Building Research & Information

ISSN: 0961-3218 (Print) 1466-4321 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbri20

Performance-based building regulation: current

situation and future needs

Brian Meacham , Robert Bowen , Jon Traw & Amanda Moore

To cite this article: Brian Meacham , Robert Bowen , Jon Traw & Amanda Moore (2005)
Performance-based building regulation: current situation and future needs, Building Research
& Information, 33:2, 91-106, DOI: 10.1080/0961321042000322780

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0961321042000322780

Published online: 03 Feb 2007.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1672

View related articles

Citing articles: 23 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rbri20
BUILDING RESEARCH & INFORMATION (MARCH –APRIL 2005) 33(2), 91–106

Performance-based building regulation:

current situation and future needs

Brian Meacham1, Robert Bowen2, JonTraw3 and Amanda Moore1

1
Arup,1500 West Park Drive, Suite 180,Westborough, MA 01581, US
E-mail: brian.meacham@arup.com

2
National Research Council,1200 Montreal Road,Ottawa,Ontario K1A 0R6, Canada

3
Traw Associates Consulting,14435 Eastridge Drive,Whittier, CA 90602, US

Although performance-based building regulations are in use or under development in numerous countries worldwide,
there remain significant challenges in adequately identifying and defining performance, in understanding and
addressing diverse societal expectations, and in establishing robust performance-based regulatory systems. These
challenges become intensified as the building construction market becomes increasingly global, with the resulting
expectation that building regulatory instruments remain valid across borders and do not create barriers to trade,
while at the same time address local and national needs without compromising local cultural and societal norms.
Many of these issues are just now beginning to be explored, and there is significant opportunity and need for future
research and development in these areas.

Keywords: building regulation, globalization, governance, performance, performance-based building, performance-

based regulation, public safety, regulation development, research needs, societal expectations

Bien que les réglementations concernant les bâtiments axés sur la performance soient déjà appliquées ou en cours
d’élaboration dans de nombreux pays, de graves difficultés persistent lorsqu’il s’agit de cerner et de définir comme il
convient la performance, de comprendre et de répondre aux diverses attentes de la société et d’établir de solides
systèmes de réglementation basés sur la performance. Ces difficultés s’accroissent à mesure que le marché du bâtiment
se mondialise; il faut alors espérer que les moyens réglementaires propres au secteur du bâtiment seront applicables
dans tous les pays, ne feront pas obstacle aux échanges tout en permettant de satisfaire les exigences locales et
nationales sans compromettre les normes culturelles et sociétales locales. Pour l’heure, bon nombre de ces questions
ne sont qu’effleurées; d’immenses possibilités s’offrent à la recherche et au développement dans ce domaine où les
besoins sont nombreux.

Mots clés: la réglementation dans le bâtiment, mondialisation, gouvernance, performance, bâtiments axés sur la
performance, réglementation axée sur la performance, sécurité publique, élaboration des réglementations,
besoins en recherche, attentes sociétales

Introduction is located. This is typically accomplished through

Building regulations are legal instruments intended to regulatory controls on the design, construction and
ensure that buildings, when constructed in accordance operation of buildings, covering such diverse areas as
with the regulations, provide socially acceptable levels structural stability, fire safety, heating, lighting, venti-
of health, safety, welfare and amenity for building lation, plumbing, sanitary facilities, indoor air quality
occupants and for the community in which the building and energy.
Building Research & Information ISSN 0961-3218 print ⁄ISSN 1466-4321 online # 2005 Taylor & Francis Group Ltd
http: ⁄ ⁄www.tandf.co.uk ⁄journals
DOI: 10.1080/0961321042000322780
Meacham et al.
In a traditional, prescriptive-based regulatory system,
the performance objectives are often implicitly embo-
died in specific requirements that vary by building use
or occupancy type. Such requirements may be manifest
as resistance to loads, construction types, fire-resistance
ratings, travel distances, occupant circulation aids, ven-
tilation rates, and potable and wastewater specifica-
tions. Based on the collective knowledge, experience
and desires of regulatory developers and interested
and affected parties, minimum requirements are esta-
blished for all buildings within each use or occupancy
group. Such approaches to regulation avoid the difficult
task of explicitly dealing with societal goals.
However, many countries around the world have either
introduced performance-based building regulations or
are in the process of doing so (e.g. CIB TG11, 1997;
IRCC, 1998; Meacham, 1998, 2000, 2004a, b). A hall-
mark of performance-based building regulation is the
explicit statement of goals and objectives that reflect
societal expectations and desires, along with functional
statements, operative requirements and in some cases
performance criteria, which are to be used for demon-
strating that goals and objectives have been met (e.g.
IRCC, 1998; Meacham et al., 2002). The move to
these new regulatory systems is undertaken for varied
reasons. In some cases, the existing regulations have
been evolving for decades and a dramatic change is
needed to respond to stakeholder’s concerns while in
others there is a belief that one has to regulate
smarter and not have technical matters establishing
policy directions for governments. These new types of
codes offer the ability to have the right people involved
in the right type of discussion, i.e. policy analysts
should be involved when the scope of codes are chan-
ging, while technical experts need to determine how
to meet the needs expressed by policy decisions.
Although there is little disagreement regarding the
necessary components of a performance-based build-
ing regulatory system, including what is needed in
the regulation or in supporting standards and guidance
documents, what is needed to support the regulatory
infrastructure, and what is needed for regulatory
enforcement, there exist several challenges for deve-
loping and implementing effective performance-based
building regulatory systems. For example, what are
society’s expectations for building performance and
how are these being met? How does one define and
measure performance? What happens when broader
societal expectations and technical capability do not
intersect? Is tolerable performance in one country
the same in another, and if not, how are inter-
jurisdictional performance objectives met without
creating barriers to trade? Likewise, are ‘majority
rule’ or ‘current limits of technology’ proper bases
for inflicting performance requirements on society,
especially if the societal or cultural diversity between
countries is significant?
92
Performance-based building regulation: the
current situation
Performance-based codes are in use or under develop-
ment in numerous countries worldwide. The rationale
for the transition to performance-based building regu-
lation has varied by country, and has included the
downsizing of government, deregulation, trade facili-
tation, increased design flexibility and the reduction
of unnecessary construction costs for achieving an
acceptable level of building performance. Also emer-
ging are different approaches such as objective-based
codes, which are being developed in Canada. Such an
approach takes advantage of the clarity of code scope
through the objectives and functional requirements
but maintains the acceptable solution represented by
existing codes. For a detailed summary of the current
status of performance-based building regulations in
several countries, see Meacham (2004b). Although
many countries started down the path to performance
regulation on their own, there exist two international
venues wherein country representatives meet and
share ideas, issues and challenges with performance-
based building regulation: the International Council
for Research and Innovation in Building and Construc-
tion (CIB) and the Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory
Collaboration Committee (IRCC).
International Council for Research and Innovation in
Building and Construction (CIB)
The CIB is an international organization dedicated to
the advancement of building technology through
research studies and dissemination of information. Its
membership includes private and national test labora-
tories and construction research organizations, acade-
mia and concerned individuals. It has a number of
Working Commissions (W) and Task Groups (TG)
that focus on specific issues, from construction to
society to the environment.
The CIB began work in the area of building perform-
ance in 1970 with the establishment of Working Com-
mission W060 on the Performance Concept in Building
(Meacham et al., 2002). In 1982, the coordinator for
that commission defined the concept as follows:
The performance approach is, first and foremost,
the practice of thinking and working in terms
of ends rather than means. It is concerned with
what a building is required to do, and not
with prescribing how it is to be constructed.
(Gibson, 1982)
Its interest in building performance, coupled with the
beginnings of a global movement to performance-
based building regulation, moved the CIB to establish
Task Group 11 in the early 1990s (CIB TG11, 1994).
The objective of CIB TG11 was to provide information

