This article was downloaded by: [Nipissing University]

On: 12 October 2014, At: 16:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Building Research & Information

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Measuring capability for sustainability: the Built

Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST)
abc
Jeremy Gibberd
a
Department of Architecture, University of Pretoria, Private Bag X20, Hatfield 0028,
Pretoria 0028, South Africa
b
Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South
Africa
c
Gauge, PO Box 14738, Hatfield, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
Published online: 31 Jul 2014.

To cite this article: Jeremy Gibberd (2015) Measuring capability for sustainability: the Built Environment Sustainability Tool
(BEST), Building Research & Information, 43:1, 49-61, DOI: 10.1080/09613218.2014.930257

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.930257

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 B UILDING R ESEARCH & I NFORMATION 2015
Vol. 43, No. 1, 49– 61, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09613218.2014.930257

INFORMATION PAPER

Measuring capability for sustainability: the

Built Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST)

Jeremy Gibberd1,2,3

1
Department ofArchitecture,University ofPretoria,PrivateBagX20,Hat¢eld0028,Pretoria0028,SouthAfrica

2
Council for Scienti¢c and Industrial Research (CSIR), PO Box 395, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

3
Gauge, PO Box 14738, Hat¢eld, Pretoria 0028, South Africa
E-mail: [email protected]

An alternative approach to conceptualizing and measuring the built environment is developed which forms the basis of a
new assessment tool. The role of buildings is reframed to consider what capabilities for sustainability a building can
provide to the inhabitants and local community. This capability to support sustainability is defined as the ability to
improve the local quality of life (Human Development Index) whilst remaining below the environmental carrying
capacity (environmental footprint). This approach has clear implications about the role of buildings in enabling
residents and users to achieve these targets and outcomes. This shifts the focus of net-positive development toward
configurations and characteristics of the built environment that are appropriate for a particular context. A Built
Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST) is presented that defines and assesses these configurations and
characteristics. Assessments can be conducted by measuring the extent to which required configurations and
characteristics exist (i.e. ‘the capability of the built environment to support sustainability’). BEST is compared with
other green building rating tool approaches in order to review the methodology critically and to evaluate this as a
means of improving built environment sustainability performance.

Keywords building assessment systems, built environment, neighbourhood, net-positive, sustainability, sustainability
criteria, sustainability indicators, sustainable buildings

Introduction presented. This approach considers what the role of

Most of the existing green building assessments have a the built environment (in particular: buildings) plays
very limited approach to social and economic criteria in providing the capabilities to communities, rather
that inform sustainability. Many green building tools than measuring (hypothecated) technical performance.
have little or no direct linkage to the Earth’s ecological This capability to support sustainability is defined as
carrying capacity and instead focus on performance the ability to improve the local quality of life
improvements about the baseline set by regulations (Human Development Index – HDI) whilst remaining
and standards. Their relevance to large sections of within the environmental carrying capacity (Environ-
the developing world is therefore extremely limited. mental Footprint).
In the context of net-positive, the discussion will need
to shift to embrace a wider set of issues about sustain- The Built Environment Sustainability Tool (BEST) was
ing life: the contribution that a building makes to the developed as a way of assessing the sustainability per-
overall health and well-being of the community, to formance of built environments and identifying ways
the local ecological system and to the remaining of improving this. Although the acronym ‘BEST’
within the limits of wider ecological carrying capacity. reflects the name of the tool, it also captures the
intent of the tool in assisting in the identification of
An alternative approach to conceptualizing and the best built environment solutions, or interventions,
measuring the built environment is developed and to support sustainability for a given context. The

# 2014 Taylor & Francis

This article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please see Corrigendum (http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
09613218.2014.957110)
 Gibberd

process of developing the tool involved addressing the targets and environmental limits that must be achieved.
following questions: Sustainability in this definition is described as the simul-
taneous achievement of above 0.8 on the HDI and an
Ecological Footprint (EF) of below 1.8 global hectares
. What is sustainability? (gha) per person (Moran, Wackernagel, Kitzes, Gold-
finger, & Boutaud, 2008; World Wild Life Fund, 2006).
. What configuration and characteristics are
required in built environments to support the
achievement of sustainability?
Human Development Index (HDI)
. How can these built environment configurations The HDI is a quality-of-life measure developed by the
and characteristics be assessed? United Nations. It is based on following health, knowl-
edge and income aspects (United Nations Development
. Can the process of assessing the sustainability of Programme, 2007):
built environments be used to diagnose areas of
weaker, and stronger, performance? . A long healthy life, measured by life expectancy at
birth.
. Can the process of diagnoses inform the develop-
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

ment of interventions and options which address . Knowledge, measured by the adult literacy rate
areas of weak performance? and combined primary, secondary, and tertiary
gross enrolment ratio.
. Can proposed interventions and options be tested
and evaluated within the existing context to ident- . A decent standard of living, as measure by gross
ify the best solutions and interventions for a par- domestic product (GDP) per capita in purchasing
ticular context? power parity (PPP) (US$).
. Where resources are limited, is it possible to HDI is the average of three measures and is calculated
support the development of sustainability strat- as follows:
egies and plans where interventions to support sus-
tainability can be sequenced and implemented HDI = 1/3(life expectancy index)
over time in order to achieve full sustainability
capability in a structured and efficient way? + 1/3(education index) + 1/3(GDP index)

It is used as international measure of development

The first part of this paper describes how these ques-
and national figures are published annually by the
tions were addressed in order to develop BEST. The
United Nations. An HDI of 0.8 or above is recognized
second part discusses BEST in relation to conventional
as evidence that minimum acceptable standards
green building rating approaches and the concept of
of quality of life have been achieved (Moran et al., 2008).
net positive design.

