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

Opinion of tools

Name der Fallstudie
E.C.U.B.-Projekt


Name of tool
B.R.E.E.A.M. (self-made adapted version)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
There are different reasons regarding the users concerned and the tools used.<br> <em>ARTIM </em>(project developer): <br> ⢠ARTIM´s motivation was an ecological/ environmental concern. The use of tools was first led by this policy. Step by step, their perception progressively moved into a more holistic and sustainable view and they needed some referenced knowledge.<br> ⢠It's a way to fall under European standards to obtain funds and assistances. <br> ⢠Moreover, it constitutes an important selling and promotion argument. <br> ⢠They also mentioned brainstorming meetings help them to better understand the local context, and moreover to maximise the acceptance of the project.</p> <p><em>IBGE-BIM </em>(public administration supporting the project): <br> ⢠Give a significant support to the development of a sustainable project, as an Eco-centre in Brussels.<br> ⢠Promote a sustainable image of their institute, especially as they would like to transfer their offices on the site. <br> ⢠At that time, IBGE-BIM was trying to formalize The Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label and Charter (see description of tools), the ECUB case was the occasion to test first developments. </p> <p><em>Anderlecht municipality </em>(final decision-maker that will grant or not the town-planning license): <br> ⢠The municipality gets interested in economic aspects and project´s viability. They don´t directly use financial tools but are interested in results. <br> ⢠The "ECUB project" could take part into the Brussels green network within the framework of the European project INTEREG. Consequently, they get interested in opening the park to public. <br> ⢠The only "tool" they really used is traditional "town-planning" license.</p> <p>Each of these 3 users has chosen the tools he used.</p> <p>Criteria are different regarding the users and the tools a user makes use of. ARTIM used the ones they were aware of and that could help the inception of the project idea, particularly to find technical solutions. The cost was also a criterion (they developed a self-made version of HQE and BREEAM to avoid extra-expenditures). They were also invited to use those proposed by the IBGE-BIM. IBGE-BIM essentially used the tools developed by their own services. Anderlecht Municipality used the traditional legal references.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Name of tool
H.Q.E. (self-made adapted version)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
There are different reasons regarding the users concerned and the tools used.<br> <em>ARTIM </em>(project developer): <br> ⢠ARTIM´s motivation was an ecological/ environmental concern. The use of tools was first led by this policy. Step by step, their perception progressively moved into a more holistic and sustainable view and they needed some referenced knowledge.<br> ⢠It's a way to fall under European standards to obtain funds and assistances. <br> ⢠Moreover, it constitutes an important selling and promotion argument. <br> ⢠They also mentioned brainstorming meetings help them to better understand the local context, and moreover to maximise the acceptance of the project.</p> <p><em>IBGE-BIM </em>(public administration supporting the project): <br> ⢠Give a significant support to the development of a sustainable project, as an Eco-centre in Brussels.<br> ⢠Promote a sustainable image of their institute, especially as they would like to transfer their offices on the site. <br> ⢠At that time, IBGE-BIM was trying to formalize The Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label and Charter (see description of tools), the ECUB case was the occasion to test first developments. </p> <p><em>Anderlecht municipality </em>(final decision-maker that will grant or not the town-planning license): <br> ⢠The municipality gets interested in economic aspects and project´s viability. They don´t directly use financial tools but are interested in results. <br> ⢠The "ECUB project" could take part into the Brussels green network within the framework of the European project INTEREG. Consequently, they get interested in opening the park to public. <br> ⢠The only "tool" they really used is traditional "town-planning" license.</p> <p>Each of these 3 users has chosen the tools he used.</p> <p>Criteria are different regarding the users and the tools a user makes use of. ARTIM used the ones they were aware of and that could help the inception of the project idea, particularly to find technical solutions. The cost was also a criterion (they developed a self-made version of HQE and BREEAM to avoid extra-expenditures). They were also invited to use those proposed by the IBGE-BIM. IBGE-BIM essentially used the tools developed by their own services. Anderlecht Municipality used the traditional legal references.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em> This method focuses on the process and doesn&acute;t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users&acute; background.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Name of tool
P.R.A.S. (Regional Ground Assignment Plan of Brussels´ Capital Region)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
There are different reasons regarding the users concerned and the tools used.<br> <em>ARTIM </em>(project developer): <br> ⢠ARTIM´s motivation was an ecological/ environmental concern. The use of tools was first led by this policy. Step by step, their perception progressively moved into a more holistic and sustainable view and they needed some referenced knowledge.<br> ⢠It's a way to fall under European standards to obtain funds and assistances. <br> ⢠Moreover, it constitutes an important selling and promotion argument. <br> ⢠They also mentioned brainstorming meetings help them to better understand the local context, and moreover to maximise the acceptance of the project.</p> <p><em>IBGE-BIM </em>(public administration supporting the project): <br> ⢠Give a significant support to the development of a sustainable project, as an Eco-centre in Brussels.<br> ⢠Promote a sustainable image of their institute, especially as they would like to transfer their offices on the site. <br> ⢠At that time, IBGE-BIM was trying to formalize The Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label and Charter (see description of tools), the ECUB case was the occasion to test first developments. </p> <p><em>Anderlecht municipality </em>(final decision-maker that will grant or not the town-planning license): <br> ⢠The municipality gets interested in economic aspects and project´s viability. They don´t directly use financial tools but are interested in results. <br> ⢠The "ECUB project" could take part into the Brussels green network within the framework of the European project INTEREG. Consequently, they get interested in opening the park to public. <br> ⢠The only "tool" they really used is traditional "town-planning" license.</p> <p>Each of these 3 users has chosen the tools he used.</p> <p>Criteria are different regarding the users and the tools a user makes use of. ARTIM used the ones they were aware of and that could help the inception of the project idea, particularly to find technical solutions. The cost was also a criterion (they developed a self-made version of HQE and BREEAM to avoid extra-expenditures). They were also invited to use those proposed by the IBGE-BIM. IBGE-BIM essentially used the tools developed by their own services. Anderlecht Municipality used the traditional legal references.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em>This method focuses on the process and doesn&acute;t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users&acute; background.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Name of tool
Raw materials list (environment friendly)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em>This method focuses on the process and doesn´t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users´ background.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em>This method focuses on the process and doesn´t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users´ background.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Name of tool
Socio-town-planning analysis