to assist those countries developing performance regu-
latory systems. To accomplish this, a variety of specific
tasks were identified (CIB TG11, 1997):
. develop framework(s) for performance-based regu-
latory systems
. identify useful sources of knowledge and tools
. identify priority areas where knowledge is not
sufficient
. document approaches and experiences
. make recommendations to the CIB
. define ‘performance-based building code’
To study individual parts of a complete performance-
based regulatory framework, a number of sub-groups
were established within CIB TG11. Topics for study
included the following:
. users’ needs, including those whose needs are pri-
marily directed towards the development or con-
struction of buildings, and those whose needs are
primarily directed toward occupancy of a finished
building
. terminology used in performance codes
. framework for performance codes
. language structures used in expressing perform-
ance requirements
. software tools to support development in use of
performance codes
. educational requirements for performance codes
. summary of experiences and solutions adopted in
implementing a performance-based approach to
regulations and codes
In reviewing the needs of those people who must work
with performance-based codes, the CIB TG11
members developed a list of 19 items that users of per-
formance-based codes need or want the codes to
provide, including those to satisfy public expectations,
to be easily understood, to provide certainty in
outcome, to be flexible in application, to encourage
innovation, to make use of all available resources, to
apply a consistent approach to risk and to provide cer-
tainty of compliance. CIB TG11 also identified a
number of areas in which additional educational
efforts were required. Architects, fire safety engineers
and code writers were identified as audiences with
the highest need for education. In addition, education
Performance-based building regulation
needs are high for elected and appointed public offi-
cials, as well as for the insurance industry (CIB
TG11, 1997).
In 1997, after completing its work effort, the CIB TG11
proposed that it be disbanded and a new TG be created
to address a new scope of work on performance-based
building regulatory systems. The CIB granted this
request, and CIB TG37, Performance-Based Building
Regulatory Systems, was formed in 1999.
The work of CIB TG37 aimed to complement that of
the IRCC by providing some technical tools and under-
pinning to the IRCC policy concerns. In assessing tech-
nical needs, one set of issues identified by the IRCC
stood out as needing particular attention: the role of
standards, performance criteria and verification
methods within the overall regulatory system.
Various papers were written that explored these and
related issues (Beller et al., 2001, 2002; Bergeron
et al., 2001; Bukowski et al., 2001; Bergeron, 2002;
Bukowski, 2002; Meacham, 2001), including the
further development of a Performance System Model
to capture the totality of Building Regulatory Systems
(Meacham et al., 2002). As discussed below, a discon-
nect was observed between standards, performance
criteria and verification methods referenced by regu-
lations and the qualitative performance or functional
objectives found within the regulations, resulting in
the need for an overarching and integrated framework
to describe the totality of the performance system.
Inter-jurisdictional Regulatory Collaboration
Committee (IRCC)
In 1996, at the 1st International Conference on
Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design
Methods (SFPE, 1996), a group of building regulatory
developers recognized that although groups such as the
CIB and the Society of Fire Protection Engineering
(SFPE) were discussing performance-based building
regulations at an international level, the confer-
ence participants were predominantly engineers and
scientists – not regulatory developers and policy-
makers. In addition, the CIB was not clear whether it
was going to establish a new TG to continue the
work of TG11, which was near the end of its three-
year life span. However, given the lessons learned
within CIB TG11, and the growing number of
countries moving towards performance, it was
evident that a dedicated forum was needed to meet
the needs of the building regulatory community. As a
result, these regulatory developers decided to form
their own organization – consisting of policy-level par-
ticipants – to discuss performance building regulatory
systems: the IRCC.
The IRCC is an unaffiliated committee of ten of the
lead building regulatory agencies and organizations
93
Meacham et al.
of eight countries (available at: http://www.ircc.
gov.au):
. The Australian Building Codes Board
. The Building Industry Authority, New Zealand
. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, UK
. The International Code Council, US
. The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Trans-
port, Japan
. The Ministry of Public Works, Spain
. The National Fire Protection Association, US
. The National Institute for Land and Infrastructure
Management, Japan
. The National Office of Building Technology and
Administration, Norway
. The National Research Council, Canada
The IRCC was formed as a means to facilitate inter-
national discussion on performance-based building
regulatory policy issues (IRCC, 1998). Its purpose is
to work internationally, producing documents on the
development, implementation and support of construc-
tion-related, performance-based regulatory systems,
with a focus on identifying public policies, regulatory
infrastructure, education and technology issues for
implementing and managing these systems. A principal
aim of the IRCC is to foster a common understanding
of the international regulatory environment, while also
promoting the global exchange of information and a
more open environment of inter-jurisdictional com-
merce in building design and construction.
In 1998, the IRCC published the seminal document,
Guidelines for the Introduction of Performance-
Based Building Regulations: a document that has
been used by several countries since, including
Spain and the US, to help in the development of
performance-based building regulation (available at
http://www.ircc.gov.au). Since 1998, the IRCC has
been meeting twice annually to discuss and develop
performance-based building regulatory concepts.
Some of the significant outcomes of the IRCC work,
since 1998, have been the advancement of the Nordic
Committee on Building Regulations (NKB) hierarchy
(see below) to better address risk issues and to
illustrate the interdependencies that exist within a
performance regulatory system: work that estab-
lished the basis for the Performance System Model
referenced above.
94
Until recently, many performance-based building regu-
lations have followed the five-level hierarchy first
suggested by the NKB in 1976 (NKB, 1976, 1978). In
recent years, however, it has become apparent that
more detail is required to describe the level(s) of per-
formance (or risk) a category of buildings is intended
to achieve, and to describe better the criteria or
measures against which successful performance will
be evaluated (e.g. Meacham, 1999; Traw, 1999). As
a result, an eight-tier performance-based hierarchy
has been suggested by members of the IRCC (2000).
The NKB and IRCC hierarchies are shown in Figure 1.
The fundamental difference between the IRCC per-
formance hierarchy and the NKB hierarchy is the
inclusion of tiers for performance or risk group, per-
formance or risk level, and performance or risk criteria
(measures) in the IRCC model. The reason for adding
tiers to the hierarchy is to illustrate how factors such
as levels of tolerable building performance or risk
and importance to the community (stakeholders) are
reflected in goals, functional requirements and operat-
ive (performance) requirements. The IRCC hierarchy
also better illustrates how test methods and standards,
evaluation methods, design guides and other verifica-
tion methods can be used to demonstrate compliance.
Note that the eight levels primarily reflect specific attri-
butes and components, and that these attributes and
components do not have to reside structurally in
eight distinct tiers.
As one may gather from considering the implications of
the hierarchy, and as detailed elsewhere (e.g.
Meacham, 1999, 2004b, d), several design criteria
may be needed to demonstrate that a performance
requirement has been met. This creates a challenging
situation, as the interrelations between requirements,
criteria, and verification and design tools and
methods can be quite complex (Figure 2).
In Figure 2, each tier corresponds directly to the
IRCC hierarchy (Figure 1). Figure 2 complements
the IRCC hierarchy by illustrating that in addition
to having qualitative statements of performance
(Tiers 1 –3), one needs to know who is being pro-
tected and to what level (Tiers 4 and 5) in order to
select performance criteria (Tier 6), that one needs
to know the form of the performance criteria in
order to select appropriate design tools and
methods, and that the form of the performance cri-
teria is dependent on test methods and standards.
These interactions are extremely important in both
performance-based design and in the regulatory
system, as one cannot go directly from Tier 3 to
7/8, or the reverse, without clear linkages between
the levels of performance desired, the criteria to be
used to verify performance, and the standards,
methods, models and guides used to measure, esti-
mate or calculate performance. Any component of

