Climate Emergency

Delivering on the
Climate Emergency
Towards a Net Zero Carbon
Built Environment
deo pr a s a d
ay su k u ru
ph i l i p ol df i e l d
l a n di ng
m a l ay dav e
c a rol i n e nol l e r
b ao j i e h e
Delivering on the Climate Emergency
“This book provides much needed insights into the scale and nature of the chal-
lenges we all face in reducing the impact of built environments on our shared cli-
mate. It plots safer pathways forward for reducing operational and embodied energy
in construction and refurbishment, starting with reducing the need for heating and
cooling energy in the first place. All we need now is for politicians and society to
understand the urgency of understanding and following its advice. It should be
mandatory reading for all designers, planners and developers in Australia.”
—Sue Roaf, Emeritus Professor of Architectural Engineering at
Heriot Watt University, Scotland, UK
“The Net Zero Carbon Guide is a remarkably complete and lucid survey of
issues related to the Australian commercial and residential building stock, espe-
cially aspects related to embodied energy and emissions. Students or specialists
who need to augment their knowledge (or be reminded about things they have
forgotten) will find the book especially valuable.”
—Nils Larsson, FRAIC, Executive Director, iiSBE, Canada
“It has become very clear from most scientific works, especially the latest IPCC
reports that the urgency of climate change is upon us. Urgent action, especially
with milestones like 2030, will help meet the challenges. The built environment
(buildings and cities are a major contributor) and this book shows how, using
science-based approaches, we can deliver on net zero carbon new buildings by
2030 and for existing ones we can do this by 2040. We need a whole of life and
whole building approach. I think this book can be used in many countries and
even localised with local data and benchmarks. Great publication.”
—Professor Wu.Jiang, Chairman, Asia Architecture Association,
Fellow, Academie d’Architecture, Dean, UNEP-TONGJI Institute
of Environment for Sustainable Development., China
“Delivering on the Climate Emergency’ provides a breadth of information,

methods and targets, relating to achieving a zero carbon built environment,
covering both operational energy and embodied carbon, covering new build and
retrofit. Although specifically targeted for an Australian audience, it has global
relevance and provides an excellent source of reference for education, practice
and all those interested in our future built environment.”
—Professor Phil Jones OBE, Cardiff School of Architecture, Wales, UK
Deo Prasad • Aysu Kuru
Philip Oldfield • Lan Ding
Malay Dave • Caroline Noller
Baojie He
Delivering on the
Climate Emergency
Towards a Net Zero Carbon Built
Environment
Deo Prasad Aysu Kuru
School of Built Environment School of Architecture, Design and
UNSW Sydney Planning
Kensington, NSW, Australia University of Sydney
Camperdown, NSW, Australia
Philip Oldfield
School of Built Environment Lan Ding
UNSW Sydney School of Built Environment
Kensington, NSW, Australia UNSW Sydney
Kensington, NSW, Australia
Malay Dave
Steensen Varming Caroline Noller
Sydney, NSW, Australia The Footprint Company
Randwick, NSW, Australia
Baojie He
School of Architecture and Urban Planning
Chongqing University
Chongqing, China
ISBN 978-981-19-6370-4 ISBN 978-981-19-6371-1 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1
© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Singapore
Pte Ltd. 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse
of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and
transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar
or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Singapore
Pte Ltd.
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #21-01/04 Gateway East, Singapore 189721,
Singapore
Foreword
There is considerable global attention focussed on the pathways to net

zero carbon. COP#26 in Glasgow has highlighted what has been known
for years—there is an urgent need to reduce carbon emissions globally
and that the built environment is a key opportunity sector. The IPCC
Report (2021) labelled ‘Code Red’ has further highlighted notions of
climate emergency. This book is well timed to bring together science-
based evidence on how the built environment can navigate urgently
towards a net zero carbon future. It builds on past work on strategies for
sustainable low carbon design, and the increasing cost-effectiveness of
both on-site and off-site renewable energy, and places it in the context of
‘climate emergency’ thinking to engage built environment professionals
in easy-to-use guidance towards net zero. It takes a whole-of-life approach
and includes both operational and embodied carbon in its guidance. It
draws on Australian climate data but has global applicability. It acknowl-
edges a myriad of roadmaps and pathways flagged by global and local
agencies from the UN Global Alliance for Building and Construction to
the World Green Building Council, the Royal Institute of British
Architects, Architecture 2030 and the Australian Institute of Architects’
Climate Action and Sustainability Taskforce (CAST) Group.
The book is a partner document to the accompanying shorter version—
the guide, ‘Race to Net Zero Carbon’, specifically for Australian
v
vi Foreword
audiences. This book goes into some depth on design strategies, systems
and exemplars from around the world, policy snapshots from various
countries, and developing benchmarks and targets for delivering on net
zero carbon buildings globally.
A key element of this book is an ‘architect–client’ conversation on
trade-offs on when and how net zero carbon will be delivered for that
building. The architect may use all the tools at their disposal to bring out
‘best performance’ at design time for both new and refurbished build-
ings. They could also explore on-site or off-site renewable energy and may
find photovoltaics a more economic option. In doing so, the matter of
on-site generation and outsourcing renewables should be discussed and a
timeline set for achieving net zero for all buildings. This is a very positive
and inclusive approach.
This book is among the legacy projects of the Cooperative Research
Centre for Low Carbon Living (CRCLCL), which I had the pleasure of
chairing. The CRCLCL (www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au) was a collab-
oration of a number of Australian industries, governments and research-
ers. It showed that when collaborations at such a scale happen, Australian
researchers and industry can deliver on practical outcomes and impacts.
The CRCLCL developed a significant evidence base for low carbon living
policies, knowledge for communities, tools and technologies for the mar-
ket, and world-class capacity building. These all helped capture economic
and social opportunities for Australia.
This project built on past projects of the CRCLCL and was led by
researchers from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney.
They partnered with the Australian Institute of Architects’ CAST Group
and other built environment stakeholders to produce this book and guide
for all built environment professions.
Chair of the Board of the CRC for Low Carbon Living (2012–2019)
Hon Robert Hill AC

