EcoEffect for outdoor environments; the process of tool development

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

nt Review 28 (2008) 439–454www.elsevier.com/locate/eiar

Environmental Impact Assessme

EcoEffect for outdoor environments; the process of tool development

Ulla Myhr a,⁎, Rolf Johansson b,1

a Department of Urban and Rural Development, P.O. Box 7012, SE-750 07 UPPSALA, Swedenb Royal Institute of Technology, Built Environment Analysis, SE-100 44 Stockholm, Sweden

Received 18 December 2006; received in revised form 27 August 2007; accepted 4 September 2007

Available online 21 December 2007

Abstract

Numerous evaluation tools for the built environment have been developed in recent decades only some however integrate theoutdoor environment. In EcoEffect, a Swedish assessment system, the outdoor environment is one of five areas covered. Thepurpose of this article is to describe and discuss various issues that evolved during the testing and developing phase of theEcoEffect Outdoor tool. The tool is designed to cover all important health risks to people in an outdoor environment, to showthe relationship between circumstances in the outdoor environment and the levels specified in Swedish legislation and to enable aspeedy and accurate assessment of the outdoor environment on a property. The work has been carried out in cooperation withexperts, residents and representatives of the construction and property sectors. The tool has been tested on existing properties,discussed in focus groups, and has been subject to theoretical development. The results have provided a basis for changing both theEcoEffect Outdoors tool and the framework of the EcoEffect system. Important conclusions here include the notion that a clearaccount should be given of the fundamental values of the tool, that environmental impact should be reported in the same waythroughout the whole assessment process and that the tool has to adhere to both scientific and practical validity to be useful for thebuilding sector.© 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Tool development; Environmental assessment tool; Property-level assessment; Outdoor environment

1. Introduction

Both local authorities and the construction and propertysector globally are currently searching for workablemethods and tools for the environmental assessment ofthe built environment: the buildings and the outdoorenvironments. The past twenty years have seen the emer-

⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 18 67 25 87 (direct) or +46 18 6710 00.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (U. Myhr),[email protected] (R. Johansson).1 Tel.: +46 8 7908498.

0195-9255/$ - see front matter © 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.001

gence of many different tools for the assessment ofbuildings. Tools assessing buildings have been elaboratedin many countries, however, there are few tools havingboth the building and the outdoor environment in aproperty as the subject of their calculations in respect ofenvironmental impact. One of the best known assessmenttools for buildings, which also addresses the outdoorenvironment is Breeam (BRE, 2004), which was devel-oped in Great Britain. Other tools designed to addressoutdoor issues include Casbee, Japan (Casbee, No year)and Ecoprofile, Norway (Dyrstad Pettersen, 2000) as wellas an international effort based in Canada, GBTool (Coleand Larsson, 1999).EcoEffect is a Swedish property-level

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2007.09.001

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

440 U. Myhr, R. Johansson / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 439–454

assessment system including both the building and theoutdoor environment (Glaumann, 1999).

This paper discusses and describes the main issuesthat emerged during the testing of the outdoor assess-ment tool within EcoEffect, describing also how theseissues were resolved through the redevelopment andbroadening of the tool. A preliminary tool, EcoEffectOutdoors-1 (EEO-1) (Florgård, 2000) was tested,discussed and compared to pertinent literature. Changeswere adopted and the tool was developed. Most of thereported changes were made before the end ofDecember 2006. This article does not include referenceto or commentary on the additional development phaseconducted thereafter (throughout 2007) in respect ofassessing biodiversity, which will be reported else-where. A full account of the developed tool, EcoEffectOutdoors-2 (EEO-2) is given in Myhr (2007).

Tool development was carried out in cooperation withexperts, residents and representatives of the constructionand property industry. The aim here was to work out acredible and workable property-level assessment tool thatreflects the diversity of environmental issues in an outdoorenvironment in respect of housing and offices properties.This goal has, in general, been achieved though someadditional research is still required. What was a sketch ofan assessment tool at the outset can now be used to assessboth planned and existing outdoor environments. EEO-2can also display how the outdoor environment relates tothe levels specified in Swedish legislation. The weightingprocedure is developed and described by Glaumann et al.(2005) and is only dealt with in general terms in this paper.

First a description of the contractual framework forthe EcoEffect system is presented, and then the EcoEf-fect Outdoor tool is described. After that, the mainissues and changes relating to tools development aredisplayed. Finally, conclusions are presented on theexperience gained in the development process.

Fig. 1. Overview of the EcoEffect system wi

2. Environmental assessment according to EcoEffect

EcoEffect is a property-level environmental assess-ment system, intended to cover the full range ofenvironmental issues by considering five separate areasat the same time: Materials use, Energy use, Indoorenvironment, Outdoor environment and Lifecycle costs.Fig. 1 illustrates an overview of theEcoEffect assessmentsystem. The intention of EcoEffect is to provide, as far aspossible, a measure of all environmental problems thathave originated or can be experienced at a property. Theassessment is intended to provide a basis for comparisonand for decisions to bemade in respect of the reduction ofenvironmental impacts (Glaumann, 1999). As manydifferent types of negative environmental impacts areassessed, the ambition here is to avoid sub-optimisation.The system is however made modular, so the user canchoose to operate only one subset – one assessmentarea – of the total system.

EcoEffect assesses property-related environmentalimpacts, i.e. features of a building and land – the physicalenvironment (Glaumann, 1999). Both external and internalimpacts are assessed. External impacts are deemed to arisewhen the construction or management of a building and itsoutdoor environment, i.e. energy and materials use, giverise to health or environmental impacts in places beyond theimmediate vicinity of the property itself. This is assessedthrough the use of life cycle analysis (Assefa et al., 2006).Internal impacts denote the impacts on people using theproperty, i.e. in those areas relating to both the indoorenvironment (Hult, 2002) and the outdoor environment(Myhr, 2007). Internal impacts are assessed using multi-criteria analysis. The fifth area, life cycle costs (Glaumannand Malmquist, 2004), is a method used to reflectenvironment-related costs, i.e. costs that are directly tiedto activities that entail environmental impacts from a long-term perspective.

th its various areas (Glaumann, 1999).

441U. Myhr, R. Johansson / Environmental Impact Assessment Review 28 (2008) 439–454

EcoEffect is a problem- or damage-related environ-mental assessment system that assesses those problems andrisks leading to or producing negative impacts (Glaumann,1999), here called environmental loadings. The indicatorshave been selected on the basis of known links betweencauses and effects and are themselves aspects of the phe-nomenon that are conceivable to measure. An assessmentbyEcoEffect is concluded with a summary assessment of aproperty's current and potential environmental impact(Glaumann, 1999). When the environmental impact of anobject is quantified, there is an option to compare and rankthis in relation to other objects. It will also enable tocompare performance before and after a change. EcoEffectseeks to display the consequences of different choices anddecisions (Glaumann andMalmquist, 2004). This enables auser of the tool to more effectively move towards theattainment of the organisation's internal or publicobjectives.

An assessment of the outdoor environment aims toprovide support for decisions that will lead to healthyoutdoor environments. EcoEffect Outdoor is designed forplaces where people spend time, using the environment inconjunction with their home or workplace. EcoEffectOutdoor presupposes that the outdoor environment shouldbe part of a good and healthy environment, in relation tohousing, workplaces or at school. People ought to be ableto use the outdoor environment at their home as a part oftheir everyday housing environment, for instance as asunny, wind-shielded place outdoors.