Figure 1 NKB hierarchy (NKB, 1976) (left) and the eight-tier IRCC performance-based building regulatory system hierarchy
(IRCC, 2000) (right)
the hierarchy developed without consideration of the
other components risks being incompatible. In
addition, it will be difficult to support linkages
between components that are developed in isolation.
Consider the example illustrated in Figure 2, specifi-
cally the Operative Requirement (Tier 3) that means
of egress shall be designed with adequate capacity
and protection to provide occupants adequate time to
reach a place of safety without being unreasonably
exposed to untenable conditions. Two of the first
things one needs to know are for what the building is
being used and who are the occupants (Tier 4). Is the
building a hospital, an apartment or an office? Are
the occupants healthy, middle-aged persons or might
they be very young, very old or somehow disabled?
Without these data (or some assumptions about
these data), one cannot estimate movement and pre-
movement time or thresholds for tenable conditions
(see the discussion on occupant characteristics below
or, for example, Meacham 2000, 2003, 2004d, f,
Meacham et al., 2004).
Because different building uses (hospitals, apartments,
offices) have different occupant populations, the pro-
tection scheme and measures employed in each build-
ing may be different. This in turn may result in
different levels of performance (Tier 5) for each build-
ing (for more discussion on performance levels, see
Meacham, 2001, 2004d). Thus, with different occu-
pant characteristics (Tier 4) and building performance
requirements (Tier 5), one will likely have different sets
of performance criteria (Tier 6) for tenability,
Performance-based building regulation
structural response to fire, etc., which will require
different test methods, design standards, assessment
and design tools, etc. (Tiers 7 and 8).
From this simple example, it is easy to see that if one
does not consider all the linkages and interrelationships
between goals, objectives, criteria, and verification
tools and methods, one could easily pick the wrong
assessment method for a specific criterion, or the
wrong criterion for the occupant population or build-
ing performance requirement. Although much progress
has been made with the IRCC hierarchy and the lin-
kages outlined above, much more research and deve-
lopment is needed to understand and characterize
better the linkages and how important they are to the
overall performance regulatory system (not all linkages
are equally important – a sensitivity analysis of the
system would help identify where more efforts are
needed).
Future of performance-based building
regulation: societal expectations,
pressures and threats
The world, and what one knows or think one knows
about it, is constantly changing. Global climate
change, sustainability and terrorism are factors not
on the ‘radar screen’ just 20 years ago that are now
driving global political and financial agendas – all
during a time when people in developed countries
are likely to be less at risk in their daily life than at
95
Meacham et al.

Figure 2 Interaction of goals, objectives and criteria in the IRCC performance-based building regulatory system hierarchy
(Meacham,1999, 2004b, d)

any time in the past (Wilson, 1979). As people live
longer, expand their worldviews and think more
about future generations, new issues arise that must
be addressed – not just in daily life, but in building
regulation as well.
To begin addressing these issues, a Global Policy
Summit on the Role of Performance-Based Building
Regulation in Addressing Societal Expectations, Inter-
national Policy and Local Needs (the Summit) was
held in Washington, DC, US, in November 2003

96

(Meacham, 2004h).1 The Summit attracted nearly 100
leading thinkers, policy-makers, and practitioners from
11 countries to address issues and offer their insights on
the role and challenges of performance-based regulat-
ory systems. Although the Summit did not profess to
answer all the questions, it aimed to raise issues and
begin the development of a roadmap for addressing
the issues in a coordinated, global manner.
Emerging societal expectations and pressures
The environment, sustainability, noise pollution, dura-
bility, security and affordability are emerging as issues
that society is pressuring the building regulatory com-
munity to address. At present, many of these issues
are not addressed in building regulations, either
implicitly or explicitly, and it is unclear if it is appropri-
ate to address them in building regulations, and if so
how to address them, and what the implications could
be (positive and/or negative). This becomes increasingly
clear when one considers the potential for global appli-
cation of performance-based regulations and the result-
ing impacts on resources, societies and cultures.
Much of the world’s population currently lives in rela-
tive poverty, with little access to the money, resources,
technology and infrastructure that most modern
codes assume are readily available. Consequently,
when applying these concepts to such countries, it is
important to respond appropriately to the actual cir-
cumstances, needs, limits and societal desires rather
than to ideals established in wealthy, highly developed
countries (Meacham, 2004g).
In his Summit presentation, David Eisenberg (Director
of the Development Center for Appropriate Techno-
logy, Tucson, AZ, US) warned that along with an
increasing population, levels of consumption are
rising in developed and developing countries, and that
with the incredible rate at which building materials
are generated and used, concepts such as life cycle sus-
tainability (raw material to ultimate end state),
resource allocation and risk transfer (from developed
to developing country) must be addressed (Meacham,
2004h). By enhancing the local capacity of communities
and people to meet their own needs, vulnerable supply
lines are shortened for goods and services, more
efficient and resilient systems of supply are created,
more robust, durable local economies are supported,
as are healthier cultural, political and social structures.
In addition, Eisenberg points out that it is arrogant to
assume that what works for developed countries must
also work for developing countries. One of the keys,
he suggests, is the concept of ‘appropriate technology’,
which is the lowest or simplest level of technology that
can do the job well. High-technology is not always the
best answer: sometimes low-technology, intermediate-
technology or some combination will be best based on
Performance-based building regulation
specific uses and needs. This is certainly an area where
further research and development is needed.
In many respects, the concept of ‘appropriate technol-
ogy’, and its application in performance-based building
regulation is already in place in South Africa (Water-
meyer and Milford, 2003). In the current prescriptive
building regulatory environment, building regulations
do not address traditional construction and informal
settlements, which account for just over one-third of
the total building stock in South Africa. To address this
concern, a performance-based building regulatory
approach has been adopted, where performance descrip-
tions for sustainable housing, which reflect societal goals
for sustainable development, have been developed.
The performance-based building regulation in South
Africa, with multiple levels of performance, allows for
societal objectives for building performance to be accom-
modated locally by establishing different levels of per-
formance in different market sectors. Although the
concept of different levels of performance has been
discussed in other venues (e.g. Hamburger et al., 1995;
Hiraishi and Midorikawa, 1998; Meacham, 1998,
2001; Traw, 1999), the South African application is a
clear indication that the concept can be used to address
a wide range of socio-economic conditions that exist
within or between countries. The IRCC hierarchy pro-
vides the flexibility to accommodate all such applications
of multiple levels of performance.
Climate change and environmental impact are import-
ant societal issues that are also important to building
performance. For example, consider two possible cli-
matic changes that do not have to be extreme to
result in problems for buildings. If the climate
becomes wetter in a region, say over 25 years, the
building stock could experience moisture and mould
problems if the level of moisture was not anticipated
at the time of building construction. Likewise, if the
climate becomes drier and there are water shortages,
there may be corresponding shortages in fire protection
water. At present, performance-based building regulat-
ory systems and performance-based design approaches
do not explicitly consider such issues.
Changing demographics
In addition to grappling with emerging hazards and
threats, many countries are facing changing demo-
graphics. This is forcing building regulators to chal-
lenge implicit assumptions about the expected
characteristics of people who use buildings, and
requires research to be undertaken on ways in which
to address changing demographics, from those with
disabilities to an ageing population. Challenges
include for what population a building should be
designed, what happens when the population changes
and the building does not, and how can civil rights
97
Meacham et al.
legislation aimed at allowing equal access be compati-
ble with building regulation that provides a minimum
level of safety.
In general, the world’s population is living longer. In
addition to being a strain on environmental and finan-
cial resources, this creates challenges for the built
environment. In Japan, an increasingly ageing popu-
lation has resulted in growing concerns of accessibility
and usability of structures by the elderly (Kose, 2003).
This growth is shown in Figure 3.
One reason for concern in Japan is that, until recently,
in-family care has been implicitly integrated into the
system of social welfare services in Japan, with the
social assumption being that the (eldest) son’s family
would take care of the ageing parents, preferably as
an extended family. Unfortunately, the social context
that supported this way of life is changing, in part
due to changes in social attitude (interpersonal
relationships), as well as due to a decreasing number
of children (Kose, 2003).
This is a growing concern because design requirements
in dwellings, specifically for an ageing population, have
never been properly addressed. The situation is also
similar for other occupancies, where even though
barrier-free design has long been tried, with the assist-
ance of design guidelines, it has only been on a volun-
tary or negotiation basis because virtually nothing is
required with respect to ageing populations in the
Building Standard Law of Japan.
Concerns are much the same in other countries, such as
in the US, the UK and Australia, where civil rights
Figure 3 Trend of population ageing in selected countries between 1950 and 2050 (Kose, 2003)
98
disability legislation provides for equal use and
accessibility by persons with disabilities, yet where
the building regulations do not necessarily address
each and every concern. Discussion is underway in
these countries to find a way to relate more closely
the civil rights legislation to building regulation,
perhaps by following the approach in New Zealand,
where the Building Act requires all new buildings to
be accessible and others to be upgraded when altera-
tion or change of use occurs.2 In Australia, other demo-
graphic challenges are also being considered, such as
how an increasingly overweight population will likely
translate into a great percentage of persons with
impaired mobility (Fielding, 2003). In addition, ques-
tions are being raised such as whether all provisions
for persons with disabilities are appropriate for the
aged. In the case of tactile ground surface indicators,
what works for the sight impaired may lead to trips
and falls for the aged or otherwise mobility impaired.
As a means to consider more explicitly occupant demo-
graphics in performance-based building regulation,
risk characterization has been used to outline key
occupant risk factors for consideration in building
regulation (Meacham, 2000, 2001, 2003). In brief,
the concept is to identify those factors that may cause
various occupant populations to be at risk in a build-
ing, based on occupant characteristics, building use
and potential hazard events. Some of the key risk
factors identified include the following:
. number of persons normally occupying, visiting,
employed in or otherwise using the building, struc-
ture or portion of the building or structure