Preface
Climate change has been recognised for some time now, but over time
with more research and evidence it has become clearer that its implica-
tions for planet Earth and all that inhabit it are much more serious than
originally thought. In fact, the latest IPCC Report (2021) labelled ‘Code
Red’ points out quite clearly how urgent it is to deal with both mitigation
at scale and adaptation. This is evident nowhere more than in the built
environment—the buildings and cities we live in. As the urban popula-
tion increases rapidly, the matter of what and how we build is drawing a
lot of attention because it is not only a significant contributor to climate
change, but also shows the best opportunities for leading the mitigation
and adaptation charge.
The Glasgow COP#26 has shown significant political ability to act on
the ‘climate emergency’, though not enough for many and not quick
enough for most. The 2050–2060 goals show considerable commitment,
but to keep temperature increases to within 1.5°C will require meaning-
ful 2030 targets. The built environment has been proactive in getting its
sector motivated with knowledge, technologies and techniques to deliver
change towards net zero carbon 2030; this has largely been ‘bottom-up’,
driven by professional champions, leading industry and forward-thinking
governments.
vii
viii Preface
There has been a history of built environment sector awareness of sus-

tainable design and planning, ecological impacts of design decisions, and
the comfort and well-being benefits of sustainably designed buildings.
There are now many tools and reasonable benchmarks and pathway doc-
uments to drive net zero carbon buildings and precincts in most coun-
tries. Most leading institutions are now embedding these in their teaching
and learning programs, and there are materials, technologies and tech-
niques available to guide net zero carbon outcomes.
The challenge is to move past one-off cases to mainstreaming the use
of all the levers available to drive change. These include advanced,
researched knowledge, practical design approaches to best performance
exemplars that illustrate success, and technology familiarity with con-
struction codes that push best performance rather than simply eliminat-
ing worst practice. These changes should be led by governments who
ensure all public buildings are net zero carbon, provide subsidies and
rebates to mainstream key technologies, and use all the available evidence
to develop policies that focus on short-term delivery of net zero carbon
buildings. These changes would provide opportunities to create markets
for new products and technologies that benefit the economy. This book
aims to provide in-depth knowledge on how the sector can rapidly move
towards net zero carbon buildings in the short term. It uses science-based
evidence and analytics that goes beyond the aspirational. It is our aim
that this book remains a deep dive technical support to each country
preparing their own guide based on detailed local data from which local
benchmarks, targets and pathways can be determined. A prototype of
this guide is available to draw from at www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/.
The authors can assist in developing national guides based on local cli-
mates, practices and economics. In this book we strongly recommend
alignment and consistency in approach to knowledge and engagement,
including methodologies in measurement, to bring about market trans-
formation towards net zero carbon buildings.
Historically most professionals have either focussed on operational
energy/carbon or embodied energy/carbon, and in most cases these two
groups have not adequately collaborated to view the whole building over
its entire lifecycle. In most cases, the focus has been on the operational
life of the building, which does not consider a significant component of
Preface ix
lifecycle carbon. This book takes a whole-of-life and all-of-carbon

approach to its guidance. Several chapters take a deep dive on this
approach. These are then synthesised to illustrate how best to drive down
carbon through a holistic approach, with a particular focus in this sense
on the Australian situation. A chapter on international case studies illus-
trates how certain exemplar buildings have used the knowledge, tools and
design to deliver their best buildings and, in most cases, how they per-
form post occupancy. The other key lever driving down carbon in build-
ings is a top-down approach where governments can—through
future-thinking policies, regulations and codes—mandate or incentiv-
ise change.
Across the book there are three key tiers of action:
1. Good design and best performance through energy efficiency and

careful material selection on-site. This uses readily available knowl-
edge on efficient design principles (climate appropriate) to get the
overall form, façade and planning right—essential for laying the foun-
dations for net zero carbon outcomes. Low embodied carbon materi-
als and systems are used in all stages. High-quality design tools are
used to determine energy loads, and the best performance technolo-
gies and systems to meet those loads are also determined. Well-
designed procurement methods are important in this process. Design
integration is also critical to ensure best outcomes.
2. By using the above approach, well-designed outcomes are ensured.
However, there may still be a shortfall in both embodied and opera-
tional carbon. As part of an integrated design, it is imperative to
explore on-site generation of energy. This is mostly in the form of
building-integrated photovoltaics. Battery storage may be needed in
some building types in some climates and should be considered.
3. Having integrated the above two tiers of action, there may still remain
a gap between best performance and the net zero whole-of-life carbon
goal. At this point it is important to consider off-site renewables
(ensuring they are from well-approved and accredited sources).
These actions work best with an all-electric building as other fuel

forms, including gas, will not be good options due both to their carbon
x Preface
and cost factors. Overall, what is most important is the CLIENT–

DESIGNER conversation. The design and the designer should lead the
conversation on what best performance looks like against what may be
local benchmarks and best practice for that building type in that climate.
The conversation needs to explore the client’s appetite for investing in
each of the three stages above—design and technology integration, on-
site generation and off-site offsets. With these in mind, a clear direction
is needed in terms of the timeline for net zero operational carbon by 2030
and net zero embodied carbon for 2040 for each and every project—new
or refurbishment. This approach does not force additional costs on build-
ings, but the conversation helps to find the best investment approach to
net zero carbon given the increasing client appetite for a cleaner and more
sustainable future for all.
UNSW Sydney, Australia Deo Prasad

University of Sydney, Australia Aysu Kuru
UNSW Sydney, Australia Philip Oldfield
UNSW Sydney, Australia Lan Ding
Steensen Varming, Australia Malay Dave
The Footprint Company, Australia Caroline Noller
Chongqing University, China Baojie He
Acknowledgements
The research underpinning this book is funded by the CRC for Low
Carbon Living Ltd supported by the Cooperative Research Centres pro-
gram, an Australian Government initiative. This book was part of the
CRC for Low Carbon Living (CRCLCL) post-CRC phase funding man-
aged by the Low Carbon Institute. The UNSW School of Built
Environment provided further financial assistance to support this book.
We would like to thank our industry advisors Lester Partridge of LCI,
Ian Dixon of GHD and Caroline Pidcock of Pidcock Architects for their
input. The contents of this book and its performance benchmarks and
targets drew upon the data and feedback provided by the National
Australian Built Environment Rating System, the Footprint Company,
Australian Architects Declare Climate & Biodiversity Emergency, Green
Building Council of Australia, Australian Sustainable Built Environment
Council and CSIRO. This book benefited from the review, support and
guidance of the Australian Institute of Architects’ Climate Action and
Sustainability Taskforce (CAST) Group. It has drawn from numerous
publications produced at a time which led to COP#26 in Glasgow—a
milestone event for all nations treating the climate emergency seriously
and the supporting sciences which highlight the threats to our planet and
its life forms. We would also like to thank Dr William Craft, Dr John
Blair and Ms Sara Jinga specifically, for their technical support and input.
xi
Contents
1 The
Climate Emergency and the Built Environment 1
1.1 The Climate Emergency 1
1.2 Carbon Emissions and the Built Environment 5
1.2.1 Climate Action in the Built Environment:
Towards Net Zero Emissions 8
1.2.2 Green Building Council of Australia 13
1.2.3 Architecture 2030 Challenge 13
1.2.4 RIBA 2030 Challenge 13
1.2.5 LETI 14
1.2.6 C40 Challenge 15
1.2.7 GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings
and Construction in Africa 15
1.2.8 IEA Roadmap for Energy-Efficient Buildings
and Construction in ASEAN 16
1.3 Challenges and Gaps in Achieving Net Zero Carbon in
the Built Environment 17
1.3.1 Increasing Global Construction 17
1.3.2 Urban Heating and the Growing Demand for
Cooling 18
1.3.3 Lack of Building Codes, Policy and Regulation 19
xiii
xiv Contents
1.3.4 Upgrading and Retrofitting Existing Buildings 20