The tool is not however applicable to outdoorenvironments in respect of industrial properties or forsurveying contaminated land.

3. Action taken to detect weaknesses in EEO-1: thepreliminary tool

The revision of the EcoEffect Outdoor tool wasintended to clarify its fundamental values, to make thetool more effective and to make its assessments morereliable. The revision process sought also to betterintegrate the building sector so that a better starting pointfor the implementation of the tool could be provided.

The preliminary tool was scrutinised in various ways.EEO-1 was re-examined in order to identify thedifficulties it had encountered and thus to identifypotential solutions. The development was characterisedby an iterative interaction between theory and practicewith some trans-disciplinary features, as the problemsolution process was organised around the use of the tooland the possibility of implementing it in cooperation withintended users (Gibbons et al., 1994). In addition, it wasdeemed important that the process not only produced a

reliable tool, but also that the tool gained acceptance frompotential future users.

The tool was tested in pilot tests on outdoor environ-ments. EEO-1 and its potentials were discussed in focusgroups. In addition, the work with matters impacting on allareas of the system was elaborated by the research groupfor the EcoEffect system.

The pilot test on outdoor environments was performedby EEO-1 with the purpose of studying how the tool wasgeared to different applications. Various types of proper-ties were included in the test, including new, rebuilt andexisting sites. Four sites in total were covered. Thisenabled the tool to be tested such that its strengths andweaknesses could be identified. Various practical aspects,including measurements, estimations and data collectionwere also tested. In addition, a number of different waysof assigning the physical boundaries to an assessment areawere also tested.

EEO-1was discussed in focus groupswith actors in theconstruction process and with users of the built environ-ment. The groups were homogeneous in respect of theparticipants' profession or their status as a resident as it isoften easier to share one's opinion in a homogeneousgroup as compared with a heterogeneous one. Focusgroups can be useful in revealing the fundamental valuesupon which the basic subject arguments may rest(Wibeck, 2000). In this way a small group can be usedto study an issue in a larger field. The focus groups wereconducted on the basis of semi-structured interviews. Themoderator introduced topics however the discussion wasto a large extent directed by the participants themselvesallowing them to explore unexpected issues. The purposeherewas to understand the participants' arguments for andagainst the tool; to clarify what difficulties, obstacles,benefits and relevance the tool had in the eyes of theparticipants. Additionally, the aim here was also to learnabout those aspects of the tool not previously raised oridentified by the creators but subsequently uncovered bythe groups.

Three groups were assembled; they consisted oflandscape architects, ecologists and residents. The land-scape architects had experience of, and interest in, utilisingenvironmental impact assessments methods. The purposeof this group was to investigate the participants' opinionsabout outdoor environment assessment tools in generaland EEO-1 in particular. How did they view utility,fundamental values and structure? Other issues related tothe weighting and potential use of the tool. The ecologists'focus group consisted of both researchers specialising inbiodiversity and biologists working with the issue ofpreserved natural vegetation in municipal planning. Themain question for this group concerned how the tool


assessed biodiversity in the matter of retained natural landand planned vegetation areas. Parents of small childrenwere the participants in third focus group which was takento represent the residents. The aim for this group was toinvestigate whether the disturbances experienced byresidents in the outdoor environment coincided with thescope of EEO-l.

In accordance with EEO-1, every indicator in theassessment was examined in pilot tests and via focusgroups. The indicators were also compared to pertinentliterature. In addition, the work of the research group ongeneral issues for the EcoEffect system affected theoutdoor assessment. The development of the various partsalso influenced the design of the whole system and viceversa in a process of mutual interaction. The researchgroup included personswith differing and complementaryexpertise, who were each responsible for the developmentof different parts of the system. The EcoEffect researchgroup also cooperatedwith a stakeholder group, i.e. actorsin the building industry, developers, managers, architectsand producers of building materials (Assefa et al., 2006).They participated in seminars, training and practical tests.Weighting, fundamental values and how to define criteriafor loading values were the matters discussed in thiscontext. The general conclusion emanating from thisprocess was that when the intended users are allowed toparticipate in the knowledge production process, to defineand to solve problems, the result can be greater socialaccountability in terms of knowledge (Gibbons et al.,1994) and thus, by extension, the production of a morereliable tool.

4. The main topics raised in the context of thedevelopment work

In order to put together an assessment tool a certainamount of simplification has to take place. Indicators areused to construct a simplified picture. To assess then is,in this context, to assign numerals to a phenomenon. Theindicators are quantified to allow comparison while thechallenge in terms of tool development is to use numbersfor quantifying the variation of a feature according toestablished rules. Assessment tools, as they are a type ofmeasurement, try to convert empirical observations tovalues which are conceivable to assess, evaluate or tocompare to other observations (Frankfort-Nachmias andNachmias, 1996). Both what to measure – the choice ofindicators, and how to measure it – rules, are importantquestions in respect of tool development.

The required considerations in any developmentprocess highlight many issues at different levels. Someissues concern the fundament or the framework of the

tool. Changes in this level will affect the structure andoften more than just one indicator as well as perhaps howthe result will be reported. Other issues are more strictlydelimited, concerning, for instance, what exactly to assessor how, specifically, to measure an indicator. These affectonly one indicator at a time. Minor issues such as mod-ifying criteria boundaries in line with the most recentrecommendations in the literature are not however raisedhere.

The issues raised in the development work are subsumedwithin four main topics: 1) Structure; 2) Boundary; 3) In-dicators; and 4) Applicability.

4.1. Structure

Tools can be organised in different frameworks aschecklists, matrices or hierarchies. EcoEffect Outdoor isstructured as a hierarchy. This is the outcome of theaggregation produced during the organisation of the datainto more and more aggregated values.

All assessments are however inherently value-laden.The fundamental values determinewhat is regarded as anenvironmental load feature and therefore what aspects ofthe outdoor environment are included in the hierarchy.The fundamental values frame the decision made inrespect of how to choose between alternatives and howto influence the design of the tool. Some issues arecoupled with the structure of the tool and reviewedbelow, namely, hierarchy and aggregation and overallobjective and weighting.

4.1.1. Hierarchy and aggregationA hierarchy is a theoretical construct that allows us to

examine the interaction between the parts of the systemand the impact on the system as a whole (Saaty, 1990).Hierarchies are preferable when there are subordinatedlevels of data, or when data have different levels of detail.The hierarchy contains all the problems included in theassessment and the structure permits a focus on one issueat a time without loss of overview (Andresen, 2000). Atthe top is the sometimes abstract overall objective buteach level down the hierarchy becomes more concretewith an increasing level of detail. At the very bottom ofthe hierarchy are the measurable variables, the para-meters that are classified using criteria limits for the scoreintervals. Andresen (2000) takes the view that oneadvantage of the hierarchical structure is that it generatesan overview in which different aspects of the sameproblem are brought together step-by-step.

The assessment process generates a large quantity ofdata that has to be organised in order to facilitate inter-pretation and overview. Various aspects contributing to


a problem are brought together in a higher problem levelthrough aggregation. According to Saaty (1990) this ishow the human mind operates and thus it is a naturalstructure to use. Aggregation is, moreover, present as acomponent in many of the environmental assessmentsystems currently used.

The focus group with landscape architects expresseda great deal of scepticism about the hierarchical structureof EEO-1 and the aggregation approach. They were notopposed to collecting data, but they did not want it to beaggregated. The group members deemed that every stepinvolving aggregation reduced the transparency of theassessment, noting that it was often, difficult to knowwhat is hiding behind a weighted aggregate value. Theywere also troubled by the fact that non-serious actorscould, potentially, misuse the system in order to concealfacts.