De¢ning sustainability Ecological Footprint (EF)

A wide range of definitions exists for sustainability and An EF is a measure of the amount of biologically pro-
sustainable development. One of the most widely used ductive land and sea required to provide the resources
definitions refers to ensuring that needs of current required by a human population and to absorb the cor-
populations are met without negatively affecting responding waste. The types of resources required and
future populations: ‘development that meets the waste generated by populations are classified in the fol-
needs of current generations without compromising lowing way:
the ability of future generations to meet their needs
and aspirations’ (World Commission on the Environ-
ment and Development, 1987, p. 43). Translating . Food, measured in type and amount of food
this definition into action is difficult. ‘Needs’ and consumed.
‘aspirations’ are subjective and interpretations vary
on what this means. Explicit reference is also not . Shelter, measured in size, utilization and energy
made to environmental limitations which determine consumption.
whether current and future generations are able to
meet their needs (Button, 2002). . Mobility, measured in type of transport used and
distances travelled.
A more recent definition of sustainability addresses
these limitations by referring to specific quality of life . Goods, measured in type and quantity consumed.
50
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST

. Services, measured in type and quantity consumed. The criteria in BEST have therefore been developed by
analysing the elements that constitute the HDI and EF
. Waste, measured in type and quantity produced. in order to identify the built environment configur-
ations and characteristics required to achieve target
The area of land and sea required for this consumption performance. These configurations and characteristics
and pollution is calculated in global hectares (gha) and are translated into BEST criteria and assessment
the sum of these areas provides the EF (Wackernagel & scales developed (Gibberd, 2013a). The tool refers to
Yount, 2000). Given that the Earth’s surface is finite, a these required configurations and characteristics as
maximum equitable share can be determined. At ‘built environment sustainability capability’. Built
current population numbers this is about 1.8 gha/ environment sustainability capability requirements
person (Moran et al., 2008). in relation to EF and HDI criteria are listed in
Tables 1 and 2.

Implications for the built environment

The above definition of sustainability has direct impli- Assessing capability for sustainability
cations for planning, design, construction and man- Three key factors were considered in developing the
agement of built environments. It implies that in methodology for assessing sustainability capability in
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

order to achieve sustainability, built environments built environments. The first is that sustainability per-
must enable and encourage their users, or occupant formance of the built environment is a combination of
populations, achieve an HDI of over 0.8 and an EF (1) the inherent configuration and characteristics of the
of under 1.8 gha. built environments and (2) how built environments are

Table 1 Ecological Footprint criteria, corresponding built environment sustainability capability requirements and BEST criteria

Ecological Footprint criteria Built environment sustainability capability Examples of BEST criteria
requirements

Food: measured in type and The built environment must ensure that user populations Facilities where low ecological
amount of food consumed are able to access low ecological footprint food footprint a¡ordable food is available

Facilities that enable low ecological

footprint food to be produced
Shelter: measured in size, The built environment must ensure that user populations Low ecological footprint a¡ordable
utilization and energy have low ecological footprint working and living accommodation
consumption environments
Spatially and energy e⁄cient facilities
Mobility: measured in type of The built environment must ensure that user populations Availability and quality of support for
transport used and distances can access all key daily requirements using low walking and non-motorized
travelled ecological footprint mobility transport

Availability and quality of public

transport
Goods: measured in type and The built environment must ensure that user populations Availability and quality of support for
quantity consumed. can access required low ecological footprint goods low ecological footprint goods

Facilities that support shared and

e⁄cient use of goods
Services: measured in type and The built environment must ensure that user populations Availability and quality of support for
quantity consumed can access required low ecological footprint services. low ecological footprint services

Facilities that support shared and

e⁄cient use of services
Waste: measured in type and The built environment must ensure that user populations Availability and quality of support for
quantity produced can avoid waste and access required recycling services waste avoidance

Facilities that support recycling

Biocapacity: measured in type The built environment must include resilient and Availability and quality of support for
and quantity of provision productive biocapacity biocapacity

Facilities that support resilient and

productive biocapacity

51
 Gibberd

Table 2 Human Development Index criteria, corresponding built environment sustainability capability requirements and examples of
BEST criteria

Human Development Index (HDI) criteria Built environment sustainability capability Examples of BEST criteria
requirements

Health: a long healthy life, measured by life The built environment must ensure that user Health facilities: that enable
expectancy at birth populations live and work in healthy healthy a¡ordable food and
environments and can access all facilities water to be accessed
required for a long and health life
Knowledge: measured by adult literacy rate and The built environment must ensure that user Education facilities: that
combined primary, secondary and tertiary populations can access all facilities required support ongoing learning
gross enrolment ratio for knowledge including primary, secondary, and education
tertiary education and ongoing learning
Standard of Living: a decent standard of living, The built environment must ensure that user Local businesses: that support
as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) populations can access opportunities required employment and self-
per capita in purchasing power parity (PPP) to earn su⁄cient income employment
(US$)
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