. time the building is normally occupied by people
. whether people normally sleep in the building
. whether the building occupants and other users are
expected to be familiar with the building layout
and means of egress
. whether a significant percentage of the building
occupants are, or are expected to be, members of
vulnerable population groups
. whether the building occupants and other users
have familial or dependent relationships
Consideration of the above factors, in concert with the
types of hazard events considered for a building and
the importance of the building to a community (e.g.
provides a service, such as a hospital; is a cultural
resource; presents a risk, such as a high-hazard indus-
trial occupancy), can aid in the establishment of per-
formance or risk levels for buildings (e.g. Meacham,
2000, 2001, 2003).
Although the above concepts have been adopted into a
performance-based building code (ICC, 2001, 2003),
more research and development is needed in this
area. In addition to further developing the above con-
cepts, other issues, such as the life cycle of the building
use, cultural and social issues, and local political and
economic factors should be explored. For example,
many buildings undergo a change of use over their
life span (sometimes several times). How closely associ-
ated to the original use of the building should the
performance requirements be? In Hong Kong, China,
the basic design of many high-rise buildings is use inde-
pendent. This approach serves to provide a level of
constancy in building performance, yet may be impos-
ing higher costs and protection levels to account for
uncertainty.
One might also want to explore what happens if the
political or economic situation of a regulated area
(city, state/province, country) changes significantly. If
the performance design assumes a certain fire depart-
ment response – which is no longer possible due to
municipal funding cutbacks – where does that leave
the expected performance of the building during a
fire? Who is responsible for ensuring that the building
performs if there are no longer fire inspections? Is the
insurance industry willing to accept this transfer of
risk? What might the occupants have to say about this?
Emerging hazards/threats
As the world changes, people face hazards and threats
not historically considered, or not explicitly con-
sidered, in building regulation. This includes a broad
spectrum of threats from radon, to off-gassing of
Performance-based building regulation
building materials and contents, to extreme natural
hazard events potentially associated with global
warming, to the terrorist threat. Challenges in addres-
sing these emerging threats within building regulation
include identifying the hazards, the likelihood of the
hazards occurring, the potential consequences, public
expectations with respect to protection, available miti-
gation technology, cost and deciding who will pay.
A risk-informed approach to performance-based build-
ing regulation is helpful for addressing these issues.
Such an approach allows for clear identification of
the hazard events, their likelihood of occurrence and
potential consequences, allows for the establishment
of performance levels based on tolerable levels of
risk, provides the bases for benefit –cost analysis and
related decisions required for selecting appropriate
mitigation, and is currently being used or considered
for various hazards (Meacham, 2000; ICC, 2001,
2003; Little et al., 2001; ATC 58-2, 2003; Bachman
et al., 2003; Deierlein and Hamilton, 2003; NRC,
2003; Whittaker et al., 2003).
Although the specifics of these approaches vary, the
overarching concepts are the same: different levels of
building performance may be desired based on the
use or importance of the building, either to society or
to an individual business or property owner, and
given different types and magnitudes of hazard
events, one can identify appropriate performance
levels as appropriate to risk tolerance, cost limitations
and related decision factors. As noted above, it seems
reasonable to be able to extend these concepts to
other factors, such as cultural and societal diversity,
sustainability, and related societal expectations and
pressures; however, this has not yet been done.
Setting goals to deliver expectations
Whether in a performance-based building regulatory
system or that of another area, such as environmental
regulation, a challenge exists in setting goals to
deliver on expectations. In the traditional prescriptive
system, where the code advanced by taking into
account past failures and losses, the rationale for
the change or modification was usually straightforward
and transparent. In a performance-based system,
especially one in which emerging threats, hazards, expec-
tations and pressures are trying to be addressed, one
cannot rely on the past as a guide for the future.
Instead, there is a need for tools to help regulatory
developers understand the emerging pressures and
translate them into building regulatory language.
In general, the field of decision analysis provides many
useful tools for helping regulators understand these
myriad issues, the factors that shape views on those
issues and how to incorporate these factors into regulat-
ory language. In particular, Meacham (2004c) discusses
99
Meacham et al.
how Decision Theory, Social Choice (or Welfare)
Theory, and Cost –Benefit Theory provide viable
options for regulatory developers and others involved
in building risk and performance decisions (for more
on these decision-making approaches, see Keeney and
Raiffa, 1976; Hammond, 1978, 1996; Saaty, 1980;
Merkhofer, 1986; Kleindorfer et al., 1993).
More specifically, Weaver (2003) suggests that three
decision-support tools may be particularly useful for
goal setting in a performance-based building regulat-
ory environment: judgement analysis (e.g. Hammond,
1996), which can be used to design a safety indicator
based on expert judgement; the Taylor–Russell
diagram (e.g. Green and Swets, 1966; Hammond,
1996), which can be used to decide an appropriate
threshold for that safety indicator; and the system
dynamics model (e.g. Forrester, 1961; Swets et al.,
1991; Weaver and Richardson, 2002), a computer
simulation tool that can be used to investigate a regu-
latory structure to allow for changes to the indicator
threshold over time and across contexts.
Judgement analysis can be used to gain insight into how
diverse experts rate buildings on safety, as well as for
developing models of the judgement policies of clusters
of experts (Weaver, 2003). From these outcomes, a
policy-maker could consciously select a compromise
among such judgement policies to create an acceptable
indicator of safety. Once there is some indicator
selected for assessing building safety, some type of
safety threshold is helpful for identifying ‘safe’ and
‘unsafe’ buildings. In assessing data and selecting
thresholds, the Taylor–Russell diagram (Figure 4) can
be helpful as it can be used to envision simultaneously
the connection between the choice of threshold, the
effectiveness of an indicator and the resulting conse-
quences. If successful to this point, the community at
large ideally will accept the selected threshold.
Consider building fire safety performance. To con-
struct a Taylor–Russell diagram as shown in
Figure 4 Russell Taylor diagram (Weaver, 2003)
100
Figure 4, one first needs an indicator with a known
success rate at predicting building fire safety (which
can be developed by analysing both past data or
expert judgement). An example might be ‘working
sprinkler system present’.
Next, one selects a safety threshold (cut-off point) such
that buildings above the threshold would be considered
‘safe’ (with sprinklers) and those below it would be
considered ‘unsafe’ (without sprinklers). Note that
unless the indicator is perfect (which is highly unli-
kely), any threshold for a safe/unsafe decision will
result in some buildings rated as safe when they are
not (false-positives) or some buildings being rated as
unsafe when they are safe (false-negatives).
One then assesses building safety performance based
on the safety indicator, plotting individual buildings
as points, with their predictive indicator score along
the horizontal axis (safe/unsafe) and their actual per-
formance score along the vertical axis (safe/unsafe).
Finally, one establishes a value-based threshold for
the predictive indicator that results in consequences
(false-negatives and -positives) one is willing to accept.
By splitting the diagram into quadrants, one can see the
number of true-positives (‘safe’ on the indicator and
safe in reality), true-negatives (‘unsafe’ on the indicator
and unsafe in reality), false-positives (‘safe’ on the indi-
cator but unsafe in reality) and false-negatives (‘unsafe’
on the indicator but safe in reality) resulting from the
threshold selection. Based on such a diagram, policy-
makers can discuss the numbers of false-positives
and/or -negatives they are willing to accept and,
given the quality of the indicator, they can modify
the threshold (the quality of the indicator is shown
by the spread of the points around a line angled at
458). For example, a lower threshold for an acceptable
level of building safety may reduce costs, but there is a
risk of constructing unsafe buildings (false-positives).
Conversely, as one raises the threshold for the accepta-
ble level of safety, unnecessary costs may be imposed
on industry and consumers as unnecessary safety
measures may be implemented (false-negatives).
When undertaking such an analysis, note that the
number of false-positives and -negatives depends not
only on the threshold chosen, but also on the degree
of association between the indicator and the true
safety rating. The indicator will show as much uncer-
tainty as is currently present in the predictive capabili-
ties of the safety assessment mechanism employed.
Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that the trade-off
of false-positives and -negatives will be shared by
others, or that a particular threshold will always be
appropriate. In order to have a responsive policy
context that is protected from too wide an overreaction
to recent events, it may be necessary to include legal