The nature of the data in EcoEffect Outdoors enablesto organise it on different levels, e.g. impacts on theclimate outdoors comprise both those of sun and wind.In EEO-1 three hierarchies worked in parallel. This washowever the cause of some ambiguity in the next step,the weighting process. This is further discussed below.

EcoEffect deems that aggregation provides a neces-sary overview of the results. This has the disadvantagehowever of reducing transparency. To minimize ambi-guity, the computer software interlocked with the tool ismade easy to move both up and down the hierarchytracing which indicators are merged to build up a higherlevel. The process is thus available for the user toreview. It is also possible to aggregate to different levelsand to present the data in a more or less aggregated formdepending on the purpose of the assessment. The usercan thus choose at what level to present the result.

4.1.2. Overall objective and weightingOne particular problem with the hierarchical structure

in EEO-1 was that there were three overall objectives:human health, biodiversity and access to natural re-sources (Glaumann, 1999; Florgård, 2000). The overallobjective at the apex of this hierarchy is however theconcretisation of the fundamental value, namely, that allloadings considered in the hierarchy should be related to.Three overall objectives preclude this because threedifferent hierarchieswill be established and environmentalloadings cannot be related to one another in a consistentmanner.

The WHO's definition of health (WHO, 1948) wasadopted for the EcoEffect development process. TheWHO describes health as: a state of complete physical,mental, and social well-being and not merely the absenceof disease or infirmity. The fundamental value for the

system is based on this definition, namely, tominimize therisk of ill-health including impacts on well-being.

In the outdoor assessment, one single objective isapproved and an anthropocentric perspective is estab-lished. All environmental loadings in relation to theoutdoor environment are assigned to impacts on humanhealth and well-being. The revision of EEO-2 was ob-jective-led; the overall objective governed the revisionof the tool. Therefore EEO-2 can be described as avalue-focused hierarchy, it is structured from top tobottom. The opposite is a bottom-up approach that startsfrom the alternatives (Buede, 1986). If the indicators arealready well-defined, a bottom-up approach is often thequickest way forward.

The changeover from three overall objectives to oneentails that the two former overall objectives, impact onthe ecosystem and impact on natural resources, aregiven subordinate positions. This means that EEO-2does assess damage to ecological values and impover-ishment of natural resources in respect of how theyultimately affect people. The changeover to one overallobjective results in increased transparency in respect ofthe fundamental value. It is easier for a tools user tounderstand how choices are made and what the rationaleis for different indicators to be included or excluded. Inorder to enable the user to rely on the aggregation andweighting process, clarity is however required in respectof the overall objectives used as the basis for assigningthe weights. Crawley and Aho (1999) consider metho-dological transparency to be one of the most funda-mental requirements in designating the acceptability ofany assessment method and in this respect then thechange is an enhancement.

Weighting, as it is an expression of the fundamentalvalues of a tool, is a way to model the relationshipbetween different criteria or problems (Andresen, 2000).The user is given assistance to set priorities betweenalternatives by means of the systematic weightingsystem. The impacts of a lower level are merged,aggregated into a higher level, and weights are thenassigned. In this way the relationship between differentimpacts is established. The weighting reflects theimportance or danger, dependent on what is chosen asa weighting aspect. Different types of data are assignedweights – the same or different levels of significance –dependent upon the overall objective. Aggregation andweighting are two sides of the same process, and as suchare tightly intertwined.

The alternative to aggregation and weighting is topresent all of the data generated in the survey withoutprocessing it. Without this type of aid, the extensivequantity of information would however preclude an


efficient use of the assessment to support decisions orcomparisons.

The focus group containing landscape architects ex-pressed a great deal of scepticism over the hierarchicalstructure of the tool because the basic rationale behindthe aggregation and weighting was not apparent to them.They did not appreciate that someone else should decidethe relative importance of different loadings in theoutdoor environment. The landscape architects were notopposed to collecting data, but they did not want it to beaggregated or weighted. The participants feared that theweighting process could potentially provide an oppor-tunity for someone to hide important facts about aproperty. But you can steer that a huge amount, wellthat is a very dangerous instrument, or really great ifyou want. And everything that can be abused will beabused by someone. The landscape architects wereconcerned that problems in the outdoor environmentcould be concealed and that data could be manipulatedby means of the weighting. They felt that a weightingprocedure must be transparent and that fundamentalvalues must be stated clearly. When EEO-1 waspresented, the weighting system for the EcoEffectsystem was not established. A tentative outline washowever presented: the system was damage-based andestablished by expert judgement.

The weighting now used in the EcoEffect systemcalculates the potential damage or stress on humanhealth (Glaumann et al., 2005). The process of as-signing individual weights includes two components.On one hand, the probability that the loading will havean effect on human health (the number of peopleaffected and on the duration time); and on the otherhand, its significance if damage occurs. The morepeople that are expected to be affected by a problemand the more serious the damage is for each individual,the greater the weight given to that problem. Theseriousness of the damage is calculated by the DALY-scale. DALY stands for Disability Adjusted Life Yearsand the scale is used in the socio-medicine area(Murray and Lopez, 1996). Various diseases arecompared and related to each other while the scaleextends from only mild impacts to severe diseases.There is a potential to subspace diverse negative ex-periences in a building or on site in the scale butbuilding- and site-related problems are in the lower partof the scale.

EEO-2 assesses internal impacts. The weightshighlight the current impacts on people. Currentlyonly the outlines for the weights in the outdoor area inthe EcoEffect system are determined (Westerberget al., 2005). As yet however they remain to be ela-

borated in detail and work in this area remainsongoing.

4.2. Delimitations

The delimitation issues are to be found at differentlevels. The overriding level concerns how the tooldelimits the object from the context. Are the locationand amenities in the surrounding area included in theassessment or does the assessment focus on an objectdelimited by the property bounders? Another issue levelemerges in respect of whether the outdoor areas areconsidered building-related or property-related. Themost detailed level is concerning how to settle theboundary for the assessment on the ground, which areasto include or to exclude, e.g. how to calculate this inrespect of co-owned areas.

This topic includes issues such as context, building-related or property-related issues and the consequenceof the approach reviewed.

4.2.1. ContextEcoEffect, like other property-level assessment tools,

has an intermediate position on the scale betweenenvironmental impact assessments (EIA) and life cycleanalyses (LCA) in terms of how to set the boundary foran assessment (Crawley and Aho, 1999). EIA assessesthe specific environmental impact of an object locatedat a particular place and in a particular context whilethe surroundings are included in the assessment. AnLCA aims to assess the potential environmental impactof an object that is decoupled from its context andirrespective of who is using it. In the EcoEffect systemthe building and site are the objects of analysis and theEcoEffect Outdoor assessment is defined by the pro-perty borders. Some conditions outside the property dogenerate impacts for people within that property that aretaken in consideration in the outdoor assessment. Fig. 2exhibits how the conditions imposed by the outdoorenvironment of a property are impacted by adjacentfactors and how, in turn, the property impacts on suchfactors. The property-owner or manager cannot howevercontrol the impacts from the surroundings as they ge-nerally depend on where the property is located and howthe sources of disturbance are positioned in relation tothe property. To some extent these disturbances can bereduced by various means and thus the user's exposureto disturbance can be mitigated. Property-owners canhowever make an active choice not to buy or build inareas exposed to major environmental impacts. Theconditions generated by the property itself are prede-termined and modified in the planning and management

Fig. 2. Conceptual picture of the impact of the outdoor environment, and the boundary for assessment by EcoEffect Outdoor.


phase. These conditions are easily controllable for aproperty-owner or manager.