used and managed. Sustainability performance is gov- BEST criterion are defined in a manual. BEST criteria
erned by both of these factors and cannot be related areas are derived directly from the sub-criteria of the
to just one or the other. Built environments must there- HDI and EF:
fore be planned, designed and managed to have the
right inherent qualities. They must also enable and . Shelter
encourage occupants to use these qualities appropri- . Food
ately to achieve sustainability targets. The ‘enabling
and encouraging’ aspect of the built environment is . Mobility
taken into account in BEST methodology by integrat- . Goods
ing standards, capacity, physical access and affordabil-
ity as considerations in assessments. . Waste
. Biocapacity
The second factor is that if the built environment is to
support the achievement of HDI and EF targets, . Products
required configuration and characteristics must be
. Services
part of everyday living and working environments of
users. This means that these configurations and charac- . Education
teristics must be integrated effectively into these
environments and be physically present in a way that
. Health
influences user behaviour appropriately. This is taken . Employment
into account in BEST by requiring built environment
configurations and characteristics to be either phys- The tool assesses capability in these areas for existing
ically integrated into working or living built environ- built environments or for proposed built environment
ments, or to be accessible locally. Local access is designs, within a neighbourhood context. The tackling
defined as being within the local neighbourhood or of sustainable development is a complex undertaking,
not over 2 km from the environment being assessed. entailing a detailed understanding of local systems is
needed before proposals are made (Lowton, 1997;
The third factor is that as specific EF and HDI targets Van Pelt, 1993). Assessments of the existing situation
have to be achieved for sustainability, it is important and the identification of areas with weak or strong sus-
to ensure that all required built environment configur- tainability capability are used to provide a framework
ations and characteristics are in place to allow this to for developing and refining designs. The suitability
happen. The tool therefore defines optimal arrange- these designs is then evaluated by measuring the
ments for targets to be achieved and refers to this as extent to which built environment sustainability capa-
‘full capability’. Assessments then rate built environ- bility is improved. Therefore to achieve high-perform-
ments from ‘no capability’, which score ‘0’, to ‘full ance, buildings or built environment interventions
capability’, which score ‘5’, in terms of the extent to must respond directly to the local situation and
which the required configuration or characteristics improve sustainability capability where this does not
exist to support sustainability. Scoring scales for each exist, or is weak.
52
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

Figure 1 Built Environment SustainabilityTool (BEST)

Assessments are performed by evaluating buildings and for improvement can be evaluated by inserting as
the neighbourhood against the sub-criteria listed in the many as six different options in the columns to the
tool. These are shown as ‘BEST criteria’ in Figure 1. right of the tool, as indicated in Figure 1. These
Scoring of these criteria is on a six-point scale that options are scored in their columns in relation to
ranges from ‘0’ (no capability) to ‘5’ (full capability). BEST criteria in the tool in accordance with the scales
A score of ‘5’ indicates that all built environment defined in the manual. On completion of the scoring,
characteristics and configuration are in place to the impact of the option can be evaluated by reviewing
support the achievement of HDI and EF targets. A the ‘Proposed’ scores relative to ‘Existing’ scores, as
score of ‘0’ indicates that none of this in place. Scores shown in Figure 1. The differences between these
for existing neighbourhoods and buildings and scores provide an indication of the nature and extent
designs are assessed in the ‘Existing’ column shown of the impact of the option. Thus, the extent to which
in Figure 1. the score increases in the ‘Proposed’ environment rela-
tive to the ‘Existing’ indicates the level of improved sus-
On completion of an ‘Existing’ assessment, perform- tainability capability. The tool also includes indicators
ance can be understood by reviewing BEST report at labelled ‘Resilience’ and ‘Congruence’, as shown in
the bottom of the tool, as shown in Figure 1. This is Figure 1. The ‘Resilience’ measure provides an indi-
also shown in Figure 3. This report can be used to diag- cation of improved resilience resulting from additional
nose the areas of good and poor performance. The systems or capacity resulting from implementing the
report can be used to identify and develop options option(s). For example, the addition of a rainwater
for improvement that are based on the diagnosed harvesting system, which provides an additional
areas of poor performance. Once identified, options supply of water to a municipal supply, would be

53
 Gibberd

reflected as improved resilience within the tool. ‘Con- The first step in a BEST assessment is the identification
gruence’ measures the fit between proposed options of the building or building type that will be assessed.
and gaps in capability performance. Therefore For instance, this may be of a residential dwelling.
options that effectively improved capability in areas The second step is demarcation of the neighbourhood.
of poor performance would reflect higher values com- Accessibility is indicated through marking concentric
pared with options that were less successful at addres- rings indicating the distance from the building. Facili-
sing these gaps. Different options can be switched ‘on ties within a maximum of 2 km are deemed to be acces-
and off’ in the tool in order to ascertain individual sible. Figure 2 indicates 0.5 km diameter rings
and combined impact. The BEST report includes a emanating from the building. The final demarcation
spider diagram, development trajectory chart points of the neighbourhood is then derived using these
and tables to enable the impact of the option(s) to maximum accessibility distances and geographical fea-
be readily understood, as is shown Figure 3. This tures such as walls and rivers that may influence access
can be used to ensure proposed options are respon- and movement.
sive to the existing situation and are tested, evaluated
and refined before being selected. The third step is the assessment of sustainability capa-
bility of the built environment and neighbourhood
within which it is located. This is either conducted
Using BEST: Atteridgeville example through a physical survey (if an existing building and
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