structures that regulate the threshold in an appropri-
ately responsive manner. Rather than test out these
structures in practice, it makes sense to simulate these
phenomena in a computer simulation, which is where
systems dynamics comes in. Weaver (2003) notes that
the outcome of such a modelling effort would be a
simulation that would allow policy-makers to test the
consequences of various threshold choices and a
safety index that improves its predictive quality over
time. In addition, it would allow them to set up and
test a regulatory environment that would include con-
straints against too sensitive a response to recent
events, while guaranteeing the flexibility to update
the model. In other words, this tool can be used to
help avoid extreme swings in public policy, which
inevitably tends to divide stakeholders further apart
over time.
Tools, mechanisms and criteria
Assuming one can identify societal expectations and
develop performance goals or objectives, one must
then be able to develop the tools, mechanisms and
criteria necessary to define, measure, calculate, esti-
mate and predict the desired performance. This can
be extremely difficult, as not only does performance
mean different things to different people, but also the
properties or attributes that one uses to define perform-
ance, and the latitude given to those responsible for
performance-based analysis and design, will have a sig-
nificant impact on the success or failure of the perform-
ance regulatory system.
There has been much written about tools, mechanisms
and criteria, so these will not be discussed further here,
including whether the right tools and methods are
being used or even if the underlying science exists
(e.g. Brannigan, 1999), how uncertainty is treated in
data, tools and methods (e.g. Notarianni and Fisch-
beck, 1998, 2001), and where one needs to go in the
future (e.g. Meacham, 2003). However, it is worth
restating that the interrelations between requirements,
criteria, verification, and design tools and methods can
be complex, as discussed above and as reflected in
Figure 2. Those developing performance-based build-
ing regulations must not ignore these interrelations.
Future of performance-based building
regulation: regulatory regimes, market
devices and international trade
As part of the transition to performance-based building
regulation, a number of issues have surfaced in many
countries, some of which have led regulatory develo-
pers to question the purpose of building regulation
and its role in meeting expectations. This is a
complex issue tied in large part to legislation that
Performance-based building regulation
calls for and/or empowers building regulation, yet is
also tied, rightly or wrongly, to public expectations
regarding the performance, function and affordability
of buildings.
Performance regulatory regime
In considering performance-based building regulatory
development to meet emerging needs, one must
remember that the regulation itself cannot be taken
out of the context of the regulatory system to which
it belongs (May, 2003b). The appeal of performance-
based regulation is as much about the introduction of
a new regulatory regime as it is about regulating for
results, and the functionality of the regulatory regime
depends on the specifics of the regulatory design and
how it is implemented. In a performance environment,
one of the key aspects of the regulatory regime will be
how it addresses the fundamental political problem of
deciding how tight controls should be in promoting
consistency and accountability, versus how much dis-
cretion should be granted in promoting flexibility and
innovation.
A good example of the importance of how perform-
ance concepts can succeed or fail within a regulatory
regime is the ‘leaky building syndrome’ experienced
in New Zealand (May, 2003a; Ministry of Economic
Development, 2003). In brief, problems with
certification of alternative building methods and with
third-party certification of buildings contributed to
widespread problems with the weather-tightness of
buildings. Although the full extent of the problem is
unknown, various reports (e.g. Hunn Report, 2002a,
b), and newspaper coverage suggest up to 18 000
homes and numerous multi-unit buildings have been
affected. Given that similar problems with weather-
tightness have arisen under prescriptive regimes in
Vancouver, Canada, parts of the US and elsewhere
(e.g. Meeks, 1996), the problem is not one with the
performance-based building regulation per se, but with
the regulatory regime. In particular, the performance-
based regulatory regime in New Zealand allowed for
flexibility without adequate accountability, placing
too much faith on self-correction of the marketplace
as a means of control, and placing too little emphasis
on accountability for results.
Accountability is a fundamental and challenging issue
for performance-based regulations, and as such is con-
sidered by some to be the Achilles’ heel of this form of
regulation (May, 2003b). Prescriptive-based regulat-
ory regimes aim to achieve accountability by mandat-
ing adherence to the rules and are biased towards
monitoring adherence to rules that are easy to
observe. By contrast, performance-based regimes often
seek accountability for results. However, this can be
a problem, as observing or predicting results can be
costly or even unfeasible. In the New Zealand case,
101
Meacham et al.
the problem was less a question of feasibility and more
one of not wanting to invest the necessary resources
given the twin desires to reduce the scope of govern-
ment and to lessen enforcement burdens for regulated
entities, which contributed to an over reliance on
poorly trained third-party certifiers and to a lax
review of alternative building products, systems, and
methods of design and construction (May, 2003b).
In addition to accountability as a factor in selecting a
regulatory regime, Coglianese et al. (2003) argue that
cost is an appropriate metric, as assuming that per-
formance and prescriptive regulations result in the
same net social benefits, a comparison of the social
and governmental costs will yield important infor-
mation for decision-making. Although this may seem
unrelated to the accountability issue raised by May
(2003b), cost is very much a factor in regulatory
infrastructure decisions, such as third-party certifiers,
internal reviews and related support measures, which
add cost to the performance regulatory regime. From
their analysis, Coglianese et al. argue that perform-
ance may be more costly for government, especially
on the enforcement side. To help reduce the cost,
the better focused are the performance documents,
and the easier it is to identify and assess performance
compliance, the more cost effective and useful they
will be.
Market driven versus regulation
In many regulated areas, such as environmental protec-
tion, there is a move to employ more market-driven
measures rather than focusing on a centralized
command-and-control approach. There are pros and
cons to this approach, along with many challenges,
such as determining how societal benefits are achieved
in a market-driven environment (e.g. in emissions
trading, it can be argued there is little societal benefit
as there is no net reduction in toxic effluents emitted
into the environment, but rather a simple shifting of
location of emissions from one region to another). In
building regulation, it can be argued that if building
owners understand the level of performance being pro-
vided and the level of requirement being met, and
deems it insufficient, they will demand a higher per-
formance level. On the contrary, if the market is left
to assure the safe operation and maintenance of build-
ings, history has shown that unsafe conditions can
result (e.g. The Station nightclub fire in West Warwick,
RI, US, and numerous other large loss fires resulting
from a lack of resources for inspectional services to
assure compliance with regulation) (Tubbs et al., 2004).
In many respects, consideration of market driven
versus regulation needs to be considered alongside
regulatory regimes, as the entire system, or regime,
needs to work, regardless of the form selected. If
proper controls are in place, both market-driven and
102
regulation approaches can be effective in a perform-
ance environment. In a performance regulatory
regime, there may be market-driven desires for higher
levels of performance that will result in a lower likeli-
hood of loss as a result of fire, earthquake or other
hazard. This is a fundamental premise of much of the
work in the area of performance-based seismic design
(e.g. ATC 58-2, 2003; Bachman et al., 2003; Deierlein
and Hamilton, 2003). A fundamental component of
these approaches is that if the performance objectives
are clearly stated and understood (in a regulation or
elsewhere), the market can select appropriate mitiga-
tion measures to limit losses to acceptable levels. This
is already being seen in some countries, where, for
example, property protection is not mandated by the
regulations, but is addressed via a market contract
between the building owner and their insured.
An emerging market-driven strategy, which is comp-
lementary to the performance-based regulatory move-
ment, is ‘management-based regulation’ (Coglianese
and Lazer, 2002). Unlike traditional command-
and-control regulatory strategies, management-based
regulation requires firms to conduct their own analysis,
decision-making and internal regulating with respect to
how they will achieve socially optimal levels of public
safety. Such an approach may be the best possible
strategy for addressing problems where the desired
performance is difficult to measure, such as regulating
for protection against extreme events.
International trade issues
A key motivator in the formation of the IRCC was the
realization that the now global economy would result
in changes to domestic and international building
regulatory policy, ultimately impacting international
trade, national and international standards, and even
national building regulations. Although some import-
ant international trade and standardization issues
have been explored by IRCC members (Deroukakis,
2000), and began to be discussed at the IRCC Global
Policy Summit (Berndt, 2003; Keindel, 2003; Salazar,
2003; Thomas; 2003), much more is needed.
For example, there are many questions about how the
global economy and international trade issues will
influence, or be influenced by, national building
regulatory policy. How does a country respond
to World Trade Organization (WTO) language
that points to prescriptive language in standards –
heretofore a national issue – as a barrier to trade,
and that performance measure must be used? Should
the standardization community drive the levels of
acceptable risk and building performance over national
requirements? What units of performance measure are
regionally, nationally or internationally accepted?
What mechanisms exist to demonstrate that national
performance expectations and requirements are being