The participants in the landscape architect focus groupwanted to expand the assessment to cover the location andthe context of the property. They felt that a property'sproximity to services and to public transport linkagescould also be assessed.

One part of the ecologist group put forward similaropinions. They wanted to expand the assessment toinclude the property's surroundings. They considered thatinformation like the Stockholm biotope map (Löfvenhaftand Runborg, 2002) is required to give a fairer picture of aproperty's context and thereby a proper assessment of thesite.

The other part of the ecologist group accepted thatthe tool only examined conditions within the boundariesof the property unit and thus, within this context, theyconsidered the assessment to be useful. One participantnoted, We often have to fight for what is on the site eventhough we do not know all about it in a landscapeperspective. So I think that it will probably be interestingto see what you can do, even if you just look at a smallpostage stamp. The group did not however agree on thequestion of the boundary for the assessment.

Margules and Usher (1981) recognise three differentclasses of criteria for biological conservation: criteriawhich depend upon assessment during a site visit; criteriawhich require extensive survey work in the surroundingbiographic region; and criteria which require appropriatecase histories to be made available on the other sites fortheir assessment. EEO-2 relies on the first type of criteriasince the kind of supporting information mentioned by theecologists – a biotope map – is seldom available and toinclude a study of this kind in the tool involves a substantialincrease in costs. In striving for a tool that is both easy andfast to use, the delimitations to the site are chosen. One

disadvantage is that the accuracy of assessment gained by asurvey of the surroundings cannot be achieved when onlythe property in question is surveyed. One member of theecologists' focus group did however conclude that youhave to work with a degree of uncertainty and makesomething out of the piece of land you are looking at.

One potential problem with expanding the tool is thatthe tool will quickly become rather complex and hard tograsp where an attempt is made to include aspects of theproperty's location in its surroundings both in respect ofservices and ecological contexts. A complex tool risksgenerating results that are hard to interpret thus dimi-nishing their significance. One potential way of alsoincluding questions about the location, is to combine thetool with other approaches.

4.2.2. Building-related or property-related?In the pilot test recurrent problems emerged in respect

of the delimitations. One issue here concerned whetherthe outdoor environment should be building-related orproperty-related, another whether the outdoor environ-ment should be considered to belong to a particularbuilding or whether the outdoor environment was to beseen as an independent part of the housing environment.Another issue was how to make delimitations of thedifferent parts of the site. In the context of the pilot testsome wished to delimit parts of the site and to mandatethat it belonged to a particular building when there weremany buildings on site. Principles for area delimitation inEEO-1 were also insufficient. As such, a certain level ofvagueness emerged in respect of cooperatively ownedareas such as playing fields or sports or recreationalgrounds.

There are two arguments for assessing the outdoorenvironment as an entity independent of the building: it isused as a unit by users; and in the event of changes such as


renovation, it is altered as an independent entity and not asan adherent to a process of a building renovation. Theoutdoor settings on a site are of course often related to oneor more buildings, because the design is a consequence ofthe building type and its use.

But the use of EcoEffect Outdoor tool is not restrictedto areas around buildings, it is also feasible to assessother areas with the tool, e.g. parks. The main principleis that the outdoor area shall be assessed as one entityand not divided; however since the stakeholder groupattached to the research group requested the possibilityof assessing only a part of a site, principles for a deli-mitation of the site are introduced.

EEO-2 delimits the outdoor environment in a way thatis most similar to plot ratios, i.e. no surrounding roads orsurfaces are included in the calculation. On a largeproperty with many buildings, the roads and walkwaysto and from the buildings will be included in the asses-sment to a greater extent that in the case of a smallproperty unit, since such a unit can be reached from theproperty boundary and does not require communicationroutes within the property unit itself. The outdoor en-vironment of small properties automatically has a smal-ler share of hardened surfaces than larger properties.

4.2.3. Consequence of the approachThere is a difference between assessing qualities and

loadings. Assessing qualities means that positive valuesare considered. This is often how design tools arestructured. To assess loadings is to consider negativevalues as problems and deficits. Building assessmenttools intended for existing buildings or plannedbuildings are mostly of this type. One feature sharedby the different areas of EcoEffect, is that the assessmentis based on negative values, i.e. environmental loadingsand that the dimensions of the loadings are expressed innumerals.

EEO-l was comprised of two parts, the assessmenthierarchy that structured environmental loadings and achecklist meant to complement the assessment. Thechecklist was intended to contribute a structured qualita-tive description of the outdoor environment to the as-sessment by the hierarchy. The checklist resulted in adescription of both the negative and positive aspects notincluded in the assessment hierarchy or beyond the limitsof the overall objectives. The pilot test highlighted thefact that the checklist was difficult to report. With thediscrepant nature of structure of the checklist its sig-nificance became unclear when compared to the rest of theassessment.

The landscape architects' focus group was highlynegative in relation to the checklist and wanted it to be

omitted. The checklist was seen as an attempt to includeeverything even aspects that could not be integrated into thehierarchy. Using two different ways of reporting assess-ment results, both quantitative and qualitative, undoubtedlydid however lend a certain level of vagueness to what partwas the “real” assessment.

For logical and pedagogic reasons the same approachhas to be used when reporting environmental impactsthroughout the assessment. For this reason then thecombination of a hierarchical assessment and a checklistwas not an option in EEO-2. Relevant parts of thechecklist were however integrated into EEO-2. Theremaining aspects were cancelled.

The landscape architects' focus group also discussed towhat extent it is possible to make all kinds of environ-mental loadings on the outdoor environment measurable.The participants concluded that hard to measure impactsoften fall outside the assessment. The participants stressedthat the capacity of the outdoor environment to providepeople with relaxation and recreation was not included inthe assessment. But it (the tool) doesn't measure ‘deficientrecreational capacity in the outdoor environment’ whichseems a bit strange these days. The participants regardedthis task to be perhaps the most important for the outdoorenvironment. They considered recreational capacity to bean important public health factor and thus that it was aclear deficiency that EEO-l did not include this. Thelandscape architects thought that much of what wasimportant for the experience of the outdoor environment isnot measurable and thus could not be included in the tool.As a result this can see a loss of priority in the planningprocess if the tool is successful and used by the buildingsector.

EcoEffect Outdoors aims to assess environmentalperformance, not processes or potentials. Assessingprocesses occurs e.g. when a tool rewards a builder whoconsults an ecologist or a landscape architect during theplanning phase. When assessing potentials a contingentdevelopment is rewarded. To asses the performance is toassess the outcome of these contacts that are manifestedin the outdoor environment. The EcoEffect system dealswith negative impacts that can be measured unambigu-ously (Glaumann, 1999). This will result in a report thatdoes not take possibilities and potentials into account.The recreational capacity in the outdoor environmentcannot easily be assessed in loadings-terms. Aestheticvalues, safety concerns, relaxation and recognitionvalues etc., are not feasible to assess in a straightforwardmanner when only assessing problems. These featuresof the outdoor environment are neglected when using aproblem-related tool. Trying to embrace all aspects inone assessment tool thus results in the production of a


complex and cumbersome tool, and one that is hard tointerpret. Instead of striving to include all aspects, it isvital to describe the scope of the assessment so that theuser is aware of tool delimitations. EEO-2 aims to pro-vide an open account of the components it embraces sothat users can make their own judgements of the rele-vance and usability of the tool. Several approachescan better be combined to answer different types ofquestions.