The application of BEST can be illustrated through a neighbourhood) or through a desk-based analysis of
case study. The area selected is an informal settlement design documentation such as plans and specifications
on the outskirts of Atteridgeville in Pretoria, South (if a design proposal).
Africa (latitude: 225.7733; longitude: 28.0713).
Hereafter, it is simply referred to as the ‘Atteridgeville These steps have been followed for Atteridgeville; an
example’. informal dwelling and neighbourhood were selected
and assessed. The initial assessment provides ‘Existing’
The area assessed is a neighbourhood indicated in capability scores. These scores are captured in tables
Figure 2. The area is characterized by informal self- and graphs indicated in BEST, report in Figure 3.
built housing arranged in a loose grid. Services are
limited and there are no schools or clinics within the An analysis of the ‘Existing’ spider graph in BEST
neighbourhood. Housing does not have electrical, report in Figure 3 reveals that the informal dwelling
water or sewage connections. Small shops and stalls and neighbourhood has weak capability in the areas
sell a limited selection of food and basic groceries. of ‘Employment’, ‘Shelter’, ‘Goods’, ‘Services’, ‘Bioca-
There is no established and scheduled public transport. pacity’, ‘Health’ and ‘Knowledge’ and that slightly
Private vehicles are available to transport people and stronger capability exists the areas of ‘Waste’ and
goods, but costs are relatively high. ‘Food’.

Figure 2 Case study area

54
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

Figure 3 BESTreport

The BEST ‘Existing’ report provides an explicit basis establishment of community food gardens (Option
for developing actions to improve sustainability capa- C), the development of a local school with out-of-
bility. For instance, it may be decided that addressing hours community access to computer and learning
areas of weak capability may the priority and therefore facilities (Option D), and undertaking all of these inter-
options that addressed this directly should be targeted. ventions together (Option F).
Alternatively, as illustrated in the example below, it
may be decided that the options resulting in the Testing these options against ‘Existing’ performance
highest overall improvement in capability should be within the tool reveals that the community food
prioritized and therefore that options that achieved gardens (capability improvement of 0.70) and the
this should be targeted. school with shared access to information and com-
munication technology (ICT) (capability improvement
In the Atteridgeville example, options investigated of 0.80) have a greater overall impact (improvement in
include solar water heater installations (Option A), capability) than the solar water heater installation
building envelope upgrades (Option B), the (capability improvement of 0.14) and building

Table 3 Built environment sustainability capability scores of di¡erent options using BEST

Option A Option B Option C Option D Option F

Solar water Building Community School with All interventions
heater envelope food gardens shared access
installation upgrade to ICT

Existing capability
EF capability 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65 1.65
HDI capability 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16 1.16
Overall capability 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40 1.40

Proposed capability
EF capability 1.71 1.71 2.28 2.14 2.89
HDI capability 1.38 1.60 1.93 2.27 3.38
Overall capability 1.54 1.65 2.10 2.20 3.14

Di¡erence
Capability improvement 0.14 0.25 0.70 0.80 1.74

55
 Gibberd

envelope upgrades (capability improvement of 0.25), structured way. The broad, positive focus
as shown in Table 3. of BEST, which aims to improve local quality of
life and reduce environmental impact, can be used
The higher impact (more substantial increases in sus- to involve diverse stakeholders and build consensus.
tainability capability of the built environment) of
options C and D suggest that these options should be . Municipal urban planning processes
prioritized and implemented first. Option F indicates Municipal urban planning processes such as the
the cumulative impact of undertaking all the interven- development of Integrated Development Plans
tions. This results in substantial improvements in capa- (IDPs) and Spatial Development Frameworks
bility, with overall capability improving from 1.40 to (SDFs) aim to support local sustainable develop-
3.14, as shown in column F in Table 3. The spider ment. However these plans may not be based on
graph in Figure 3 also shows that Option F results in sustainability assessments and therefore may not
improvements in all areas (compare the blue line respond to local priorities. The BEST can be
with the red line). included in IDP and SDF processes in order to
ensure that these responded directly to gaps in
An analysis of the BEST report in Figure 3 provides an local sustainability capability. This process
insight into the next set of options that may be used to would help ensure that local government planning
address of areas of weak capability in the ‘Proposed’ processes responded to area-specific issues and
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

situation (the blue line) and suggests that this should supported sustainable development (Cohen,
address low performance in the areas of ‘Shelter’, 2006; Gibberd, 2013c; Theaker & Cole, 2001).
Mobility’, ‘Goods’, ‘Services’ and ‘Health’. Options
that may be explored to address this include renewable
energy sources, improved pedestrian routes linked to Discussion
public transport, a local market for goods and services The approach in BEST tool is significantly different
and facilities that support health. In this way assess- from green building rating tool approaches and it is
ments of the existing situation, combined with a therefore worth comparing and contrasting the two
process of testing and implementing proposed inter- approaches. ‘Green building rating approaches’ in
ventions, can be used to improve the sustainability this paper refers to processes used for building environ-
capability of an area over time in a structured way. mental assessments and ratings using tools such as Lea-
dership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED).
‘BEST approaches’ refers to processes used with the
BESTapplications Built Environment Sustainability Tool.
BEST may be applied in a range of ways to support
built environment improvements in sustainability.
These applications are described below. Assessment focus
The way society defines and measures progress is key
factor in advancing sustainability (Dahl, 2012;
. Architectural and urban design evaluation Meadows, 1998). Pintér, Hardi, Martinuzzi, and
BEST can be used to evaluate architectural and Hall (2012, p. 22) argue that assessments of sustain-
urban design proposals by assessing these in able development progress must consider:
terms of HDI and EF capability. The process of
assessing proposals can be used to ascertain the
highest performing proposals. Through an itera- . the underlying social, economic and environ-
tive process, it may also be possible to improve mental system as a whole and the interactions
design proposals. This can lead to the development among its components, including issues related to
of integrated design and management solutions governance
which improve local sustainability capability
improvements in an efficient manner. An . dynamics and interactions between current trends
example of this is the Neighbourhood Facilities and drivers of change
for Sustainability concept (Gibberd, 2013b).
. risks, uncertainties and activities that can have an
. Community involvement impact across boundaries
A BEST assessment of a neighbourhood by a com-
munity can be used to ascertain local sustainability . implications for decision-making, including trade-
capability performance and support the develop- offs and synergies
ment of sustainability plans in order to address
gaps and areas of weaknesses. Through this Improvements in sustainability performance therefore
process, it is possible to develop local plans which require planning based on a detailed understanding
integrate and coordinate local initiatives in a of existing systems and appropriate progress indicators
56
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST

(Ness, Urbel Piirsalu, Anderberg, & Olsson, 2007; 2003, 2004). In these contexts, the inclusion of social
Singh, Murty, Gupta, & Dikshit, 2012). and economic aspects in assessments makes sense, as
it enables these issues to be addressed simultaneously
Green building rating tool criteria focus on environ- with environment aspects (Singh et al., 2012). By
mental issues and therefore only provide a partial including and assessing a broader range of social, econ-
measure of sustainability performance (Cole, 2005; omic and environmental aspects, the BEST approach
Cooper, 1999; Liu, Li, & Yao, 2010; Zuo & Zhao, favours more integrated and multi-impact solutions.
2014). Some aspects of occupant health such as
indoor air quality, views and lighting are included in As shown in the Atteridgeville example, the wider
green building rating tools. However, other social remit of BEST also enables unconventional solutions
and economic aspects such as food, education and (e.g. shared access schools and food gardens) to be con-
employment, cited as key requirements for sustainable sidered and assessed. In this particular context, these
development by the World Commission on Environ- solutions prove to be particularly effective and efficient
ment and Development (WCED), are not included at improving local sustainability capability as multiple
(WCED, 1987; Zuo & Zhao, 2014). impacts are achieved that improve both HDI and EF
performance. For example, food gardens reduce EF
City-scale approaches, such as the Cities for Climate by providing locally grown fresh vegetables and fruit.
Protection (CCP) initiative, similarly include a focus HDI performance is simultaneously enhanced by
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

on environmental issues related to energy, housing, improving local standards of living through the
commercial buildings, transport, waste and water. additional income generated from selling produce
However, while this approach does not include and improving health through better nutrition.
aspects such as health, education and food, it envisages
and values beneficial social and economic impacts
related to environmental actions, such as increased
employment (International Council for Environmental Responsiveness and prioritization
Initiatives, 2009). Green building tool ratings rely on the accumulation
of sufficient points in order to be eligible for a
London’s Quality of Life Reports, a city sustainability rating (Cole, 2005). While these tools may make the
indicator system, adopt a broader approach and give achievement of a number of criteria such as those
equal prominence to social, environmental and econ- related to carbon emissions and biodiversity manda-
omic criteria. These include indicators for income equal- tory, little guidance is offered about which perform-
ity, business survival, employment, life expectancy, ance aspects should be prioritized. This may lead to
childcare and EFs. The chosen indicators aim to the inclusion of attributes and technologies that are
measure the key factors required for establishing a sus- cheap or easy to implement. Such a strategy fails to
tainable city and enhancing the quality of life within it incorporate aspects that may be more applicable but
(London Sustainable Development Commission, 2012). are more expensive or difficult to implement, or do
not generate green points (Cole, 2005; Lee, 2012;
The approach taken in BEST has some similarities with Liu et al., 2010).
London’s Quality of Life Report. It aims to measure
the performance of key built environment factors Some regional differences, such as local climate, are
required for sustainability, namely the capability for taken into account in green building rating approaches.
achieving HDI and EF targets. Built environment capa- However, other significant variations are not acknowl-
bility is determined by assessing criteria relating to the edged (Zuo & Zhao, 2014). For instance, local differ-
achievement of HDI and EF targets and includes edu- ences in water, energy, renewable energy, sewage
cation, health, mobility and food. BEST criteria there- service availability and reliability, and access to edu-
fore cover economic, social and economic aspects and cation and health facilities are not captured or reflected
include sustainability requirements referred to by the assessments. Such an approach therefore may not
WCED. particularly promote solutions that are highly
responsive to local situations. Applying a generic
In developing countries, and in developed countries points-based scoring system may result in opportu-
experiencing prolonged economic downturns, social nities to address local problems and utilize local
and economic issues such as poor health, education resources that risk being lost. This can be illustrated
levels and unemployment are a major concern (Zuo through an example.
& Zhao, 2014). The size of populations experiencing
these issues and living in underserviced urban areas is An urban area (such as Atteridgeville) has no mains
substantial (Cooper, 1999). For instance in Africa, an water, sewage or power and limited social infrastruc-
estimated 72% of the urban population live in slums, ture. A large new building being developed for this
in Asia this is 43% and Latin America this is 32% area could chose to respond to this situation by
(United Nations Human Settlements Programme, working with local infrastructure to improve access to
57
 Gibberd

renewable energy, water and social infrastructure for the performing neighbourhoods, accentuating sustainabil-
area as a whole. Alternatively, it could choose to ignore ity capability differences. This could be countered
the local situation and focus internally to maximize through incentives, planning regulations and targeted
energy, water and sewage performance of the building government programmes.
itself. A green building rating system would rate these
buildings similarly or may even assign a higher rating
to the second internally focused building. Thus, the
very substantial value of the first approach for wider- Internal and external impact
scale sustainability would not be recognized or valued. As previously mentioned, the green building rating
approaches focus on building-specific assessments
In the example provided above, the first building that and the optimization of internal performance. Their
responded to the local situation would be scored sig- focus is on the environmental aspects of the building,
nificantly higher using BEST than the second internally i.e. minimizing the negative environmental impacts
focused building. The value of the wider impact is whilst creating the internal conditions for comfort
therefore assessed and valued. The BEST approach and productivity. However, they do not focus on the
includes the extent to which the built environment con- sustainability requirements of the area or neighbour-
tributes to improving HDI and EF capability within the hood. This focus may limit the potential role that
area as a whole. building can have in creating beneficial external
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

impacts (Cole, 2005).