1.3.5 Education and Training 21
1.4 Summary and Upcoming Chapters 22
References 23
2 Operational
Carbon in the Built Environment:
Measurements, Benchmarks and Pathways to Net Zero 29
2.1 Measuring Operational Energy and Carbon 29
2.1.1 Benchmarking and Normalisation Factors 29
2.1.2 Building Performance Ratings 33
2.1.3 Building Performance Assessment Tools 34
2.1.4 Post-occupancy Evaluation 37
2.2 Factors Impacting Operational Carbon Benchmarks 38
2.2.1 Overview of Factors 38
2.2.2 Overview of Factors: Australian Context 39
2.3 Comparison of Published Benchmarks and Targets 42
2.3.1 The Current State of Operational Energy and
Carbon in Australia 42
2.3.2 Global Targets 55
2.3.3 Australian Targets 57
2.4 Strategies to Reduce Operational Carbon 60
2.4.1 Energy-Efficient Design: New Build and Retrofit 60
2.4.2 Energy Generation 69
2.5 Towards Net Zero Operational Carbon 72
References 74
3 Embodied
Carbon in the Built Environment:
Measurements, Benchmarks and Pathways to Net Zero 79
3.1 The History of Measuring Embodied Carbon 79
3.2 Factors Impacting Embodied Carbon Benchmarks 81
3.2.1 Functional Unit Area Definition: Estimated
Impact on Embodied Carbon Measurement of
12–30% 84
3.2.2 Building Classification: Estimated Impact on
Embodied Carbon Measurement of up to 100% 84
Contents xv
3.2.3 Methodology for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Coefficients: Estimated Impact on Embodied
Carbon Measurement of between 2 and 99% 85
3.2.4 Building-Scale Lifecycle Carbon Methodology:
Estimated Impact on Embodied Carbon
Measurement of up to 77% 86
3.2.5 Completeness or Scope of Items Included:
Estimated Impact on Embodied Carbon of up
to 50% 88
3.2.6 Geographic Context: Estimated Impact on
Embodied Carbon of 30% or More 88
3.2.7 Case Study Example: Clay Brick 89
3.3 Existing Embodied Carbon Benchmarks 92
3.4 Strategies to Reduce Embodied Carbon 103
3.4.1 Design Strategy 1: Building Nothing/Adaptive
Reuse103
3.4.2 Design Strategy 2: Optimise and Dematerialise 107
3.4.3 Design Strategy 3: Smart Design 108
3.4.4 Design Strategy 4: Low Carbon Supply Chain 108
3.5 Net Zero Embodied Carbon 108
References113
4 Delivering
a Net Zero Carbon-Built Environment:
Synthesis, Measurability, Targets and Reporting119
4.1 Methods Used to Determine Climate Emergency Targets 119
4.1.1 Methods Used to Determine Operational
Carbon Targets 119
4.1.2 Methods Used to Determine Embodied
Carbon Targets 124
4.2 Climate Emergency Targets 127
4.2.1 Climate Emergency Targets for Operational
Carbon Emissions 127
4.2.2 Climate Emergency Targets for Embodied
Carbon Emissions 129
xvi Contents
4.3 Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Pathway 133

4.3.1 Comparing and Combining Operational and
Embodied Data 135
4.3.2 Implementation and Reporting of the Pathway 137
References140
5 Case
studies: Exemplars to Learn From143
5.1 Exemplar Buildings 144
5.1.1 New Buildings—Residential 144
5.1.2 New Buildings—Non-residential 163
5.2 Exemplar Precincts 176
5.2.1 New Precincts 176
5.3 Exemplars in Embodied Carbon Reduction 187
5.3.1 New Buildings 187
5.3.2 New Precincts 193
References198
6 Policy
Pathways to a Net Zero Carbon-Built Environment201
6.1 Australia’s Zero Carbon Policy 201
6.1.1 Australia’s National Targets, Policies and
Programs201
6.1.2 State and Territory Governments’ Objectives
and Action Plans 206
6.1.3 Local Government Initiatives 210
6.1.4 Mandatory and Voluntary Approaches to
Reducing Operational and Embodied Energy
Demand and Increasing the Use of Renewable
Energy212
6.1.5 Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus 218
6.2 International Policies, Standards and Initiatives 223
6.2.1 International Mandatory and Voluntary
Standards and Policies 223
6.2.2 Mandatory Standards for the Embodied
Carbon of Buildings 225
6.2.3 Leading Groups and Initiatives Worldwide 227
Contents xvii
6.3 Opportunities and Challenges of Existing Zero

Carbon Policies 229
6.4 The Evolution of Zero Carbon Policies 231
References232
7 Conclusions
and Recommendations: Envisioning a Net
Zero Carbon Future in the Built Environment235
7.1 Concluding Remarks 235
7.2 Recommendations for Future Directions 238
References240
I ndex241
List of Figures
Fig. 1.1 Climate-influenced disasters and extreme weather events,

2012–2021 (Source: data from NOAA 2020) 2
Fig. 1.2 Global greenhouse gas emissions and warming scenarios
(Ritchie and Roser 2022—Image CC-BY) 4
Fig. 1.3 Building and construction’s share of global energy-related
greenhouse gas emissions, 2020 (UNEP 2021; IEA 2021a).
‘Buildings construction industry’ is the portion (estimated)
of overall industry devoted to manufacturing building
construction materials such as steel, cement and glass.
Indirect emissions are emissions from power generation
for electricity and commercial heat. (Source: IEA 2021a.
All rights reserved. Adapted from ‘Tracking Clean Energy
Progress’)6
Fig. 1.4 Scope of carbon emissions across the different stages of a
building lifecycle (by authors) 8
Fig. 1.5 Strategies to achieve net zero whole life carbon buildings
(by authors) 10
Fig. 1.6 Percentage of zero carbon ready buildings needed in the total
building stock, 2020–2050 (Source: by authors, with data
from IEA 2021b) 11
Fig. 2.1 Green building rating tool categories. (Source: Redrawn
based on Illankoon et al. 2019; Note: Some countries or
regions are running several types of green building rating
xix
xx List of Figures
schemes. Various refers to various types of new and existing