4.3. Indicators

Various indicators are established to assess certainenvironmental impacts. An indicator is established inrelation to the problem and more or less close to the end-problem thus it is seldom feasible to assess a problemdirectly (Malmquist and Glaumann, 2006). An indicatorhas to satisfy both practical and scientific validity.Practical aspects mostly concern whether the tool isworkable, e.g. how easy it is to handle and to perform anassessment. This has implications on the costs. Thescientific aspects concern the relationship between theindicator and the addressed problem; the closer theendpoint-problem, the better validity for the indicator.

Included in this topic are:Different types of indicators,calibration of the scale, modification of the indicator set,biodiversity and biological production.

4.3.1. Different types of indicatorsIn EcoEffect Outdoors different types of indicators are

used. Some are close to the end-point problem and therelationship between what to measure and the numbersassigned to suchmeasurements are fairly direct, such as theuse of the decibel level to assess noise disturbances. Therelationship between how people are disturbed by levels ofnoise as measured by decibels, has been used in planningfor many years and this relationship is used in EEO-2.When existing sites are assessed, disturbance is examinedby a questionnaire to the residents. This quantitativeassessment is calledmeasurement. In addition, determiningthe distance to the source of the disturbance is also a type ofmeasurement.

Others indicators lack the same obvious relationshipbetween the indicator and the problem, where the impactcan only be assessed in an indirect way, such as whenpreserved biotopes are compared to a benchmark whenassessing strain on biodiversity. Such an assessmentis qualitative and can include a comparison of on siteconditions to a benchmark. This type of assessment is –in EEO-2 terms – called estimation.

Finally some indicators are assessed by using a cal-culationmodel e.g. the relationship between impermeable

areas that are drained of storm water such as asphaltssurfaces and rooftops, and the total area of the site. Therelationship here indicates the ratio of storm water-re-moval of the site. This quantitative assessment is calledcalculation. Another example is the calculation of hoursof sunlight falling on playing fields and other recreationalfacilities in respect of planned sites.

4.3.2. Calibration of the scaleA scale is used to assign a value to the different levels

of impact. Assessments of outdoor environments areperformed to disclose differences between different sites;before and after a change of the same site; or to comparethe site to internal benchmarks.

If the assessment of an indicator does not reveal anydifferences i.e. if it exhibits the same result throughoutthe test, this suggests that the indicator is irrelevant(Andresen, 2000) or that the sensitivity of the scale hasto be refined.

In EEO-1 the environmental loadings were ranked ina scale with each step representing an increased risk fornegative impacts on human health, biodiversity and ac-cess to natural resources. The steps are called environ-mental loading values, Elv. In EEO-1 the scale wasfloating and Elv 0 represented no risk of a disturbance,while Elv 3 corresponded to a major risk of the oc-currence of a negative impact. The criteria limits for theloading values were assigned by expert opinions on thelevels of risk. The problem was that the intervals werenot fixed or scales for various indicators were not cali-brated to each other and the interval limitations were notconformed. When only the extreme values of “no dis-turbance“ and “major risk for impact” provide the com-mon points for a comparison, the guidance set out tocompare different types of impacts to each other is itselfnot sufficient.

The scale in theEEO-2 is acceded to the scale developedby Hult (2002) for the EcoEffect Indoors assessment – afour-grade scale calibrated with two “anchors”, Elv 0 andElv 2. Elv 0 describes a situation with no or only anegligible risk of disturbance or a performance that ismuchbetter than a normal value derived from practice. Elv 2corresponds to a normal level of disturbance derived frompractice, equal to regulations issued by the Swedish go-vernment as e.g. a threshold limit value, a safeguardingdistance or maximum permitted value for a level of distur-bance. A norm that expresses a maximum value is pos-tulated as the limit between Elv 2 and Elv 3 and a norm thatexpresses a minimum value is the limit between Elv 1 andElv 2. When the scales are anchored, the impacts arecalibrated to each other. This enables the impacts for thevarious indicators to be compared.


When people have used a site for some time, the utilityof asking them about disturbances is optional. In EEO-1no survey questionswere used, but in EEO-2 recognisablephysical impacts such as noise or smell are measured bymeans of a questionnaire. Reply rates were arranged withreference to the scale for environmental loading values(Hult, 2002). Knowledge of how the reply rates,measurement values and scale calibrations coincide can-not currently however be empirically founded. In thefuture hopefully, collected data can help to establish thecorrespondence.

There are however a number of questions remainingover the issue of scale. The scale presupposes oneanchor value to be a normal value derived from practice.When an indicator lacks normal value from practice anda normative value has not been laid down by legislation,then a tentative value is assumed to represent Elv 2 inEEO-2. Further testing of the tool will however enablethe assignment of such values.

Elv 3 is not delimited upwards, i.e. only the lower limitis defined. This means that it is not feasible to differentiatebetween a disturbance that exceeds the normal value by aninsignificant amount and a much larger risk of dis-turbance. The rationale for this is that the developmenttowards sustainable building is propelled by the potentialto expose a differentiationworse than average impact. Thepotential tomoderate the figures of a good assessmentwilldrive the development more forcefully. In addition, thepotential to differentiate the figures on the worse side ofaverage do not prompt the development in the direction ofsustainability. This is analogous to the lack of a drivingforce due to regulations, thus they nearly always representthe consensus on the minimum performance improve-ments, and are therefore unlikely to create sufficient forceto mandate a substantial level of improvement (Larsson,1999).

Fig. 3. Changes in the definitions

Fig. 3 illustrates the relationship between the originaland the revised set of environmental loading values.

In the pilot test of outdoor environments fourindicators displayed the same result for the outdoorenvironments throughout the test. The scales proved notto be sensitive enough to tell the difference as it was notadequately calibrated. In EEO-2 the scales have beenreformulated and a more sensitive calibration adopted.

An assessment of planned sites has to conform to theassessment for existing sites. No surprises are to be hiddenin the movement within the different phases. Notwith-standing this, the indicator magnetic flux densities mustbe assessed in different terms in existing and plannedsites. This is so because until there is no distribution ofelectricity to and from an estate, the phenomenon of straycurrents, which is most accountable for the indicator, hasnot occurred. Thus the existence of magnetic flux den-sities is an involuntary result that cannot bemeasured untilthe electric equipment on a site is in use (Lindgren et al.,2001). In EEO-2 magnetic flux densities in planned sitesare measured by the second important contribution.

These two ways of assessment are not however to beseen as equivalent as they consider different magnitudesources of the same problem. The former is larger andmore influential. It occurs ubiquitously in built environ-ments but at different levels (Lindgren et al., 2001). Thelatter takes place in direct proximity to power lines andthus is not equally common in urban areas.

4.3.3. Modification of the indicator setThe residents' focus group helped to highlight some of

the limitations of EEO-l since their main concerns in theoutdoor areas are not covered by the tool. They broughtabout maintenance of the outdoor environment– action todeal with litter, care of greenery, and safety and security –as a central issue. One participant remarked: But it's worst

of the scale for load values.


when there is litter, with cigarette ends, glass and plasticon the ground while another participant said, The mostimportant thing is that they (outdoor environments) arewell looked after. I get madwhen you sit down and you aresitting in glass and cigarette ends and all kinds of dis-gusting things. It is really irritating, no matter whether ornot you have children. Road safety around and withinhousing areas was also seen as being ofmajor importance.

