is no tradition for using this in environmental assessments.

The courtyard project (10b) was evaluated on qualities of the local nature, and assessed with a method for measuring bio-diversity. This assessment showed an improvement of the bio-diversity, as the biofactor before was 0.43, and after 0,53 (this includes an addition value for trees and local percolation and reuse of stormwater). Generally it was assessed that the green outdoor areas in Hedebygade so far is the best example, compared to other similar projects (in Slagelse og Kolding).

The evaluation was carried out after the project was finished. In this way, the evaluation had no direct influence on the decision-making process in the individual projects.

Decision making process - levels
The evaluation was carried out at a technical level, but on the political level (mainly in The National Agency for Enterprise and Construction), the conclusions will be used for future policy formulations).

Decision making process - sources of information
The results of the evaluation was communicated in a report (available at the homepage of the The National Agency for Enterprise and Construction,http://www.naec.dk/) and an open conference on the evaluation, held d. 02.02.2005, where the main results were presented.

Decision making process - who are the decision makers
The following main actors were involved in the project:
? The residents of Hedebygade: Living in the buildings, central in the design-process, and in using the renewed buildings and green solutions after they were completed.
? SBS: Urban Renewal Company, functioning as consultant for the Municipality of Copenhagen and as initiators for the Urban Ecology Project
? The Municipality of Copenhagen: As local authority, appointing Hedebygade as an urban renewal area, and approving the individual projects (including budgets and financing).
? The Ministry of Housing and Building, represented by "The National Agency for Enterprise and Construction": Donating funding for the green elements through "Project Renovation".
? Various consultants and architects, designing the renewal of the individual buildings, and the green elements of them (Wormslev A/S being the company responsible for the project about measurement of consumption).
? DBUR: In the design phase as an advisor for the Ministry of Housing and Building on which green solutions to recommend (out of various suggestions, proposed by the consultants). In the evaluation, by using the Green Accounts.

Decision making process - who made the final decision for project implementation
The Ministry of Housing and the Municipality of Copenhagen, represented by The National Agency for Enterprise and Construction (political decision)


Name of tool
Green Accounting

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The evaluation was made after the buildings in the block were completed. The evaluation was made by experts (DBUR). The evaluation had no direct influence on the decision-making process in the individual projects. The evaluation might, however, influence future projects on sustainable building, and the policy formulation on this. Using the tool has indicated the environmental results of the flagship-project on Urban Ecology, and pointed out weakness and strengths in it, by exposing the consumption. It has also contributed to making residents and other more aware and responsible for reducing the consumption of energy and water in the building, and thereby decreased the consumption in the block. Also, the concept of the evaluation might set standards for coming evaluations on sustainable buildings. </p> <p> The green accounts were made to compare the individual buildings to each other (on energy-and water consumption and CO2-emissions), and to compare the buildings’ performance to different benchmarks: <br> - Maximum heat consumption as defined in the building regulations for new buildings, BR95 - the goals in the municipality?s "Guidelines for green urban renewal*quot;- the measures in the ELO-certification, a national annual environmental audit for all multi-storey buildings larger than 1.500 m2<br> - an ordinary building in the block (DP14)<br> - the average consumption for households in Copenhagen</p> <p>As the tool was not a part of the decision-making process in the project design, it was not used to support certain solutions in the process. </p>


Decision making process - how was the information for the dmp disseminated
The tool was used in the final evaluation, and therefore had no influence on the decision-making process. The results of the evaluation was communicated in a report (available at the homepage of the The National Agency for Enterprise and Construction, http://www.naec.dk/) and an open conference on the evaluation, held d. 02.02.2005, where the main results were presented.

Decision making process - how was the public involved
The public (= the residents) were involved in the project, as it was a part of the urban renewal project. The process and the participation from the residents in Hedebygade were strongly influenced by the urban renewal process. In the beginning of the process the consultants had promised the residents that the number of flats would not be reduced through merging. However, the Urban Council overruled this and demanded that a number of flats were merged, meaning that a number of families would have to leave the block after its renewal. This caused many protests from the residents, and resulted in a general mistrust towards the renewal process. A questionnaire completed in 2002 discovered a general dissatisfaction amongst the residents about the planning process of the Urban Renewal in Hedebygade. Also the views on the green projects are mixed. Generally, the green initiatives have made the residents more aware about environmental issues, but there is also dissatisfaction with some of the projects. For instance, project 2 (Flora) has been met with some complaints that it does not function as planned, and in several buildings the heat regeneration system has been turned off (to reduce noise).

Decision making process - was there public discussion over the project
see information on public involvement

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

Green Accounting

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)