Where resources and timeframes are limited, a frame-
work that informs the prioritization of measures to Buildings and construction processes can create a wide
support sustainability is valuable. This can be used to range of beneficial external impacts. A construction
ensure that buildings and interventions identify and process with intensive labour can create increased
address weaknesses in local sustainability performance local employment (Gibberd, 2008). Procuring local
as a priority. This enables the overall sustainability per- products and materials can be used to support the
formance of an area to be enhanced over time. development of the local economy and small businesses
(Gibberd, 2008). Similarly, design features and man-
The value of this approach can be illustrated through agement can ensure that amenities provided in a build-
the Atteridgeville example. An analysis of the case ing or on a site (e.g. gardens, sports facilities, banking,
study area using BEST revealed the urgent need to crèches and learning facilities) are made available for
improve local provision in areas such as education, public use. In poorly serviced areas, this type of pro-
health, employment, mobility in order for overall sus- vision and access can provide substantial local benefit
tainability of the area to be improved. The explicit for local communities who may not be able to access
inclusion of an analysis stage early in the process these amenities or would have to travel long distances
makes it likely that new buildings and interventions for this (Gibberd, 2008).
proposed for the area will address local issues and
improve sustainability performance of the area as a This concept can extended through designed synergies
whole (Ding, 2005). in which built environment characteristics are deliber-
ately included in buildings to support small businesses
The requirement to respond to the local context also and local employment. Examples include the provision
magnifies the potential role of buildings and built of small units within larger buildings that can be used
environments as a means of stimulating change and by retail, catering, design and reprographic businesses
creating wider-scale beneficial impacts. For instance, to provide services to the larger main occupant organ-
a BEST assessment may indicate poor education capa- ization, as well as to the local neighbourhood. This
bility in an existing neighbourhood (Existing). A new creates both improved ‘internal’ impacts such as ser-
building in the neighbourhood could help address vices and products that can be accessed more efficiently
this by including education facilities that can be and improved ‘external’ impacts such as increased
accessed by occupants of the neighbourhood. If local access to services and products and small business
implemented, use of this capability will lead to support (Gibberd, 2007).
improved education and HDI levels. In this way, the
BEST approach encourages the development of new These positive, external impacts, if included in build-
buildings and built environment interventions that ings, are recognized and captured by BEST.
respond to local situations. However, BEST provides very limited assessment
capacity for the ‘internal’ performance of building
However the tool could also be used to exacerbate sus- and a much lower level of detail compared with
tainability differences between neighbourhoods. This green building tools. In particular, the type of criteria
would occur where private developers used BEST to and granularity of the scales used to measure criteria
identify high-performing neighbourhoods and chose in BEST is very coarse relative to some of the method-
to develop within these rather than in poorly ologies used in green building tools.
58
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST

The limited timeframes and resources available to miti- experimentation and innovation. The simplicity of
gate and adapt to climate change and achieve improve- the criteria and assessment process mean that options
ments in education, employment and health mean it is can be evaluated quickly. This encourages users to
becoming increasingly important to pursue integrated, identify a range of options to evaluate rather than lim-
multiple impact solutions. Buildings and built environ- iting this to one or two. The tool also has a facility to
ments, it could be argued, must maximize their poten- input as many as six different options. These options
tial to make a positive impact wherever they can. can be switched ‘off and on’ in the tool to assess the
Accordingly, assessment frameworks should be impacts of these jointly or separately. This deliberately
careful not to restrict these impacts by only measuring encourages comparisons, and the critical evaluation of
a limited set of internally focused environment out- options, as illustrated in Table 3.
comes (Cooper, 1999).

Stakeholders and users

Innovative solutions Sustainability indicator systems were initially devel-
Addressing climate change effectively will not be oped for use at a national level and aim to influence
achieved without challenging current design norms and the development of policy by governments. However,
the scale of change required mean that radically different Dahl (2012) makes a strong argument that the
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