buildings such as single-family residential, multi-residential
housing, residential complex, office, school, retail, hotel,
home and others) 34
Fig. 2.2 Evolution of POE levels and the steps to conduct
POE. (Source: Authors) 38
Fig. 2.3 Key variables determining operational carbon benchmarks.
(Source: Authors) 39
Fig. 2.4 Eight climate zones across Australia. (Source: ABCB 2019;
Image credit: Creative Commons Attribution-No
Derivatives—4.0 International Licence https://creativecom-
mons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ © Commonwealth of Australia
and the States and Territories of Australia 2019, published by
the Australian Building Codes Board) 41
Fig. 2.5 Percentage of total emissions (MtCO2e) by building type
and energy source in 2013. (Source: ASBEC 2016) 44
Fig. 2.6 Electricity demand of Australia and states in 1999–2020.
(Source: Author-drawn based on AER 2021) 44
Fig. 2.7 Annual renewable energy generation and percentage
variations. (Source: Author-drawn based on the Clean
Energy Council 2021) 45
Fig. 2.8 The average star level of commercial office buildings in
Australia. (Source: NABERS 2020b) 47
Fig. 2.9 Carbon emissions of commercial office buildings according
to base, tenancy and whole buildings (Conservative scenario:
4.5 stars; aspirational scenario: 5.5–6 stars). (Source: Author-
calculated based on the databases of NABERS and the CBD
program)48
Fig. 2.10 Operational carbon emission intensity of commercial office
base buildings across different states. (Source: Author-
calculated based on the databases of NABERS and the CBD
program)49
Fig. 2.11 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office tenancy
buildings across different states. (Source: Author-calculated
based on the databases of NABERS and the CBD program) 50
Fig. 2.12 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office whole
buildings across different states. (Source: Author-calculated
List of Figures xxi
Fig. 2.13 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office base

buildings in NSW according to climate zones. (Source:
Author-calculated based on the databases of NABERS and
the CBD program) 51
Fig. 2.14 The reduction in the carbon emission intensity of
commercial office buildings. (Source: Author-calculated
Fig. 2.15 Operational carbon emissions for retail buildings in
Australia. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases
of NABERS and the CBD program) 53
Fig. 2.16 Carbon emission intensity of retail buildings across different
states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of
NABERS and the CBD program) 54
Fig. 2.17 Carbon emission intensity of residential buildings across
different states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the
databases of NatHERS and the CBD program) 55
Fig. 2.18 An overview of strategies to reduce operational carbon.
Fig. 2.19 Energy-efficient strategies for demand reduction. (Source:
Authors)61
Fig. 2.20 Energy generation and carbon offset for increased supply.
Fig. 2.21 Commercial and residential buildings’ energy efficiency and
generation to achieve net zero operational carbon emissions
(Source: BZE, 2014) 73
Fig. 3.1 Comparison of embodied carbon per kg of brick (kgCO2-e/
kg) (by authors) 90
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of embodied carbon of 1 m2of brick wall
(kgCO2-e) A1–A3. (Note: Technically, The Footprint
Calculator/EPiC and IE Lab are A1–A5 due to the
underlying HA/EIO method completeness (by authors)) 90
Fig. 3.3 Comparison of embodied carbon of brickwork in a typical
house (kgCO2-e) (by authors) 92
Fig. 3.4 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for
Class 1 and 2 buildings (detached residential and apartments).
(Sources: The Footprint Company; Carre 2011; Carre and
Crossin 2015; GBCA and Thinkstep 2021; Schmidt et al.
2020; Robati et al. 2021; Röck and Sørensen 2022; Simonen
et al. 2017; Pasanen and Castro 2019; LETI 2020b) 98
xxii List of Figures
Fig. 3.5 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for

Class 5 and 6 buildings (office and retail). (Sources: The
Footprint Company; Pasanen and Castro 2019; GBCA and
Thinkstep 2021; Röck and Sørensen 2022; Simonen et al.
2017; LETI 2020b) 99
Fig. 3.6 Diagram outlining strategies for reducing embodied carbon
at different points in the design process, along with their
potential percentage reductions. The top line also suggests
different embodied carbon calculation methods for these
different stages (by authors) 104
Fig. 3.7 Comparison of whole lifecycle carbon emissions of ‘demolish
and new build’ versus ‘deep refurbishment’. In this scenario,
it is assumed the new build has a slightly higher energy
efficiency than the deep retrofit, hence the retrofit curve is
slightly steeper (by authors) 106
Fig. 3.8 International House, Sydney. A seven storey commercial
building constructed of engineered timber (Ben Guthrie,
The Guthrie Project) 111
Fig. 3.9 The net zero embodied carbon concept. It is vital that
emissions are reduced as much as possible through reuse,
optimisation, recycled materials and the supply chain before
any residual emissions are offset (by authors) 112
Fig. 4.1 The top-down and bottom-up methods used to determine
future carbon targets for buildings. (Source: Authors) 120
Fig. 4.2 The Paris Proof method adapted to Australian context.
Fig. 4.3 Steps of the top-down approach. (Source: Authors) 121
Fig. 4.4 Steps of the bottom-up approach. (Source: Authors) 124
Fig. 4.5 Method of generating EUI targets. (Source: Authors) 125
Fig. 4.6 Typical embodied carbon values in Australian buildings
(kgCO2e/m2 NLA). Scope of A1–A5. (Source: Authors) 130
Fig. 4.7 Proposed approach to interim embodied carbon targets.
Fig. 4.8 Method for benchmarking and comparing embodied carbon
figures. (Source: Authors) 132
Fig. 4.9 Net zero whole life carbon pathway. (Source: Authors) 133
Fig. 5.1 ZEB Pilot House. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Snøhetta / Paal-André Schwital) 145
List of Figures xxiii
Fig. 5.2 The subtle interiors of ZEB Pilot House presenting the use of
natural materials such as timber, bricks and wood. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Snøhetta / Paal-André
Schwital)146
Fig. 5.3 (a) The outdoor atrium, (b) indoor living areas and (c) the
landscape, all providing a comfortable feeling of cabin life in
one of the world’s most performance-wise advanced family
houses. (Image copyright agreements provided by Snøhetta /
Paal-André Schwital) 148
Fig. 5.4 Asquith PassivHaus. (Image copyright agreements provided
by Chris Nunn) 149
Fig. 5.5 Asquith PassivHaus under construction. (Image copyright
agreements provided by Chris Nunn) 151
Fig. 5.6. (a) Asquith PassivHaus; (b) its construction process which
incorporates Australian-made sustainable timber wall and
roof cladding CarbonLite, manufactured in Melbourne, and
(c) the mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery for
maximised efficiency and performance. (Image copyright
agreements provided by Chris Nunn) 153
Fig. 5.7 Nightingale 2.0, designed by Six Degrees Architects and
delivered in collaboration between HIP V. HYPE and Six
Degrees Architects in accordance with the Nightingale
Housing Values. Photographer Tess Kell. Nightingale 2.0.
(Image copyright agreements provided by Six Degrees
Architects and Simon O’Brien) 154
Fig. 5.8 Nightingale 2.0 Apartments’ common roof terrace for its
residents. (Image copyright agreements provided by Six
Degrees Architects and Simon O’Brien. Nightingale 2.0,
designed by Six Degrees Architects and delivered in collabo-
ration between HIP V. HYPE and Six Degrees Architects in
accordance with the Nightingale Housing Values.
Photographer Tess Kell) 155
Fig. 5.9 Nightingale 2.0’s energy performance (by Authors).
(Adopted from Moore and Doyon 2018) 157
Fig. 5.10 Nightingale 2.0’s (a) shared communal spaces, (b) apartment
interior and (c) initial design sketches. (Image copyright
agreements provided by Six Degrees Architects and Simon
O’Brien. Nightingale 2.0, designed by Six Degrees Architects
xxiv List of Figures
and delivered in collaboration between HIP V. HYPE and