met? In many respects, these issues have not yet been
played out on a national basis for many countries,
which means addressing these issues on an inter-
national basis will be quite a challenge. Targeted
economic policy research in this area would be most
welcome by the building regulatory community.
Summary and conclusions
Building regulations are responding to changing expec-
tations, including the need for greater clarity and flexi-
bility, and performance-based regulations are playing
an important role in responding to these needs. There
are performance-based building regulations in more
than a dozen countries worldwide, and groups such
as the CIB and the IRCC are working towards a
greater understanding of performance regulatory
issues and the advancement of the performance-based
concept. However, there remain significant gaps in
the knowledge, understanding and application of per-
formance building regulatory and design concepts,
and research and development is needed in several
areas to increase their effectiveness, from the overall
regulatory framework to addressing specific emerging
issues.
. More research and development is needed to
understand and characterize better the linkages
and interrelationship between goals, objectives,
criteria, test methods, and design tools and
methods, and how important each component is
to the overall performance regulatory system (not
all linkages are equally important – a sensitivity
analysis of the system would help identify where
specific efforts are needed).
. Local and regional climate change and the resulting
environmental effects could have significant
impacts on building performance, including pre-
senting unanticipated moisture problems, impact-
ing the availability of fire suppression water and
presenting challenging indoor environment issues.
. Relationship between performance regulation and
the life cycle of a building should be explored in
greater depth. Whereas many buildings undergo a
change of use over their life span (sometimes
several times), one should question how tightly
coupled the performance requirements should be
to the original intended use of the building (and
who monitors and pays for later changes).
. Accountability is a fundamental and challenging
issue for performance-based regulations. More
understanding of the responsibility and account-
ability of all of the actors in a performance regulat-
ory system is needed to help ensure that regulatory
safeguards are established.
Performance-based building regulation
. The relationship between political or economic
changes in a regulated area (city, state/province,
country) to assumptions pertinent to building
performance should be explored, so as to avoid
coupling building performance to uncontrollable
external effects.
. Market-driven instruments need to be considered
in the context of the performance regulatory
regime, with new instruments developed to
address regulatory issues associated with perform-
ance approaches.
. Methods need to be developed to help identify
emerging hazards and threats, the likelihood of
the hazards or threats occurring, the potential
consequences, public expectations with respect to
protection, available mitigation technology, cost,
and deciding who will pay.
. Assuming one can identify societal expectations
and develop performance goals or objectives, one
must then be able to develop the tools, mechanisms
and criteria necessary to define, measure, calculate,
estimate and predict the desired performance.
The IRCC, through the Global Policy Summit, has
provided an important elaboration of many of these
topics, and has set the stage for future work in
performance-based building regulation. As societal
expectations change with emerging pressures and
threats, and with associated research and development,
the performance-based regulatory system approach
can continue to evolve to meet the building regulatory
needs of society.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank their colleagues in the IRCC for
efforts to advance international collaboration, learn-
ing, research and advancement in the area of
performance-based building regulations. They also
acknowledge the efforts of IRCC members and collab-
orators in convening and supporting the Global Policy
Summit on the Role of Performance-based Building
Regulation in Addressing Societal Expectations, Inter-
national Policy and Local Needs and for the develop-
ment of the Summit Report, in particular Arup, the
Australian Building Codes Board, the International
Code Council, the National Research Council
(Canada), the National Research Council/National
Academies (US), and the National Science Foundation
(US) under NSF Grant No. 0322760. Finally, the
authors thank the reviewers for helpful comments,
which increased the value of the paper. The National
Research Council of Canada (NRCC) authorizes
Building Research & Information to publish this
paper for which the contribution co-authored by
Robert Bowen is the copyright of the NRCC.
103
Meacham et al.
References
ATC 58–2 (2003) Preliminary Evaluation of Methods for Defin-
ing Performance. Report ATC 58-2, Applied Technology
Council, Redwood City, CA (available at: http://www.
atcouncil.org/pdfs/ATC582.pdf).
Bachman, R.E., Hamburger, R.O., Comartin, C.D., Rojahn, C.
and Whittaker, A.S. (2003) ATC-58 framework for perform-
ance-based design of nonstructural components, in Proceed-
ings of a Seminar on Seismic Design, Performance, and
Retrofit of Nonstructural Components in Critical Facilities,
Applied Technology Council, Multidisciplinary Center for
Earthquake Engineering Research, Redwood City, CA,
(available at: http://www.atcouncil.org/pdfs/Bachman.pdf).
Beller, D., Foliente, G. and Meacham, B. (2001) Qualitative
versus quantitative aspects of performance-based regu-
lations, in Proceedings of the CIB 2001 World Congress:
Performance in Practice, CIB, Rotterdam (CD-ROM).
Beller, D., Foliente, G. and Meacham, B. (2002) Qualitative
versus quantitative aspects of performance-based regu-
lations, in Proceedings of the 4th International Conference
on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design,
SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 22–34.
Bergeron, D. (2002) Role of acceptable solutions in evaluating
innovative designs, in Proceedings of the 4th International
Conference on Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety
Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda, MD.
Bergeron, D., Bowen, B., Tubbs, B. and Rackliffe, T. (2001)
Acceptable solutions, in Proceedings of the CIB
2001 World Congress: Performance in Practice, CIB,
Rotterdam.
Berndt, J. (2003) Facilitating trade through technical assessment,
paper presented at the Global Policy Summit on the Role of
Performance-Based Building Regulations in Addressing
Societal Expectations, International, Policy, and Local
Needs, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
(available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/
global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Brannigan, V. (1999) Fire scenarios or scenario fires? Can fire
safety science provide the critical inputs for performance
based fire safety analyses?, in Proceedings of the 6th IAFSS
International Symposium, IAFSS, Poitiers, France.
Bukowski, R., Hirano, Y. and Rackliffe, T. (2001) Standards lin-
kages to a performance-based regulatory framework, in Pro-
ceedings of the CIB 2001 World Congress: Performance in
Practice, CIB, Rotterdam.
Bukowski, R.W. (2002) The role of standards in a performance-
based building regulatory system, in Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes
and Fire Safety Design, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 85–94.
CIB TG11 (1994) Task Group Documentation, International
Council for Building Research and Documentation, CIB,
Rotterdam.
CIB TG11 (1997) Final Report of CIB Task Group 11:
Performance-Based Building Codes, CIB, Rotterdam, and
IRC/NRC, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Coglianese, C. and Lazer, D. (2002) Management-Based Regu-
lation: Prescribing Private Management to Achieve Public
Goals. Working Paper 02–11, JFK School of Government,
Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
Coglianese, C., Nash, J. and Olmstead, T. (2003) Performance-
based social regulation, Invited Paper at the Global Policy
Summit on the Role of Performance-Based Building Regu-
lations in Addressing Societal Expectations, International,
Policy, and Local Needs, National Academy of Sciences,
Washington, DC (available at: http://www7.nationalacade-
mies.org/bice/global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Deierlein, G.G. and Hamilton, S. (2003) Framework for struc-
tural fire engineering and design methods, Invited White
Paper at the NIST-SFPE Workshop on National R&D
Roadmap for Fire Safety Design and Retrofit of Structures,
2 –3 October 2003, Baltimore, MD.
104
Deroukakis, E. (2000) Performance-Based Codes Impact on
International Trade, IRCC (available at: http://www.ircc.
gov.au/pdf/Impact_on_International_Trade.pdf).
Fielding, G. (2003) Changing demographics, disability access, and
the use of performance-based design, Invited Paper at the
Global Policy Summit on the Role of Performance-Based
Building Regulations in Addressing Societal Expectations,
International, Policy, and Local Needs, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC (available at: http://www7.national
academies.org/bice/global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Forrester, J.W. (1961) Industrial Dynamics. Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Gibson, E.J. (1982) Working with the Performance Approach in
Building. Report 64, CIB, Rotterdam.
Green, D.M. and Swets, J.A. (1966) Signal Detection Theory and
Psychophysics. Wiley, New York.
Hamburger, R.O., Court, A.B. and Soulages, J.R. (1995) Vision
2000: a framework for performance-based engineering of
buildings, in Proceedings of the 64th Annual Convention,
Structural Engineers Association of California, Whittier,
CA, pp. 127–146.
Hammond, K.R. (ed.) (1978) Judgment and Decision in Public
Policy Formation, AAAS/Westview, Bolder, CO.
Hammond, K.R. (1996) Human Judgment and Social Policy:
Irreducible Uncertainty, Inevitable Error, and Unavoidable
Justice, Oxford University Press, New York.
Hiraishi, H. and Midorikawa, M. (1998) Development of
performance-based building code in Japan, framework of
seismic and structural provisions, in Proceedings of the
30th Joint Meeting of the US–Japan Cooperative Program
in Natural Resources Panel on Wind and Seismic Effects,
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD (available at: http://fire.nist.gov/
bfrlpubs/build98/art096.html).
Hunn Report (2002a) Report of the Overview Group on the
Weathertightness of Buildings to the Building Industry Auth-
ority. Submission of 31 August 2002, Building Industry
Authority, Wellington (available at: http://www.bia.govt.
nz/publicat/pdf/bia-report-17-9-02.pdf).
Hunn Report (2002b) Report of the Overview Group on the
Weathertightness of Buildings to the Building Industry Auth-
ority, Addendum: Section 3. Submission of 31 October
2002, Building Industry Authority, Wellington (http://
www.bia.govt.nz/publicat/pdf/sec).
ICC (2001) ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
ICC (2003) ICC Performance Code for Buildings and Facilities,
International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
IRCC (1998) Guidelines for the Introduction of Performance-Based
Building Regulations (available at: http://www.ircc.gov.au/).
IRCC (2000) Internal working papers of IRCC (see the minutes
available at: http://www.ircc.gov.au).
Keeney, R.L. and Raiffa, H. (1976) Decisions with Multiple
Objectives: Preferences and Value Tradeoffs, Wiley,
New York.
Keindel, P. (2003) Towards a new model of performance: the role
of standards and market-driven solutions – a Canadian per-
spective, Invited Paper at the Global Policy Summit on the
Role of Performance-Based Building Regulations in Addres-
sing Societal Expectations, International, Policy, and Local
Needs, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
(available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/
global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Kleindorfer, P.R., Kunreuther, H.C. and Schoemaker, P.J.H.
(1993) Decision Sciences: An Integrative Perspective,
Cambridge University Press, New York.
Kose, S. (2003) The impact of rapid ageing in Japan on accessibil-
ity issues, Invited Paper at the Global Policy Summit on the
Role of Performance-Based Building Regulations in Addres-
sing Societal Expectations, International, Policy, and Local
Needs, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
(available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/
global_policy_summit_2003.html).