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
There are different reasons regarding the users concerned and the tools used.<br> <em>ARTIM </em>(project developer): <br> ⢠ARTIM´s motivation was an ecological/ environmental concern. The use of tools was first led by this policy. Step by step, their perception progressively moved into a more holistic and sustainable view and they needed some referenced knowledge.<br> ⢠It's a way to fall under European standards to obtain funds and assistances. <br> ⢠Moreover, it constitutes an important selling and promotion argument. <br> ⢠They also mentioned brainstorming meetings help them to better understand the local context, and moreover to maximise the acceptance of the project.</p> <p><em>IBGE-BIM </em>(public administration supporting the project): <br> ⢠Give a significant support to the development of a sustainable project, as an Eco-centre in Brussels.<br> ⢠Promote a sustainable image of their institute, especially as they would like to transfer their offices on the site. <br> ⢠At that time, IBGE-BIM was trying to formalize The Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label and Charter (see description of tools), the ECUB case was the occasion to test first developments. </p> <p><em>Anderlecht municipality </em>(final decision-maker that will grant or not the town-planning license): <br> ⢠The municipality gets interested in economic aspects and project´s viability. They don´t directly use financial tools but are interested in results. <br> ⢠The "ECUB project" could take part into the Brussels green network within the framework of the European project INTEREG. Consequently, they get interested in opening the park to public. <br> ⢠The only "tool" they really used is traditional "town-planning" license.</p> <p>Each of these 3 users has chosen the tools he used.</p> <p>Criteria are different regarding the users and the tools a user makes use of. ARTIM used the ones they were aware of and that could help the inception of the project idea, particularly to find technical solutions. The cost was also a criterion (they developed a self-made version of HQE and BREEAM to avoid extra-expenditures). They were also invited to use those proposed by the IBGE-BIM. IBGE-BIM essentially used the tools developed by their own services. Anderlecht Municipality used the traditional legal references.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em>This method focuses on the process and doesn´t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users´ background.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Name of tool
T-RNSYS (energy management)

Opinion of tool - argumentation for choosing the tool
There are different reasons regarding the users concerned and the tools used.<br> <em>ARTIM </em>(project developer): <br> ⢠ARTIM´s motivation was an ecological/ environmental concern. The use of tools was first led by this policy. Step by step, their perception progressively moved into a more holistic and sustainable view and they needed some referenced knowledge.<br> ⢠It's a way to fall under European standards to obtain funds and assistances. <br> ⢠Moreover, it constitutes an important selling and promotion argument. <br> ⢠They also mentioned brainstorming meetings help them to better understand the local context, and moreover to maximise the acceptance of the project.</p> <p><em>IBGE-BIM </em>(public administration supporting the project): <br> ⢠Give a significant support to the development of a sustainable project, as an Eco-centre in Brussels.<br> ⢠Promote a sustainable image of their institute, especially as they would like to transfer their offices on the site. <br> ⢠At that time, IBGE-BIM was trying to formalize The Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label and Charter (see description of tools), the ECUB case was the occasion to test first developments. </p> <p><em>Anderlecht municipality </em>(final decision-maker that will grant or not the town-planning license): <br> ⢠The municipality gets interested in economic aspects and project´s viability. They don´t directly use financial tools but are interested in results. <br> ⢠The "ECUB project" could take part into the Brussels green network within the framework of the European project INTEREG. Consequently, they get interested in opening the park to public. <br> ⢠The only "tool" they really used is traditional "town-planning" license.</p> <p>Each of these 3 users has chosen the tools he used.</p> <p>Criteria are different regarding the users and the tools a user makes use of. ARTIM used the ones they were aware of and that could help the inception of the project idea, particularly to find technical solutions. The cost was also a criterion (they developed a self-made version of HQE and BREEAM to avoid extra-expenditures). They were also invited to use those proposed by the IBGE-BIM. IBGE-BIM essentially used the tools developed by their own services. Anderlecht Municipality used the traditional legal references.</p>