Six Degrees Architects in accordance with the Nightingale
Housing Values. Photographer Tess Kell) 158
Fig. 5.11 Gillies Hall. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Jackson Clements Burrows Architects and Peter Clarke) 159
Fig. 5.12 Common spaces and the games room in Gillies Hall,
showcasing its minimalist design and friendly environment.
(Image copyright agreements provided by Jackson Clements
Burrows Architects and Peter Clarke) 160
Fig. 5.13 (a) The residential areas and (b) shared kitchen spaces in
Gillies Hall displaying the use of natural materials and
simplicity in its interior design. (Image copyright agreements
provided by Jackson Clements Burrows Architects and Peter
Clarke)162
Fig. 5.14 CIC Zero Carbon Park. (Image copyright agreements
provided by Ronald Lu & Partners) 163
Fig. 5.15 (a) PV array covering the entire roof area. (b) View of CIC
Zero Carbon Park overlooking the courtyard. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Ronald Lu & Partners) 165
Fig. 5.16 CIC Zero Carbon Park’s energy performance (by Authors) 167
Fig. 5.17 (a) Kingspan Lighthouse and (b) its rooftop.
(Image copyright agreements provided by Hufton+
Crow—Nick Hufton) 168
Fig. 5.18 Kingspan Lighthouse has a window-to-wall ratio of 18%, as
opposed to 25–30% in traditional houses, which has driven
the integration of living spaces on the first floor with
abundant daylight received through the skylights. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Hufton+Crow—Nick
Hufton)170
Fig. 5.19 (a) Low carbon timber cladding on the exterior brings a
natural aesthetic to the house. (b) The transparent chimney
on top of the staircase creates an elegant lightwell bringing
natural daylight into the lower levels of the building. (c) The
rooftop of the house is covered with a PV array. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Hufton+Crow—Nick
Hufton)172
Fig. 5.20 The Bullitt Center. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Brad Kahn) 173
List of Figures xxv
Fig. 5.21 The Bullitt Centre’s open plan office environment

incorporates a minimalistic interior design within the
high-performance net zero building. (Image copyright
agreements provided by Brad Kahn) 174
Fig. 5.22 The Bullitt Center’s energy performance (by Authors;
Source: ILFI 2022) 176
Fig. 5.23 (a) The urban context of the Bullitt Center, (b) overlooking
Seattle’s skyline. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Brad Kahn) 177
Fig. 5.24 WGV Energy Village. (Image copyright agreements
provided by Deo Prasad) 178
Fig. 5.25 (a) WGV settlement aerial view and (b) the data collection
process. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Deo Prasad) 180
Fig. 5.26 Narara Ecovillage under development in 2020. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Julian Bassett) 182
Fig. 5.27 Eighteen cluster units. (Image copyright agreements
provided by Julian Bassett) 183
Fig. 5.28 Named the ‘powerhouse with bedrooms’, this hempcrete
house achieves 8.8-star NatHERS rating and includes a
20 kWp PV array. (Image copyright agreements provided
by William Craft) 183
Fig. 5.29 Narara Ecovillage energy balance over 6 months including
summer (October 2021 to March 2022) (by Authors;
Source: Narara Ecovillage 2022) 187
Fig. 5.30 Atlassian Central. (Image copyright agreements provided
by Jake Mascarenhas) 188
Fig. 5.31 (a) Atlassian Central’s appearance from the street level.
(b) Terraced roof gardens to improve site ecology and heat
island effect. (c) ‘Neighbourhood gardens’ providing a
connection to nature and natural ventilation. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Jake Mascarenhas) 189
Fig. 5.32 Kambri at ANU. (Image copyright agreements provided
by BVN) 194
Fig. 5.33 (a) Fenner Hall with student accommodation:
Approximately 48% reduction in embodied carbon emis-
sions (equal to 15 years of operational carbon) compared to a
reference building. (b) Cultural Centre: a multi-purpose
xxvi List of Figures
teaching and events facility. (c) Student Hub with collabora-

tion and learning spaces. (Image copyright agreements
provided by BVN) 195
Fig. 6.1 Illustration of the Australian Government’s Plan to
achieve net zero emissions by 2050 (Australian Government
2021b)202
Fig. 6.2 Illustration of the three core areas of the Trajectory for Low
Energy Buildings (The Commonwealth of Australia,
Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources
2022)205
Fig. 6.3 Australian state and territory objectives (Adapted from
ClimateWorks Australia 2021) 206
Fig. 6.4 The NSW Government planned to ban dark roofs to reduce
urban heat island effects and energy consumption to achieve
the net zero target for buildings (by authors) 208
Fig. 6.5 Illustration of the four steps of the Sustainable Homes
Transition Roadmap (CRC for Low Carbon Living and
ASBEC 2019) 217
Fig. 6.6 The Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus (by authors) 220
Fig. 6.7 Illustration of building energy codes coverage worldwide
(Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction and United
Nations Environment Program 2021) (Source: International
Energy Agency 2021b. All rights reserved). This map is
without prejudice to the status of or the sovereignty over any
territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and
boundaries, and to the name of any territory, city or area.
Note: Recent updates are highlighted with a red border.
Building energy codes relating to specific cities only are not
shown225
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Remaining carbon budgets for estimated global warming

scenarios4
Table 1.2 Summary of selected operational and embodied carbon
reduction targets from 2020 to 2050 globally 12
Table 2.1 Inputs for the building energy/carbon simulation 36
Table 2.2 Fuel mix CO2 emission factors in Australia 40
Table 2.3 Building archetypes and classifications (ABCB, 2019) 43
Table 2.4 Global targets for operational carbon reduction 2020–2050,
as defined by different institutions and organisations 56
Table 2.5 Australian states’ targets for net zero emissions and the
electricity emission variations from 2020 to 2030 58
Table 2.6 Australian pathways for operational carbon reduction, as
defined by different institutions and organisations 59
Table 3.1 Embodied carbon comparison of 1 m2 of brick wall fair
faced (kgCO2-e) A1–A3 (excluding preliminaries) 89
Table 3.2 Whole building comparison (brick only) (kgCO2-e) A1–A3
(excluding preliminaries) 91
Table 3.3 Targets for embodied carbon reduction 2020–2050 93
Table 3.4 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks
for Class 1 and 2 buildings (detached residential and
apartments)94
Table 3.5 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for
Class 5 and 6 buildings (office and retail) 96
xxvii
xxviii List of Tables
Table 4.1 Australian climate emergency targets for operational carbon

performance for new buildings and major renovations 128
Table 4.2 Embodied carbon performance targets for new buildings
and major renovations 131
Table 4.3 2020 indirect (scope 2) emission factors for purchased
electricity136
Table 4.4 Implementation checklist 138
Table 4.5 Reporting template 139
Table 6.1 Optimal operational energy performance targets set by the
City of Sydney Council for implementation through their
LEP or DCP. 211
Table 6.2 Comparison between NatHERS, BASIX, NABERS and
Green Star. 213
List of Boxes
Box 1.1 Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Buildings 6