solutions are now needed (Cole, Robinson, Brown, & national-level approach is insufficient and that sustain-
O’Shea, 2008; Cooper, 1999). Tools that aim to ability indicators are needed at local government, com-
address climate change should therefore encourage and munity and individual level. Dahl suggests that
recognize innovative high performance solutions. sustainable development indicator systems for individ-
uals, families and villages should be developed that are
Performance in green building rating tools is measured sufficiently sensitive to provide positive feedback for
in terms of highly structured specific and prescribed even relatively minor efforts, in order to encourage
criteria. Standardized detailed measurement protocols further actions. Green building rating tools acknowl-
are provided that must be complied with in order to edge the role of individuals through the inclusion of cri-
demonstrate compliance required for points. The teria that recognize the importance of localized
detailed requirements of green building rating sub- environmental control and the provision of building
missions mean that extensive preparation work in the user guides. Although building owners or developers
form of reports, calculations and modelling is required. are advised to draw on independent professional advi-
While this level of structure and detail is useful for sers, green building approaches do not specifically
ratings and comparisons, it may also discourage inno- advocate the involvement of building users in the
vation (Cole, 2005). design and development processes (Zuo & Zhao,
2014).
Conventional solutions in green building rating
systems are supported through ‘tried and tested’ docu- The technical nature of green building assessment
mentation that design teams have developed through and documentation also limit the involvement of
previous rating submissions or in the form of templates building users and non-technical participants in
supplied by rating agencies. Unconventional solutions determining and developing building design and man-
do not have this type of support and need to be agement solutions. It can be argued that the involve-
‘proven’ to the rating agency through documentation ment of built environment users will become more
which may include supporting statements from third- important as the unpredictable and locally differen-
party experts. tiated impacts of climate change occur. The develop-
ment of responsive local solutions and improvization
Novel and non-standard solutions that do not readily rely on local knowledge, capabilities and partici-
match the existing parameters in rating tools require pation (Bizikova, Robinson, & Cohen, 2007; Shep-
additional effort from the design team. This additional pard et al., 2011).
work is needed to convince the green building rating
assessors of the validity of the proposed approach. Increasing an understanding of built environments and
Design teams under pressure to complete design and related systems within local communities and users
rating submission documentation understandably would allow local communities to adapt and use
may choose to avoid innovations that are ‘untested’ these environments appropriately to cope with
or those entailing substantial additional effort to docu- change. For example, increasing the awareness of
ment and achieve approval by the rating agency. climate change impacts (e.g. flooding) within a com-
munity would enable them to develop and use mechan-
Although the BEST approach does not lend itself to isms such as early warning systems and flood defences
detailed ratings of performance, it has a number of or relocate away from areas of risk to reduce negative
characteristics that may encourage greater consequences.
59
 Gibberd

Involving building users and local communities The BEST approach contributes to the debate on net-
enhances capability for sustainability in another way. positive design and the role of buildings in relation to
An improved understanding of existing local sustain- sustainability. Net-positive design describes the
ability performance can be used to identify areas of ability of a building to make a positive contribution
weaknesses and potential solutions. This process can to its context. Although net-positive can be framed
be formalized in a ‘sustainability brief’ that can be terms of water or energy (i.e. supplying an excess
used as an input to design processes. This enables amount of water or energy to other neighbouring
users and the local community to be involved from buildings), the BEST approach extends this to include
the beginning of the project and influence this (Pintér net-positive social and economic impacts. This
et al., 2012). As users and the local community will widened scope considers the capabilities that a building
have to live with the results of the development, it is can offer to its neighbourhood. As well as catering for
likely this influence will be positive. Solutions exhibit- its occupants, a building can provide benefits to the
ing both positive ‘internal’ and ‘external’ (neighbour- surrounding community. This concept begins to
hood-wide) impacts will be identified and supported capture the sustainability capability role of built
(Stiglitz, Sen, & Fitoussi, 2009). environments and the potential of buildings to make
wider and more substantial contributions to achieving
An advantage of involving users and the community in sustainability than is currently envisaged in green
sustainability assessments early in the process is that it building rating tool approaches.
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

enables a detailed understanding of local issues and

potential solutions to be developed before professional BEST can be used in a variety of ways to understand
design processes start. This ensures that ‘more and improve sustainability capability of built environ-
informed’ stakeholders contribute direction and feed- ments. The tool can be used to assess design proposals
back to built environment professionals. ‘More in conjunction with their sites in order to establish a
informed’ stakeholders are likely to be more articulate measure of local sustainability capability. By enabling
and more assertive in ensuring that buildings are responsive design approaches, the tool supports sol-
responsive to local conditions and user requirements utions that not only achieve good ‘internal’ perform-
(Pintér et al., 2012). This could help structure and ance but also accomplish beneficial ‘external
inform public participation processes and reduce the impacts’. This is valuable in developing countries
potential for popular sentiment (i.e. without technical where resources and buildings have to be used effi-
knowledge) to influence decisions inappropriately. ciently to achieve a wide range of beneficial impacts.

The tool can also be used by communities to under-

Conclusions and recommendations stand the sustainability capability of their neighbour-
A new approach to thinking about the sustainability of hoods and identify areas of weak performance. This
the built environment is its capability to support the can form the basis of structured sustainability plans
achievement of HDI and EF targets by occupant that coordinate resources to improve local conditions
populations. The combination of human development in an efficient way over time. Local municipalities
and ecological carrying capacity is vital to defining and can use the tool to measure and compare the sustain-
measuring this capability. As this capability can be ability capability of neighbourhoods in order to prior-
accessed in a building or within easy walking distance itize interventions and develop responsive solutions. By
of this, assessments entail buildings within their undertaking assessments with local communities,
neighbourhoods and combined performance. This municipalities can support shared and structured
means that buildings located in neighbourhoods with development decision-making which pool capacity
poor capability have to work much harder to compen- and resources to improve sustainability capability
sate for this in order for high performance to be achieved. efficiently.