As the EcoEffect system does not take intoconsideration any care, safety or security issues, theseissues are not covered by either EEO-1 or EEO-2. Thismeans that the maintenance of the outdoor environmentand problems with litter and vandalism are not includedin the assessment. In this regard EEO-2 does not matchup to the resident's expectations concerning the outdoorenvironment. These issues are perhaps of most impor-tance for the residents but to cover them a differentapproach is needed. EcoEffect Outdoor aims to providean open account of all of the components so that userscan make their own judgement of the relevance andusability in relation to EcoEffect.

The shortage of shade in courtyards was also raisedas a problem. Residents wanted trees providing shadowover particular areas utilised for outdoor activities. EEO-1 dealt with the reverse problem of areas in overmuchshade though environments without adequate sun pro-tection were not valued.

In EEO-2 the adequacy of sunlight-protection isincluded in the assessment of planned sites. If there isno possibility to obtain sunlight protection from a treecanopy or shadow from a building in an otherwise sunnysite, the worst scoring is achieved. The residents howeverconsidered a shortage of sunlight as a greater problemthan a shortage of shadow. In that case it's better havingtoomuch sun than too little. Having too little sun is worse.Other disturbances mentioned by the residents, includedin the EEO, were traffic noise and air pollution.

The issue of allergies is not dealt with in EEO-1 but it isa major public health problem in Sweden (Socialstyrelsen,2001). The problem is growing in two ways, moreindividuals are afflicted and more people are now beingexposed to allergens. The horse allergen problem isgrowing as equestrian sport is growing in size andpopularity, mostly in proximity to cities (SCB, 2004). InEEO-2 air-borne allergenswere assessed specifically fromplants with troublesome pollen and allergens from horses.

Land contamination originating from impregnatedtimber was not included in EEO-1. Details of impreg-nated timber are commonly found in outdoor environ-ments and people, especially children, are often exposedto it. There is moreover no safe method of dealing withspent impregnated timber and thus it is becoming a

growing disposal problem (Svenska Kemikalieinspek-tionen, 1991). As a result the occurrence of impregnatedtimber is valued in EEO-2.

4.3.4. BiodiversityIn EEO-1 biological diversity was estimated by means

of five different indicators. All of them implied thecounting of positive features. In the context of EEO-1 itwas assumed that the more vegetation types or plantspecies on a property, the higherwas its biodiversity score.

The ecologists' focus group argued that the toolassessed deficient biodiversity in a too standardisedmanner. They rejected this as too simplified and blunt aview of biodiversity to be useful. Instead they advocatedthat the assessment of biodiversity should emanate fromthe type of biotope present on site and to assess thedisturbance that the biotope was exposed to comparedwith an undisturbed biotope of the same type. Theecologists took the view that a poor biotope with fewvegetation types must be assessed on its own terms andthat an environment with few species does contributes todiversity at the biotope level.

According to the ecologists, the value of biodiversityonmany laid-out surfaceswas seen as radically lower thanon areas of retained natural vegetation. Areas of plantedvegetation should be estimated on the basis of how wellthey are adapted to existing nature and their surroundings.The group considered that well-conceived plantedvegetation and laid-out surfaces supports biodiversityand can act as a bridge to the natural environment.

In EEO-2 the estimation of biodiversity is based on thedifferences between the assessed biotope and a bench-mark biotope. The assessment is divided into two sub-indicators: retained vegetation and planted vegetation. Inthe case of retained vegetation, the negative impact on thebiotope is assessed, i.e. the deviation from natural state.Planted vegetation is estimated with respect to a numberof actions that can be taken to reduce the loadings onbiodiversity i.e., enhancing diversity. This means that thisindicator still is assessed by positive estimates and not interms of loadings. Additional work on this indicator willbe reported in the near future.

Moreover the ecologists' focus group discussed whattype of biodiversity was rewarded by the tool. They tookthe view that people often see biodiversity positively andthat it enhances the value of time spent outdoors; but-terflies, for instance, are appreciated. People's wishes inrespect of the outdoor environment are not always how-ever in harmony with a rich level of biodiversity. Theecologists considered that this was sometimes a chal-lenge. The dirt around it (the pond), mosquito pro-duction and so on, do people want to have that kind of


biodiversity? Do they want to have dead trees on theirplots? In EEO-2 opinions in respect of biodiversity werenot however assessed.

4.3.5. Biological productionThe indicator biological production was included in

EEO-1 and was intended to estimate a potential: thefertility of the soil, irrespective of whether or not it wasmanifested in the vegetation in the property. It wasconsequently an estimation of potentials and not of per-formance as postulated in theEcoEffect system. Secondly,the pilot test revealed that the estimation of deficientbiological production capacity could not be carried out inaccordance with the instructions because the techniquedid not work in practice. And third, the includedcalculations could not be carried out as intended, as thecalculation model was unusable.

In EEO-2 the biological production capacity indicatoris assessed only for planned sites, i.e. if the plans are to useproductive agricultural land for building development. Along term human health perspective is adopted; a shortageof productive agricultural land can result in food supplyproblems. The relationship between the indicator and theend-problem is obvious, but how it can be estimated is notas obvious. However, this indicator is governed at aplanning stage higher than the property level, in the main.In Sweden it is the Municipal comprehensive plan thatgoverns how land is allowed to be exploited.

4.4. Applicability

A tool cannot be used before potential users ac-knowledge its applicability. This can start with the re-cognition of the advantages of an assessment. In thedevelopment of EcoEffect Outdoors the focus andstakeholder groups have not only been a part of theknowledge production process but also a starting pointfor the implementation process. The landscape archi-tects' focus group took the view that it was important togain support for the tool among practitioners in order togain acceptance for it. Increasing market demand forhealthy outdoor areas will moreover ensure that toolssuch as EcoEffect Outdoor are utilised.

The issues in this topic include: cooperation with theintended users, data collection, and utility.

4.4.1. Cooperation with the intended usersTools development is a problem solving exercise

organised around a particular application of knowledgewith practical goals. The knowledge is first andforemost intended to be useful for the building sectorand therefore the process included discussions with

landscape architects, ecologists and residents. Thesegroups were then invited to discuss the tool and itsapplication. Problem solution in cooperation with theusers increases the attention on the need for the tool towork in practice and it also deepens the understanding ofwhat is considered worth-wile (Gibbons et al., 1994).The focus groups, in particular those containing thelandscape architects and ecologists, made valuableknowledge production contributions to EEO-2. Theresidents' group made the tools delimitations obvious.Developing a tool in cooperation with the industry, ashas been done both with the EcoEffect system (Assefaet al., 2006) and EcoEffect Outdoor ought to enhance itsprospects for acceptance.

Tools such as the EEO always represent a simplifica-tion between science and policy (cf. Turnhout et al.,2007). All assessment approaches are also value-laden.In EEO-2 the overall objective, human health, is thefundamental value governing the revision of the tool.

4.4.2. Data collectionIf the data collection is complicated and time-con-

suming, it will be costly. Data can be easy to retrieve if itis readily accessible in the building process, but it isdifficult to gather data retrospectively (Larsson, 1999).The pilot tests indicated that much of the informationdemanded for an assessment is already produced insome phase of the construction process. Therefore thereought not to be an extra cost to collect the data forassessment in the EEO tool. The problem is that todaythere is no incentive to store the information system-atically or supply it so that it can be readily available.This can however be solved in practice through anapplication for design software used by architects.