Box 1.2 Defining Operational and Embodied Carbon 7
Box 3.1 Concrete and Cement 109
Box 3.2 Steel 110
Box 3.3 Timber 110
xxix
1
The Climate Emergency and the Built
Environment
1.1 The Climate Emergency

It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and
land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and
biosphere have occurred. (IPCC 6th Assessment Report, 2021, p. 4)
The scientific case for climate change is robust and well established,
with human activities the primary cause. This has been driven largely
through the burning of fossil fuel (e.g. coal, oil, gas) and the subsequent
release of greenhouse gases (GHG) (UNEP 2020). Since the industrial
revolution, concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) have increased in
our atmosphere, with annual averages currently around 410 parts per
million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2)—the highest level in millions of
years. Increasing concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere trap heat,
and have raised the earth’s average temperature around 1.1°C as com-
pared to the pre-industrial era (IPCC 2021). This change has increased
the severity and frequency of extreme weather events such as heatwaves,
droughts, flooding, hurricanes and wildfires, subsequently having a cata-
strophic impact on people and communities (Fig. 1.1).
There are numerous studies that have reported how climate-induced
natural disasters have caused significant environmental, economic, social
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2022 1
D. Prasad et al., Delivering on the Climate Emergency,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_1
Fig. 1.1 Climate-influenced disasters and extreme weather events, 2012–2021 (Source: data from NOAA 2020)
1 The Climate Emergency and the Built Environment 3
and health consequences. A heatwave, for instance, can be defined as a

period of excessively hot weather which is exacerbated by global warming
and is amongst the deadliest climate-induced natural disasters. The num-
ber of people exposed to extreme heat has increased by about 125 million
from 2000 to 2016, and more than 166,000 people have lost their lives
due to heatwaves during the period from 1998 to 2017 (WHO 2020).
The 2003 heatwave in Europe alone led to the death of more than 70,000
people (Robine et al. 2008).
Economic losses caused by climate-related disasters are also significant.
In European Economic Area (EEA) Member States from 1980 to 2019,
climate-related monetary losses were about €446 billion, equal to around
3% of GDP (European Environment Agency 2021). In a single year in
Australia (2019–2020), catastrophic bushfires led to more than $103 bil-
lion (AUD) costs in property damage and economic losses (Read and
Denniss 2020). In Africa, climate change is a key driver of hunger and
food insecurity, with the poor over-represented in those affected by
extreme weather events (World Meteorological Organization 2020).
While the current impacts of our warming climate have been signifi-
cant, future ones will be worse still. Projections of global warming suggest
that global average temperature will keep increasing in the coming
decades. According to data from the Climate Action Tracker (November
2021), global warming could increase by 4.1 to 4.8°C by 2100, as com-
pared to pre-industrial levels, if no climate policies are implemented. Our
current policies could lead to an estimated temperature increase of 2.5 to
2.9°C by 2100, while current pledges and targets would lead to warming
of around 2.1°C. Some research suggests warming could be kept below
2°C if all current conditional and unconditional pledges are implemented
in full and on time (Meinshausen et al. 2022). However, as shown in
Fig. 1.2, emissions pathways to meet the more aspirational goal of a max-
imum of 1.5°C of warming require a steeper and more substantive set of
emissions reductions still.
But just how quick and how substantive should these reductions be?
According to the United Nations Environment Program, global GHG
emissions stood at 59.1 GTCO2e (including land-use change) in 2019,
and have been growing at an average of 1.3% per year since 2010 (UNEP
2020). If we are to avoid warming above 1.5°C, we need to reduce
4 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 1.2 Global greenhouse gas emissions and warming scenarios (Ritchie and
Roser 2022—Image CC-BY)
Table 1.1 Remaining carbon budgets for estimated global warming scenarios
Source: data from IPCC (2021)
emissions to 25 GTCO2e by 2030—that is greater than a 50% reduction

in less than a decade.
Another way to look at this is to consider the cumulative carbon bud-
get we cannot afford to exceed if we are to avoid different temperature
limits. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set out
the remaining carbon budgets in their sixth assessment report (see
Table 1.1). For instance, if we are to avoid global warming of 1.5°C (with
a 50% probability), we have a maximum remaining carbon budget of
500 GtCO2. This is equivalent to less than nine years of 2019 emissions.
What this emphasises is that emissions reductions need to be both radical

and rapid to avoid climate catastrophe—we cannot delay. The language
we use to acknowledge the pace of change needed, and the consequences
of delays, is important. In 2019, Oxford Dictionaries announced ‘climate
emergency’ as their word of the year, in response to the growing sense of
public awareness and scientific imperative around the need for change.
This was defined as “a situation in which urgent action is required to reduce
or halt climate change and avoid potentially irreversible environmental dam-
age resulting from it” (Oxford Languages 2019).
1.2 Carbon Emissions

and the Built Environment
What is the role of the built environment in the climate emergency? We
know the construction and operation of our buildings and infrastructure
has a significant impact on the natural world, contributing to pollution,
resource depletion, reductions in biodiversity and more. In terms of
greenhouse gases specifically, buildings and construction are responsible
for 37% of global energy-related emissions (UNEP 2021). This includes
both direct (scope 1) and indirect (scope 2) emissions (collectively 27%
from building operations), as well as 10% related to construction of
buildings and manufacturing of construction materials (scope 3)
(Fig. 1.3). An overview of the definition of each of these scopes is out-
lined in Box 1.1.
The greenhouse gas emissions from the built environment occur across
different stages of a building’s lifecycle. For instance, there are greenhouse
gas emissions from creating a steel beam that might form a building’s
floor. Iron ore is extracted from the earth, through mining. This is trans-
ported to a steel mill, where a blast furnace would mix the iron ore with
carbon to create pig iron, which undergoes yet further processing to cre-
ate steel. The steel would be fabricated into a beam, transported to site
and erected to form a floor. All these processes can generate greenhouse
gas emissions, and thus contribute to the climate emergency. Likewise,
once the building is complete, it needs to be heated, cooled and venti-
lated, its spaces need to be lit, and the equipment within needs to be
6 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 1.3 Building and construction’s share of global energy-related greenhouse

gas emissions, 2020 (UNEP 2021; IEA 2021a). ‘Buildings construction industry’ is
the portion (estimated) of overall industry devoted to manufacturing building
construction materials such as steel, cement and glass. Indirect emissions are emis-
sions from power generation for electricity and commercial heat. (Source: IEA
2021a. All rights reserved. Adapted from ‘Tracking Clean Energy Progress’)
Box 1.1 Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Buildings

