This paper describes the differences concerning infrastructure and mobility in several building certification systems for residential buildings: the Austrian klima:aktiv and Total Quality Building (TQB) are compared with the German German Sustainable Building Council [“Deutsches Gütesiegel für Nachhaltiges Bauen”] (DGNB), the Swiss MINERGIE-ECO® and with two international systems, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) and Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM). It demon-strates how these systems deal with the aspects of infrastructure and mobility, where the deficiencies are and how the criteria could be improved. Moreover, the Swiss leaflet SIA 2039 Mobility – Energy Needs Dependent on Building’s Location [“Mobilität – Energiebedarf in Abhängigkeit vom Gebäudestandort”] is described and applied in its corresponding calculation tool. Infrastructure and mobility is treated differently in all the systems. Some system boundaries simply ignore aspects of mobility for building declarations in order to do it correct in a “scien-tific way”. Thinking in a holistic way, from the point of sustainability it is clear that a “passive house” or “plus energy house” does not really work if you need lots of energy for mobility by using this building. A building depends completely from the site, it never changes the site. Therefore the system boundaries have to extended from the building itself to the urban set-tlement.
|Translated title of the contribution||Problem of system boundaries - Aspects of mobility in building certification standards|
|Title of host publication||enova 2012|
|Publication status||Published - 2012|
|Event||enova 2012 - Pinkafeld, Austria|
Duration: 22 Nov 2012 → 23 Nov 2012
|Period||22.11.2012 → 23.11.2012|