BEST offers a facility to evaluate options that can be Although the tool is innovative and shows potential as
considered for improving the sustainability capability a means of measuring and improving sustainability
of building– neighbourhood combinations. This capability of the built environment, it could be
encourages a responsive approach in which solutions improved in a number of ways. Further research is
are developed and evaluated in order to improve or needed on the relationship between built environment
‘make better’ the combined capability of the building characteristics/configuration and local EF/HDI per-
and neighbourhood. formance. This should be reflected in the tool as
more refined criteria and also provide for a more
BEST provides an alternative to other green building detailed assessment scales.
rating tool approaches. Those approaches have a
strong focus on the performance of the building itself The tool can be improved through wide-scale adoption
and a reduction in negative environmental impacts in developed and developing countries, as well as
(doing less harm). within varied urban and rural contexts. Feedback
60
 Measuring sustainability capability: BEST

from the tool’s application will be vital for its further Lee, W. L. (2012). Benchmarking energy use of building environ-
development. mental assessment schemes. Energy and Buildings, 45, 326–334.
Liu, M., Li, B., & Yao, R. (2010). A generic model of exergy
assessment for the environmental impact of building life-
cycle. Energy and Buildings, 42(9), 1482–1490.
London Sustainable Development Commission. (2012).
Acknowledgements London’s quality of life indicators 2012 Report, Greater
London Authority, London.
The author would like to thank the reviewers and Lowton, R. M. (1997). Construction and the natural environ-
editors for their contributions in improving the paper. ment. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Meadows, D. H. (1998). Indicators and information systems for
sustainable development. Hartland: Sustainability Institute.
Moran, D. D., Wackernagel, M., Kitzes, J. A., Goldfinger, S.
H., & Boutaud, A. (2008). Measuring sustainable develop-
References ment – Nation by nation. Ecological Economics, 64(3),
Bizikova, L., Robinson, J., & Cohen, S. (2007). Linking climate 470– 474.
change and sustainable development at the local level. Ness, B., Urbel Piirsalu, E., Anderberg, S., & Olsson, L. (2007).
Climate Policy, 7(4), 271– 277. Categorising tools for sustainability assessment. Ecological
Button, K. (2002). City management and urban environmental Economics, 60, 498– 508.
indicators. Ecological Economics, 40(2), 217–233. Pintér, L., Hardi, P., Martinuzzi, A., & Hall, J. (2012). Bellagio
Cohen, B. (2006). Urbanization in developing countries: Current STAMP: Principles for sustainability assessment and
measurement. Ecological Indicators, 17, 20– 28.
Downloaded by [Nipissing University] at 16:40 12 October 2014

trends, future projections, and key challenges for sustainabil-

ity. Technology in Society, 28(1 –2), 63– 80. Sheppard, S. R., Shaw, A., Flanders, D., Burch, S., Wiek, A., Car-
Cole, R. J. (2005). Building environmental assessment methods: michael, J., & Cohen, S. (2011). Future visioning of local
Redefining intentions and roles. Building Research & Infor- climate change: A framework for community engagement
mation, 33(5), 455–467. and planning with scenarios and visualisation. Futures,
Cole, R. J., Robinson, J., Brown, Z., & O’Shea, M. (2008). Re- 43(4), 400–412.
contextualizing the notion of comfort. Building Research Singh, R. K., Murty, H. R., Gupta, S. K., & Dikshit, A. K. (2012).
& Information, 36(4), 323– 336. An overview of sustainability assessment methodologies.
Cooper, I. (1999). Which focus for building assessment methods Ecological Indicators, 15(1), 281– 299.
– environmental performance or sustainability?. Building Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J. P. (2009). Report by the com-
Research & Information, 27(4– 5), 321– 331. mission on the measurement of economic performance and
Dahl, A. L. (2012). Achievements and gaps in indicators for sus- social progress. Paris.
tainability. Ecological Indicators, 17, 14 –19. Theaker, I. G., & Cole, R. J. (2001). The role of local govern-
Ding, G. K. C. (2005). Developing a multicriteria approach for ments in fostering ‘green’ buildings: A case study. Building
the measurement of sustainable performance. Building Research & Information, 29(5), 394– 408.
Research & Information, 33(1), 3 –16. United Nations Development Programme. (2007). Human devel-
Gibberd, J. (2007). Sidestepping poor infrastructure; enabling opment report 2007/2008. New York: United Nations
environments in developing countries. In CIB world building Development Programme.
congress; construction for development (pp. 1761–1771). United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2003). The
CIB: Cape Town. challenge of slums: Global report on human settlements
Gibberd, J. (2008). The sustainable building assessment tool: 2003. London: Earthscan.
Integrating sustainability into current design and building United Nations Human Settlements Programme. (2004). The
processes. In G. Foliente, T. Luetzkendorf, P. Newton, & state of the world’s cities 2004/2005: Globalization and
P. Paevere (Eds.), World sustainable building conference urban culture. Nairobi/London: UN-HABITAT/Earthscan.
(pp. 945– 950). CIB: Melbourne. Van Pelt, M. J. F. (1993). Ecological sustainability and project
Gibberd, J. (2013a). Sustainable African built environments. appraisal. Avebury: Aldershot.
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Wackernagel, M., & Yount, J. D. (2000). Footprints for sustain-
Development., 5(4), 313–318 ability: The next steps. Environment, Development and Sus-
Gibberd, J. (2013b). Neighbourhood facilities for sustainability. tainability, 2(1), 23–44.
WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 179, World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED).
225–234. (1987). Our common future (The Brundtland Report).
Gibberd, J. (2013c). Local Climate Solutions for Africa, Dar es Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Salaam, Tanzania. Retrieved from http://builtenvironment World Wild Life Fund. (2006). The living planet report. Retrieved
sustainabilitytool.blogspot.com/2013/11/local-climate-solut from http://awsassets.panda.org/downloads/living_planet_
ions-for-africa-dar.html report.pdf
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives. Zuo, J., & Zhao, Z.-Y. (2014). Green building research–current
(2009). Sustainable energy urban planning. Cape Town, status and future agenda: A review. Renewable and Sustain-
South Africa: ICLEI. able Energy Reviews, 30, 271– 281.

61