Thursday 24 th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council Developing an environmental decision making tool Shelter Centre

Thursday 24th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council

Developing an environmental decision making tool

Shelter Centre and the Norwegian Refugee Council


Phase 3

Phase 1 & 2

Key findings

Next steps

Feedback

Environmental Assessment Tools

Development of an online tool

What have we found?

What others have to say

Where now?


Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Assessment Tools

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Phase 1• Research BREEAM and LEED

• Draw comparisons

• Assess suitability for humanitarian shelter sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM)– First EAT– UK developed, 1990– Allows comparison of buildings– Green Building Challenge, 1996– Based on 10 criteria

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

6. Materials

7. Pollution

8. Transport

9. Waste

10. Water

BREEAM Criteria

1. Energy

2. Indoor environment

3. Innovation

4. Land use and ecology

5. Management

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)– US based, developed 1994-98– Most widely recognised– Designed for hot climates with air conditioning– Used in all US states– Based on 10 categories

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

6. Materials

7. Regional priority

8. Resources

9. Site

10.Water

LEED Criteria

1. Awareness and education

2. Energy

3. Indoor environment

4. Innovation

5. Locations and linkages

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

LEED

1. LEED assessor separate USGBC

2. ASHRAE standards

3. Rewards on improvements

BREEAM

1. Trained BREEAM assessor is architect BRE

2. UK/EU regulations

3. Absolute benchmarks

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Phase 2– Research and compare EATs• 18 found in total• With 29 different categories

– Assess suitability for humanitarian sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

10.EEWH – 711. Estidama – 712.GBCS – 713.BEAM – 614.DGNB – 615.GRIHA – 616.Green Mark – 517.HQE – 318.Minergie – 3

18 EATs sorted by number of criteria

1. Aspire – 12

2. BREEAM – 10

3. LEED – 10

4. CASBEE – 9

5. Green Star – 9

6. SI-5281 – 9

7. Green Globes – 8

8. LiderA – 8

9. 3-Star – 7

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

16. Awareness and education - 2

17. Culture - 2

18. Sustainable use - 2

19. Institutional enablers - 1

20. Off-site environment - 1

21. Pollution - 1

22. Preference items (strategic targets) - 1

23. Processes - 1

24. Quality of service - 1

25. Regional priority (extra weight given to existing criteria) - 1

26. Soil water content - 1

27. Sustainable construction - 1

28. Techniques - 1

29. Vulnerability - 1

29 different criteria sorted by frequency

1. Indoor environment quality - 17

2. Energy - 15

3. Water - 12

4. Materials - 9

5. Environmental management - 8

6. Land use and ecology - 8

7. Innovation - 7

8. Site - 7

9. CO2 emission reduction - 6

10. Management - 5

11. Resources - 5

12. Transport - 5

13. Waste - 5

14. Locations and linkages - 3

15. Socioeconomic experience - 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

16. Awareness and education - 2

17. Culture - 2

18. Sustainable use - 2

19. Institutional enablers - 1

20. Off-site environment - 1

21. Pollution - 1

22. Preference items (strategic targets) - 1

23. Processes - 1

24. Quality of service - 1

25. Regional priority (extra weight given to existing criteria) - 1

26. Soil water content - 1

27. Sustainable construction - 1

28. Techniques - 1

29. Vulnerability - 1

29 different criteria sorted by frequency

1. Indoor environment quality - 17

2. Energy - 15

3. Water - 12

4. Materials - 9

5. Environmental management - 8

6. Land use and ecology - 8

7. Innovation - 7

8. Site - 7

9. CO2 emission reduction - 6

10. Management - 5

11. Resources - 5

12. Transport - 5

13. Waste - 5

14. Locations and linkages - 3

15. Socioeconomic experience - 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

• Indoor environment quality; • Energy;• Water; • Materials; • Environmental management; and• Land use and ecology.

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Findings of comparison

– Regionally specific tools

– Generally comprehensive thus complex

– Centralised method of certification

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps

Phase 1 & 2


Phase 1 & 2

Outcomes of Phase 1 & 2

– Is another tool feasible with• limited time and money; and• available skills and human resources?

– Is a framework assessment tool the best direction for us?


Phase 3 Development of an online tool

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

Compliance or education?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

Compliance– Accrediting institute

– Training of assessors

– Support of sector

– Regionally specific

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

Education– Tool to assist decisions – develop

– Large body of vocational and academic knowledge – already available

– Tool to assess results – available

– Education and training material – available

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

Education– Tool to assist decisions – develop

– Large body of vocational and academic knowledge – already available

– Tool to assess results – available

– Education and training material – available

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Phase 3

Phase 3

From EAT researchTop criteria:• Indoor environment quality; • Energy;• Water; • Materials; • Environmental management; and• Land use and ecology.


Key findings What have we found?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Key findings

Key findings

• Direct reliance on local environment

• Understand decisions of affected people

• Good programming requires training

• Focus on continuous resource needs

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Key findings

Key findings

Questions we have– How best to market this concept?

– How to include complexities of environment?

– When to realistically involve this?


Feedback What others have to say

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Feedback

Feedback

• Generally positive

• Needs to be more specific to:

– be obvious it’s about shelter; and

– define a decision making process.

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Feedback

Feedback

“an endless list of all things I could do if I had bottomless buckets of money”

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Feedback

Feedback

Focus on the local environment– Maintain or improve?

– Increase resilience

– Ensure humanitarian imperative

– Support income generation

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Feedback

Feedback

• Still collating feedback

• Feel free to use computers


Next steps Where now?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Next steps

Next steps

Development of site

– Where will this be hosted?

– What system to use – Drupal, Wordpress, etc?

– Refine usability and navigation

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Next steps

Next steps

Decision making tree(s)

– Further research

– Consultation

– Method of presentation?

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Next steps

Next steps

Collaboration

– Assessment tool creators

– Training providers

– Development sector

Phase 1 & 2

Phase 3

Key findings

Feedback

Next steps


Next steps

Next steps

Discussion

– Challenges

– Benefits

– Opportunities

Documents

Thursday 24 th May 2012Shelter Meeting 12a Day 1 is hosted by the Norwegian Refugee Council Developing an environmental decision making tool Shelter Centre