Opinion of tool - barriers for the tool implementation
The main problem was that tools used do not consider interconnections between the 3 different aspects of sustainability, sometimes conflicting. <br> A tool helps to assess an idea and sometimes to find out a more sustainable solution but this solution can appear as not compatible with another sustainable challenge.</p> <p>For example: type of office activities planned on the site are not really compatible with the public use of the green areas around, social companies´ workers do not always fit with non-traditional building practices, etc.</p> <p>Some tools (e.g. T-RNSYS, ) require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-cost.</p> <p>For 2 very well known tools, H.Q.E. and BREEAM, comments of end-users were gathered. They have not paid for the official version that would certainly influence their comments.<br> <em>H.Q.E.:</em>This method focuses on the process and doesn´t allow a quantitative assessment of the project. Nevertheless, it puts some important aspects of sustainability in evidence. It could be interesting to weight the different aspects considered. The assessment depends on the users´ background.<br> <em>BREEAM:</em> The credits attribution is judged not transparent enough, and the compensations between domains could be more clearly justified. A non-static method could be upgraded. The tool still mainly focuses on the environmental aspects.</p> <p>A general remark is that there is no tool dedicated to the following up of the project. The steps after design are neglected. The operation stage has never been investigated.</p> <p>End-users were interested in economical impacts on the surroundings, but they did not find tools considering them.</p>


Opinion of tool - assessment by tool users
They were improvements even if they are not all measurable ones.

The design of the project has been improved. Tools opened new perspectives but also provided practical solutions, for instance, concerning alternative raw materials and their modus operandi.
Valuable reductions of consumption cost have been assessed thanks to tool implementation. For example, the use of T-RNSYS enabled to reduce the energy consumption of the buildings.

Communication and information exchanges between the different stakeholders were improved thanks to the use of tools, and the production of results that could be concretely discussed. For example, the socio-town planning analysis and public debates highlighted some important points to introduce to the project.

The decision-making process was also improved as tools (HQE and BREEAM) provided an assessment method, during the architectural competition, to appreciate the sustainable characteristics of the projects.

The IBGE-BIM mentioned that they sometimes don?t appreciate how their studies are implemented just to give the project a good selling argument.

ARTIM mentioned that all these efforts to make the project more sustainable could be completely useless as not compatible with the preservation and valorisation of architectural heritage. Even though, they did not find any method (for thermal design, use of alternative materials, etc) taking these requirements related to listed buildings into account.

This project tries to approach the 3 different aspects of sustainability. Many tools are available to do so but the difficulty is more to understand the complex interconnections between aspects and to manage them.
End-users did not find tools really helpful to consider conflicts and opportunities.

During the project, sustainable "labels" as Brussels Corporate Eco-dynamism Label were awaited, as they seem to be a good selling argument.

The project?s economical impacts on the surroundings are deemed very important. They have not been approached.

Thanks to the different tools used for the inception of the project, the initial environmental goal turned into a more complete sustainable one. Tools encouraged developers, made them aware of other social and economic values, clarify their goals and sometimes give them means to reach them.

Experiences good and bad from the different actors:

ARTIM:
They quickly capitalise sustainability knowledge. The use of tools constitutes for them important selling, persuasion, and promotion arguments. One of the main outcomes was the reduction of consumption.

IBGE-BIM:
During the ECUB project, they enlarged their sustainability knowledge. They put in evidence the lack of references concerning the definition of the "impact area" to consider regards to the size of the project (social analysis are very linked with the project size and characteristics)

Anderlecht municipality:
They are vaguely interested in results. The only tool they used is traditional "town-planning" license

The tools used in this case could be applied on any building-projects (rehabilitation, transformation or construction). Contextual data must be imported, of course.

Stakeholders will recommend these tools, even if they are aware of useful adaptation and evolution to be done.

Opinion of tool - reviewer\'s assessment
In this project, stakeholders get a bit lost between all the tools available and the amount of parameters to consider.
A clear procedure explaining the periods when tools have to be used and to investigate what, will be helpful. A clearer procedure would promote sustainability from the strategic stage to the technical one.

Tools used in this case do not considered interconnections between the different aspects of the sustainability challenges, sometimes conflicting. Any assessment of the summed outcomes is provided, only disconnected problems are analysed.

Some tools require a professional experience and it then imposes an external consultant office and extra-costs. To avoid this, users sometimes develop a "home-made" version which spirit could be far from the official one.

The follow up of the project has never been considered, excepted indirectly via energy consumption costs. The operation stage represents 80% of the costs of buildings, the sustainable challenge is certainly also there.

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

B.R.E.E.A.M. (self-made adapted version)

H.Q.E. (self-made adapted version)

P.R.A.S. (Regional Ground Assignment Plan of Brussels´ Capital Region)

Raw materials list (environment friendly)

Socio-town-planning analysis

T-RNSYS (energy management)

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)