Little, R., Meacham, B.J. and Smilowitz, R. (2001) A performance-
based multi-objective decision framework for security and
natural hazard mitigation, in Proceedings of the National
Symposium on Comprehensive Force Protection, Society of
Military Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
May, P.J. (2003a) Performance-based regulation and regulatory
regimes: the saga of leaky buildings. Law and Policy,
25(4), 381 –401.
May, P.J. (2003b) Performance-based regulation and regulatory
regimes, Invited Paper at the Global Policy Summit on the
Role of Performance-Based Building Regulations in Addres-
sing Societal Expectations, International, Policy, and Local
Needs, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC
(available at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/
global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Meacham, B.J. (1998) The Evolution of Performance-Based
Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods. GCR 98-763,
NIST, Gaithersburg, MD.
Meacham, B. (1999) Fire safety analysis and design in a perform-
ance based regulatory system, in Proceedings of the Global
Building Model in the Next Millennium Convention, Build-
ing Control Commission, Melbourne, pp. 187 –201.
Meacham, B.J. (2000) A process for identifying, characterizing,
and incorporating risk concepts into performance-based
building and fire regulation development. PhD dissertation,
Clark University, Worcester, MA.
Meacham, B.J. (2001) Identifying and Regulating for Multiple
Levels of Performance, in Proceedings of the CIB 2001
World Congress: Performance in Practice, CIB, Rotterdam
(CD-ROM).
Meacham, B.J. (2003) Risk and Data Needs for Performance-
based Codes. Invited Paper, included in the Workshop
Papers of the Report, Making the Nation Safe from Fire –
A Path Forward in Research, National Academies Press,
Washington, DC (Workshop papers on CD).
Meacham, B.J. (ed.) (2004a) Performance-Based Building Design
Concepts, International Code Council, Falls Church, VA.
Meacham, B.J. (2004b) Performance-based building regulations
around the world: history and overview, in Meacham, B.J.
(ed.): Performance-Based Building Design Concepts, Inter-
national Code Council, Falls Church, VA, pp. 1 –1–1 –52.
Meacham, B.J. (2004c) Challenges in decision-making for fire
risk problems. Journal of Fire Protection Engineering,
14(2), 149 –168.
Meacham, B.J. (2004d) Performance-based building regulatory
systems: structure, hierarchy and linkages. Journal of the Struc-
tural Engineering Society of New Zealand, 17(1), 37–51.
Meacham, B.J. (2004e) Risk characterization and performance
concepts, in Meacham, B.J. (ed.): Performance-Based Build-
ing Design Concepts, International Code Council, Falls
Church, VA, pp. 4– 1–4-34.
Meacham, B.J. (2004f) Understanding risk: quantification, per-
ception and characterization. Journal of Fire Protection
Engineering, 14(3), 199– 228.
Meacham, B.J. (2004g) Global policy summit on performance-
based building regulatory systems. Building Safety Journal,
2(3), 29–33.
Meacham, B.J. (ed.) (2004h) Global Policy Summit on the Role of
Performance-Based Building Regulation in Addressing Societal
Expectations, International Policy and Local Needs – Summit
Report, IRCC (available at: http://www7.nationalacademie-
s.org/bice/global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Meacham, B.J., Notarianni, K., Lord, J., Proulx, G. and Fahy, R.
(2004) Investigation of uncertainty in egress models, in
Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Human
Behaviour in Fire, Interscience Communications, London,
pp. 342–353.
Meacham, B.J., Tubbs, B., Bergeron, D. and Szigeti, F. (2002)
Performance system model – a framework for describing
the totality of building performance, in Proceedings of the
4th International Conference on Performance-Based Codes
and Fire Safety Design, SFPE, Bethesda, MD, pp. 63–77.
Performance-based building regulation
Meeks, C. B. (1996) Performance based codes: economic effi-
ciency and distributional equity, in Proceedings of Interflam
1996, Interscience Communications, London.
Merkhofer, M.W. (1986) Comparative analysis of formal
decision-making approaches, in Covello, V.T., Menkes, J.
and Mumpower, J. (eds): Risk Evaluation and Management,
Plenum, New York, pp. 183–220.
Ministry of Economic Development (2003) Social and Economic
Impact Study of Changes to Building Regulation (available
at: http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/bus_pol/building/review/
decisions/pwc/).
NKB (1976) Programme of Work for the NKB. Report 28,
Nordic Committee on Building Regulations, Stockholm.
NKB (1978) Structure for Building Regulations. Report 34,
Nordic Committee on Building Regulations, Stockholm.
Notarianni, K. and Fischbeck, P.S. (2001) Performance with uncer-
tainty: a process for implementing performance-based fire
regulations, in Fischbeck, P. and Farrow, R.S. (eds): Improv-
ing Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety,
Resources for the Future, Washington, DC, pp. 233–256.
Notarianni, K.A. and Fischbeck, P. (1998) A methodology for
the quantitative treatment of variability and uncertainty in
performance-based engineering analysis and/or decision
analysis with a case study in residential fire sprinklers,
in Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on
PB Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods, SFPE, Bethesda,
MD (available at: http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/fire98/
art010.html).
NRC (2003) ISC Security Criteria for New Federal Office
Buildings and Major Renovation Projects: A Review and
Commentary, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytical Hierarchy Process, McGraw-
Hill, New York.
Salazar, J. (2003) The role of European technical specifications
and their impact on national regulations for building and
construction: the road towards harmonization, Invited
Paper at the Global Policy Summit on the Role of Perform-
ance-Based Building Regulations in Addressing Societal
Expectations, International, Policy, and Local Needs,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (available
at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/global_policy_
summit_2003.html).
SFPE (1996) Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on
Performance-Based Codes and Fire Safety Design Methods,
24–26 September 1996, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Swets, J.A., Getty, D.J., Pickett, R.M., D’Orsi, C.J., Seltzer, S.E.
and McNeil, B. J. (1991) Enhancing and evaluating diagnos-
tic accuracy. Medical Decision Making, 11(1), 9 –18.
Thomas, J. (2003) Changing dynamics of the global standards
community and the potential impact on trade, Invited
Paper at the Global Policy Summit on the Role of Perform-
ance-Based Building Regulations in Addressing Societal
Expectations, International, Policy, and Local Needs,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (available
at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/global_policy_
summit_2003.html).
Traw, J. (1999) Multiple levels of performance in the regulatory
system, in Proceedings of the International Convention on
Global Building Model in the Next Millennium, Victoria
Building Control Commission, Melbourne.
Tubbs, J.S., Meacham, B.J., Moore, A., McLaughlin, B.,
Johann, M. and Woodward, A. (2004) Fire and life
safety assessment of U.S. egress and sprinkler require-
ments within nightclubs – a preliminary update, in
Proceedings of Interflam 04, Interscience Communi-
cations, London, pp. 1139–1154.
Watermeyer, R.B. and Milford R.V. (2003) Sustainable housing
objectives: the South African approach, Invited Paper at
the Global Policy Summit on the Role of Performance-
Based Building Regulations in Addressing Societal
Expectations, International, Policy, and Local Needs,
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC (available
105
Meacham et al.
at: http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bice/global_policy_
summit_2003.html).
Weaver, E.A. (2003) Three useful tools for goal setting: judg-
ment analysis, the Taylor–Russell diagram, and the
System Dynamics Model, Invited Paper at the Global
Policy Summit on the Role of Performance-Based Building
Regulations in Addressing Societal Expectations, Inter-
national, Policy, and Local Needs, National Academy of
Sciences, Washington, DC (available at: http://www7.natio-
nalacademies.org/bice/global_policy_summit_2003.html).
Weaver, E.A. and Richardson, G.P. (2002) Threshold setting
and the cycling of a decision threshold, paper presented
at System Dynamics ’02, Palermo, Italy (available at:
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2003Spring/
pendulum.pdf).
Whittaker, A., Hamburger, R., Comartin, C., Mahoney, M.,
Bachman, R. and Rojahn, C. (2003) Performance-
Based Engineering of Buildings and Infrastructure
for Extreme Loadings, Applied Technology Council,
Redwood City, CA (available at: http://www.atcouncil.org/
pdfs/Whittaker2.pdf).
106
Wilson, R. (1979) Analysing the daily risks of life. Technology
Review, 81(4), 41–46.
Endnotes
1
Convening of the Summit and development of the Summit
Report were supported by Arup, the Australian Building Codes
Board, the International Code Council, the National Research
Council (Canada) and the National Science Foundation (US)
under NSF Grant No. 0322760. Any opinions, findings, and con-
clusions or recommendations expressed related to this Summit
and related materials are those of the author(s) and do not necess-
arily reflect the views of these institutions.
2
In most building regulations, a ‘change of use’ for a building, say
from a warehouse (storage) to loft apartments (residential),
requires the building meet all current regulatory requirements
for the new use. Such a change in use could result in significant
modifications and upgrades to the building, e.g. in emergency
egress, fire protection, interior environment and other building
systems.