Scope 1: Direct emissions from buildings
• Fossil fuel consumption in buildings (gas boilers, cooking equipment, etc.).
• Natural and synthetic refrigerants.
Scope 2: Indirect emissions from building energy consumption

• Electricity consumption by: (i) heating, ventilation and air-conditioning
systems, (ii) refrigeration equipment, (iii) lighting and other building ser-
vices (pumps, lifts, etc.) and (iv) equipment and plug loads (computers,
appliances, etc.)
• Energy from heating and cooling services provided by utilities and dis-
trict plants
Scope 3: Indirect emissions from other sources

• Embodied carbon from materials in the building
• Emissions from: (i) water use and sewage treatment; (ii) waste sent to
landfill
powered by electricity for the occupants to be able to function. At the

end of a building’s life, it will be demolished, and its materials landfilled,
or (ideally) recycled, again requiring energy and generating emissions.
These emissions can be categorised as either ‘operational carbon’ or
‘embodied carbon’ and are defined in Box 1.2.
When we combine operational and embodied carbon emissions
together, we get the whole lifecycle carbon emissions of the building. The
quantification of whole lifecycle carbon emissions over a service life has
been guided by the ISO14044/14067 family of International Standards
Box 1.2 Defining Operational and Embodied Carbon

Operational Carbon Emissions
Operational carbon refers to the total direct (scope 1) and/or indirect (scope
2) GHG emissions from all energy consumed (operational energy) during
the use stage of the building lifecycle. It includes both:
• Regulated loads, for example, heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting

• Unregulated/plug loads, for example, ICT equipment, cooking and
refrigeration appliances
Embodied Carbon Emissions

Embodied carbon refers to the total of all direct and indirect GHG emissions
arising from the production of, and processing activities for, producing
materials and constructing the building. This includes the share of emissions
associated with making the production process equipment and all other
supporting business functions for bringing a product to the market.
In addition, all emissions associated with transport of materials to site
and the process of constructing the building itself are all included within
the scope of embodied carbon emissions assessment. Embodied carbon can
be measured within different system boundaries, for example, cradle to
gate, cradle to site, cradle to construction completion, cradle to grave or
even cradle to cradle. Some of these boundaries only include the emissions
related to the upfront creation of the building. Others also include the
maintenance and renovation of the building over its life, and the end-of-
life emissions associated with demolishing, disposing and recycling the
materials.
Both operational and embodied emissions are usually expressed in kilo-
grams of CO2e per unit floor area (KgCO2e/m2). Operational targets are
often expressed in delivered energy per unit floor area per year (kWh/m2/
annum), for ease of measurement and comparability.
8 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 1.4 Scope of carbon emissions across the different stages of a building life-
cycle (by authors)
(ISO 1997). EN:15978 (sustainability assessment of construction) goes

further by providing a number of lifecycle ‘stages’ namely:
• Stage A (product stage and construction).

• Stage B (use stage including operations and replacement capital works).
• Stage C (end-of-life).
• Stage D (beyond the building lifecycle). This is usually considered out-
side of the building scope but related to the concept of the circular
economy (LETI 2021b).
These different stages are outlined in Figure 1.4. Considering the

whole lifecycle carbon emissions of buildings, including both embodied
and operational, is vital if we are to accurately understand, benchmark
and reduce their environmental impact holistically.
1.2.1 Climate Action in the Built Environment:

Towards Net Zero Emissions
By 2030, the built environment should halve its emissions, whereby 100 per
cent of new buildings must be net-zero carbon in operation, with widespread
energy efficiency retrofit of existing assets well underway, and embodied carbon
must be reduced by at least 40 per cent, with leading projects achieving at least
50 per cent reductions in embodied carbon. By 2050, at the latest, all new and
existing assets must be net zero across the whole life cycle, including operational
and embodied emissions. (UNEP 2021, p. 25)
We have established that there is a climate emergency, that we need to

radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that buildings are a signifi-
cant contributor. So what emissions reductions are necessary from the
building sector in the short, medium and long term? A consistent move
across the industry is towards ‘net zero carbon’ buildings.
Net zero carbon, at a global level, can be understood as a scientific
concept. At present, human-induced carbon dioxide emissions to and
from the atmosphere are not in equilibrium. That is, our emissions
(mostly from fossil fuels) far outweigh the planet’s ability to remove car-
bon dioxide from the atmosphere and store it in land and ocean sinks.
Net zero carbon requires our carbon emissions to be significantly reduced,
such that human-induced net carbon flows to and from the atmosphere,
land and ocean are equal to zero (Fankhauser et al. 2022).
At the building scale, net zero carbon can have different definitions,
scopes, inclusions and exclusions, which can often cause confusion. Some
definitions, for instance, only include operational carbon (scope 1 and 2)
and exclude embodied carbon (scope 3). Torcellini et al. (2006, p.5) for
instance define a net zero emissions building as one that “produces at least
as much emissions-free renewable energy as it uses from emissions-producing
energy sources”.
Increasingly though, organisations are considering both embodied and
operational carbon in their definition. The UK Green Building Council
(UKGBC), for instance, have developed a Net Zero Whole Life Carbon
Roadmap, which projects plans to achieve net zero carbon across the con-
struction, operation and demolition of buildings and infrastructure in
the UK, by 2050 (UKGBC 2021).
In this book, we use the definition ‘net zero whole life carbon’ to con-
sider net zero including both operational and embodied emissions
(Fig. 1.5). Throughout this book, ‘net zero carbon’ means ‘net zero whole
life carbon’. A building achieves a net zero whole life carbon status when,
and maintains it until, the amount of carbon emissions associated with
10 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 1.5 Strategies to achieve net zero whole life carbon buildings (by authors)
both operational and embodied impacts over its nominated service life
are net zero or negative. The ‘net’ zero status is achieved by first reducing
operating and embodied emissions as much as possible, then (and only
then) offsetting unavoidable carbon emissions through renewable energy
generation or other eligible carbon offsets approved under the Climate
Active Carbon Neutral Standard for Buildings or equivalent frameworks.
Where specifically only operational (scope 1 and 2) or embodied (scope
3) emissions are referred to, ‘net zero operational carbon’ and ‘net zero
embodied carbon’ terms are used respectively.
While there is significant focus on net zero carbon buildings in the
industry, it should be recognised that as things stand, only a tiny percent-
age of the building stock is designed to meet this performance criteria.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) outline building targets needed
Fig. 1.6 Percentage of zero carbon ready buildings needed in the total building
stock, 2020–2050 (Source: by authors, with data from IEA 2021b)
to be met over the next three decades in order to reduce global emissions
to net zero by 2050. They suggest the percentage of buildings in the total
building stock that are ‘zero carbon ready’ needs to increase from less
than 1% in 2020, to 25% in 2030, up to greater than 85% in 2050
(Fig. 1.6). A zero carbon ready building in this sense can be defined as
one which is highly energy efficient, such that by 2050 a decarbonised
electricity supply, or on-site renewables, can ensure the building will be
net zero operational carbon without any additional changes or retrofit-
ting (IEA 2021b).
However, to achieve a net zero carbon-built environment, it is not
enough to merely decarbonise our energy supplies and continue to build
as normal, or with gentle incrementally improved efficiency. If all our
buildings were electric-only and fossil fuel free, powered by a grid of
renewable-only energy, then we could say we had met the net zero goal
(in operations at least). But such a narrative belies the reality that while
there is an abundance of renewable energy available in theory, our ability
to harness and store it through the construction of wind turbines, solar
panels, batteries and more requires finance, labour and materials, con-
tributes to embodied carbon emissions and uses rare earth minerals.
Fundamental to the net zero goal, then, is significant improvements to
the energy efficiency of both new and existing buildings to reduce the
12 D. Prasad et al.
absolute amount of energy we use, and ensure energy is available more