The instructions for the data collection have to beexhaustive. The EEO-1 pilot test revealed that many ofthe indicators in the tool were simple to survey using theinstructions, but some indicators instruction was toomeager to be reliably repeatable. The reliability of a toolis partly dependent on the fact that the assessment isalways conducted in the same way and thereforedependent on the adequacy of instructions. In EEO-2moves have been made to complement the originalinstructions provided.

4.4.3. UtilityAs the landscape architects found that EEO-l

presented the assessment results in a readily accessibleway, they considered that the tool had the potential to bemore widely utilised. In the discussions it emerged thatthe landscape architects had expressed only lukewarminterest in using a tool to assess the outdoor

Fig. 4. Overview of EcoEffect Outdoor-2.


environment. They were unsure whether they would bewell enough informed about the weighting process andfundamental values i.e., to be satisfied with “someoneelse” making judgements rather than themselves. Theirunwillingness to make use of a tool in a choice situationdisplays parallels with the observations made byLahdelma et al. (2000) about decision-makers in publicplanning in Finland. A problem often discussed in theliterature in relation to multi-criteria methods concerns

how to choose one or more optimal alternatives.However Lahdelma takes the view that decision-makersdo not seek for one option only, and moreover, that theydislike that a tool makes a choice for them. This suggeststhat it is important that a tool is designed to facilitate theeasy comparison of different solutions. EcoEffect Out-door aims to achieve methodological transparency byexplicit articulation of the fundament for aggregationand weighting. The computer software interlocked into


the tool makes it easy to move both up and down thehierarchy and trace what indicators merge at a higherlevel. The process is hence open for review.

EEO-1 was designed to assess existing sites. Therevision of the tool included an augmentation to also coverplanned outdoor environments, a first step towards a designtool. To have a tool for all different stages of a process isdesirable, but design tools are of an inherently different type(Soebarto and Williamson, 2001). A tool intended to assistin a design process must be able to facilitate a designer'siterative approach to develop an understanding of and thetesting of means to solve the problem. Tools designed toassess existing sites are often too complex to use for thispurposes. The application of EEO intended for the designprocess has yet however to be initiated.

5. Discussion

Developing a tool involves both identifying weak-nesses and proposing solutions. As the development ofEcoEffect Outdoor involved problem solving withpractical goals in mind it was carried out in cooperationwith its intended users. The preliminary tool, EEO-l,was the subject of a pilot test, it was discussed in focusgroups with experts and with stakeholders in thebuilding sector; in addition, the development work bythe research group on the overall system EcoEffect hadimplications for the tool for outdoor assessment. Thevarious approaches utilised to examine the toolcomplemented each other and the combination became,in effect, a triangulation of the tool. Practical problemsand methodological deficiencies were revealed andideas for changes evolved during the examination.

The main issues emerging during the testing processhave been merged into four separate topics: structure,delimitations, indicators and applicability. The first two arecomprehensive and concern the fundamental aspects of thetool. Structure considers how the tool is organised and howthe fundamental values govern the tool. In the examinationit became obvious that a tool has to openly display howdata are processed and the objectives ruling the process.Openness has to be imprinted into all accounts of the tool,though this seems to be the foundation for the credibility ofthe tool. The landscape architects' focus group stated thatthey would not utilise a tool without all suppositions andobjectives coupled to the tool being declared.

Delimitations are the scope and object of the tool andtype of impacts that are considered. Tools can havedifferent levels of inclusiveness, and include more or lessof the context in the assessment. The result will deviatewithin different boundaries, as such then it is important tohighlight the delimitations to any prospective tools user.

The selection of indicators is the concretisation ofthe values governing the tool. Depending on what isregarded as an environmental impact indicators can thenbe determined. Indicators can be of different types andare quantified in various ways though in EEO a commonscale provides comparability.

The final topic, applicability, focuses on theadvantages of tools development undertaken in coop-eration with the intended users. Practical aspects as howto collect data are highlighted in discussions withpotential users. Malmquist and Glaumann (2006) aresuggesting a set of criteria when choosing environ-mental indicators but it is also feasible to apply the samecriteria to environmental tools as whole. They mentionboth scientific and practical considerations. The scien-tific demands are e.g. to measure end-point problems tothe desired level of preciseness and to make theassessment independent of who is performing theprocess. The practical aspects are costs for the datacollection, ease of communication, options for the usersto influence on the assessment and also are thecompetence demands important. An assessment toolexists in the realm in between science and practice. Inthe development of EEO both scientific demands andpractical aspects have provided guidance to the devel-opment team.

The main issue emerging from the developmentprocess was the change from three to one overallobjective, namely, to the concentration on human health.One overall objective is a prerequisite for a consistentaggregation and weighting procedure and is alsobeneficial for the user of the tool. When the overallobjective is articulated the methodological transparencyimproves and the assessment will be more under-standable and thus it will be potential for a user to forman opinion. One of the main changes from EEO-1 toEEO-2 is the use of a questionnaire on existing sites.Other important adjustments include the calibration ofthe environmental load value scale and the extension ofthe tool to also include the assessment of plannedproperties. Many minor adjustments have also beencarried through. Most of the indicators have beenreformulated at some level; expanded or reduced inparameter level; altered measurement method for theparameter; or scale modification. A number of para-meters have also been dropped in response to changes inthe measurement methods. Fig. 4 displays the revisedhierarchy.

Within the property-level environmental assessmentsystem the EcoEffect tool for outdoor assessment hasbeen revised and redeveloped leading to EcoEffectOutdoors-2 (EEO-2). This is an improved tool for


decision-makers enabling them to assess and compareoutdoor environments. The tool reports on the risk ofnegative impacts on health and well-being for peopleusing the outdoor environment in existing and inplanned sites. It is now alternative to compare differentsites to each other, or to compare different designs forthe same site. EEO-2 also indicates how the property'senvironmental performance conforms to the relevantlegislation or to internal benchmarks. It is also nowfeasible for the building sector, by using the tool, todetect and avoid deficiencies in quality at an early stage.

6. Future research

As EcoEffect Outdoors makes use of normal valuesderived from practice values in the assessments scale,fundamental data are needed in respect of e.g. thedistribution between different kinds of surfaces allocatedwithin housing areas and in areas with workplaces.Sufficient data do not currently however exist to deter-mine the average values therefore research to increaseknowledge about these conditions is much needed.

An application of EEO that focuses on the design phasehas not yet been elaborated. Design tools are often simplerin structure and assembled as checklists, often focusing onqualities in the outdoor environment, not loadings. Aworkable design tool needs to function in spite of uncer-tainties over the details as a design process is graduallyworked up from an overall concept. It has to provideguidance between technical implementation and environ-mental performance (Crawley and Aho, 1999). Even if ispotential to use EEO-2 for planned environments at thedesign phase it is probably not flexible enough for use inthe design process. The augmentation of the tool to alsocomprise an application for the design stage is in the futurework.

A tool has to be continuously updated and open forrefinements.

The subject of how to assess biodiversity in the urbanenvironment such that it will develop in the direction ofsustainability is also a future issue for consideration. Thisissue remains central to the implementation of EcoEffectOutdoor. Perhaps the positive impacts that nature has onour mental health (Ulrich, 1984) is one of the mostimportant reason for creating or preserving a rich level ofbiodiversity in the urban environment. Green environmentscan act as stress reducers (Grahn and Stigsdotter, 2003),people recover from exhaustionmore quickly (Hartig et al.,1991) and greenery gives people satisfaction and consola-tion (Kaplan et al., 1998). All of these qualities mean thatthere are strong reasons for retaining and developingbiodiversity in our cities.

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to the Swedish Research Council forEnvironment, Agricultural Sciences and Spatial Planning(Formas) and the Department of Urban and Rural De-velopment, SLU, Sweden,whohave financed this research.Thanks also to Mauritz Glaumann, Clas Florgård, PärVilhelmson, Ann Åkerskog, Tomas Nybrant and OskarForsberg for reading, discussing, and helping improve themanuscript at various phases of its development. The viewsexpressed herein however remain those of the authorsalone.

References

Andresen I. A multi-criteria decision-making method for solarbuilding design. NTNU Trondheim, Norwegian University ofScience and Technology. Doctoral Thesis in Engineering 2000:25,Dep. of Construction Engineering IBT 2000:1.

Assefa G, Glaumann M, Malmquist T, Kindembe B, Hult M, Myhr U,et al. Environmental assessment of building properties; wherenatural and social sciences meet: the case of EcoEffect. BuildEnviron 2006;42:1458–64.

BRE. http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/index.html2004 [retrieved20040818].

Buede DM. Structuring value attributes. Interfaces 1986;16(2):52–62.Casbee. http://ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm [retrieved

20050926] No year.Cole RJ, Larsson NK. GBCʻ98 and GBTool: background. Build Res

Inf 1999;4/5:221–9.Crawley D, Aho I. Building environmental assessment methods: appli-

cations and development trends. Build Res Inf 1999;27(4/5):300–8.Dyrstad Pettersen T. Oekoprofil (Ecoprofile). http://www.byggsertifi-

sering.no/oekoprofil/2000 [retrieved 20040818].Florgård C. Miljövärdering utomhus, tillämpning av EcoEffect-

metoden på utemiljö. (Outdoor environmental assessment, applica-tion of the EcoEffect method to the outdoor environment.). SwedishUniversity of Agricultural sciences. SLU; 2000.

Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the socialsciences. London: Arnold; 1996.

Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow M.The new production of knowledge; the dynamics of science andresearch in contemporary societies. London: Sage publications; 1994.

Glaumann M. EcoEffect –Miljövärdering av bebyggelse (EcoEffect –Environmental assessment of built environments.). University ofGävle and Royal Institute of Technology; 1999.

Glaumann M, Malmquist T. Miljövärdering av bebyggelse, EcoEffect-metoden. Del 1. Bakgrund och sammanfattande beskrivning.(Environmental assessment of built environments, the EcoEffectMethod. Part 1. Background and summary description.). Uni-versity of Gävle and Royal Institute of Technology; 2004.

Glaumann M, Malmquist T, Westerberg U. A simplified method togenerate weights for application in environmental assessment ofbuildings. Conference Paper presented in: The 2005 World sustain-able building conference in Tokyo 27–29 Sept; 2005.

Grahn P, Stigsdotter U. Landscape planning and stress. Urban ForUrban Green 2003;2:1–18.

Hartig T, Mangs M, Evans G. Restorative effects of natural environ-mental experiences. Environ Behav 1991;23:3–26.

http://products.bre.co.uk/breeam/index.html

http://ibec.or.jp/CASBEE/english/index.htm

http://www.byggsertifisering.no/oekoprofil/

http://www.byggsertifisering.no/oekoprofil/


Hult M. Värdering och säkring av innemiljökvaliteter i byggnader; iprogram-, projekterings- och förvaltningsskede. (Assessment andAssurance of Indoor Environmental Qualities in Building.Göteborg: Department of Building Services Engineering, Chal-mers University of Technology; 2002.

Kaplan R, Kaplan S, Ryan RL. With people in mind. Design andmanagement of everyday nature. Washington: Island Press;1998.

Kemikalieinspektionen. Kemikalieinspektionens allmänna råd tillföreskrifterna (KIFS 1990:10) om träskyddsbehandlat virke.1991:4. Swedish Chemicals Inspectorate. Swedish ChemicalsInspectorate General Guidance on Regulations concerning timbertreated with wood preservative; 1991.

Lahdelma R, Salminen PO, Hokkanen J. Using multi-criteria methods inenvironmental planning and management. Environ Manag 2000;26(6):595–605.

Larsson N. Development of a building performance rating andlabelling system in Canada. Build Res Inf 1999;27(4/5):332–41.

Lindgren M, Gustavsson M, Hamnerius Y, Galt S. ELF Magneticfields in a city environment. Bioelectromagn 2001;22:87–90.

Löfvenhaft K, Runborg S. Biotope map of Stockholm. University ofStockholm; 2002.

Malmquist T, Glaumann M. Selecting problem-related environmentalindicators for housingmanagement. BuildRes Inf 2006;34(4):321–33.

Margules C, Usher MB. Criteria used in assessing wildlife conserva-tion potential: a review. Biol Conserv 1981;21:79–109.

Murray CJL, Lopez AD. The global burden of disease: a comprehen-sive assessment of mortality and disability from diseases, injuriesand risk factors in 1990 and projected to 2020. Cambridge MA:Harvard University Press, USA; 1996.

Myhr U. Miljövärdering av bebyggelse; Metodbeskrivning förEcoEffect Ute. (Environmental assessment of built environments,Description of the EcoEffect Outdoor Method.). Department ofUrban and Rural Development. Swedish University of AgriculturalSciences, SLU; 2007.

Saaty TL. Analytical hierarchy process. Planning, priority setting,resource allocation. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications; 1990.

SCB. Sveriges officiella statistic; Statistiska meddelanden. JO 24 SM0501; Horses and horse establishments in 2004; 2004.

Socialstyrelsen. Inst. för miljömedicin & Miljömedicin Stockholmsläns landsting. Miljöhälsorapport 2001. Socialstyrelsen Stock-holm. 2001. (Swedish Board of Health andWelfare, Department ofEnvironmental Medicine & Environmental Medicine StockholmCounty Council. Environmental Health Report; 2001.

Soebarto VI, Williamson TJ. Multi-criteria assessment of buildingperformance: theory and implantation. Build and Environ2001;36:681–90.

Turnhout E, Hisschemöller M, Eijsackers H. Ecological indicators:between the two fires of science andpolicy. Ecol Indic 2007;7:215–28.

Ulrich RS. View through a window may influence recovery fromsurgery. Science 1984;224:420–1.

Westerberg U, Myhr U, Glaumann M. Assessing the outdoorenvironment close to buildings with focus on weighting. Proceed-ings of the world sustainable building conference (SB05), Tokyo.27–29 September; 2005.

WHO. WHO definition of health. Internet source. http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html1948 [retrieved 20050221].

Wibeck V. Fokusgrupper, Om fokuserade gruppintervjuer som under-sökningsmetod. (About focussed group interviews as investigationmethod). Lund: Studentlitteratur; 2000.

Ulla Myhr is a PhD student in the Department of Urban and RuralDevelopment, at the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,Uppsala. She has a Master of Science on Landscape Planning by theUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

Rolf Johansson is a Professor in Built Environment Analysis at theSchool of Architecture and the Built Environment, Royal Institute ofTechnology, Stockholm, and a visiting Professor at the SwedishUniversity of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala.

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

http://www.who.int/about/definition/en/print.html

Documents

EcoEffect for outdoor environments; the process of tool development