equitably, across the globe. To be on track to meet net zero carbon opera-
tions by 2050, the energy demand of buildings per square metre needs to
actually fall by 45% by 2030—that is a rate five times faster than it has
fallen over recent years (UNEP 2021).
To achieve net zero whole life carbon many peak bodies, industry asso-
ciations and governmental and non-governmental organisations have set
specific energy and carbon reduction targets and developed pathways or
roadmaps for the built environment. A selection of these targets is out-
lined in Table 1.2 and in the following sub-sections. Consistent across
many pathways are (1) that most new buildings will be net zero carbon
(or net zero ready) in operations by 2030, (2) that embodied carbon in
new buildings will be reduced by at least 40–65% compared to current
levels by 2030 and (3) the roll out of accelerated programs to renovate
Table 1.2 Summary of selected operational and embodied carbon reduction

targets from 2020 to 2050 globally
In some cases, operational energy reduction percentages are used instead of

greenhouse gas emissions (data from GBCA 2021; Architecture 2030 2021; RIBA
2021a; LETI 2020; C40 2018; GlobalABC et al. 2020; IEA 2022)
and improve the energy efficiency of existing buildings such that all
buildings are net zero carbon by 2050.
1.2.2 Green Building Council of Australia
The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) Climate Positive Roadmap

was released in 2018, with a revised version published in July 2021. It sets
ambitious targets for operational and embodied carbon reductions for both
Green Star and non-Green Star rated buildings at regular intervals until
2050. Central to this are the targets of new buildings being net zero opera-
tional carbon by 2030, and all existing buildings by 2050. In terms of
embodied emissions, all Green Star rated buildings are required to reduce
embodied carbon by 10% from 2020, with 6 star rated buildings required
to reduce this by 20%. By 2030 Green Star rated buildings are expected to
reduce embodied emissions by 40% (GBCA 2021).
1.2.3 Architecture 2030 Challenge
The Architecture 2030 Challenge seeks to achieve the elimination of fos-

sil fuel-related carbon emissions from the built environment by 2040—
this includes both embodied and operational emissions. The benchmark
for operational emission reductions is set as the average energy consump-
tion of existing US buildings per region / local area. The original target
set by the organisation was for all new buildings to be highly efficient and
use no fossil fuels in operation by 2030—hence the name. However,
there is an acknowledgement that this is too late, and that all new build-
ings completed from 2021 onwards should aim to be net zero carbon in
operations (Architecture 2030 2021).
1.2.4 RIBA 2030 Challenge
The RIBA 2030 Climate Challenge sets stepped reduction targets for
operational energy, embodied carbon and potable water for 2025 and
2030 as part of a pathway for net zero carbon across the UK built
14 D. Prasad et al.
environment by 2050. Targets are compared to ‘business as usual’ and

include specific values for offices, schools and domestic construction with
design teams encouraged to aim for 2025 targets as a minimum and, ide-
ally, 2030 targets for buildings currently under design. While specific
targets are defined for the three typologies, in general aims are a 60%
reduction in operational energy, a 40% reduction in embodied carbon
and a 40% reduction in potable water, by 2030. For instance, while a
new build office would be expected to use 130 kWh/m2GIA/annum in
2021, the maximum should be <75 kWh/m2GIA/annum by 2025 and
<55 kWh/m2GIA/annum by 2030. Embodied carbon would be expected
to fall from 1400 kgCO2e/m2 in 2020 to <750 kgCO2e/m2 by 2030. In
addition, a number of minimum performance comfort criteria are set,
including overheating, daylighting and indoor air quality metrics
(RIBA 2021a).
1.2.5 LETI
The London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) is an organisation

of built environment professionals seeking to bring the city (and the UK
in general) on to a path of net zero carbon buildings. Ambitious targets
are set with the aim that all new buildings are designed to meet net zero
operational carbon as early as 2025 (LETI 2020). Central to this is high
levels of energy efficiency, with delivered energy use no greater than 35
kWh/m2GIA/annum in residential development, 65 kWh/m2GIA/
annum in schools and 55 kWh/m2GIA/annum in commercial offices.
Significant embodied carbon reductions are also targeted, in the order of
65% for all new buildings by 2030. LETI’s focus is not only on new
buildings, but it also looks at the importance of retrofitting the existing
building stock. In the UK, 80% of the buildings that will be standing in
2050 have already been completed; as such, their upgrade to net zero
operational carbon performance is essential. LETI’s Climate Emergency
Retrofit Guide provides energy targets, design and technical guidance for
achieving this, while also capturing the multitude of comfort, health and
financial benefits retrofit would bring (LETI 2021a).
1.2.6 C40 Challenge
The C40 is a network of mayors from cities around the world seeking to
address climate change. In 2018, the mayors of 19 cities, representing
130 million people, signed a declaration to enact regulation and policy to
ensure new buildings are net zero carbon (in operations) by 2030, with
all buildings achieving this by 2050. Beyond this, there is also a commit-
ment for all municipal and governmental buildings to also be net zero
operational carbon by 2030. The cities include: Copenhagen,
Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Montreal, New York City,
Newburyport, Paris, Portland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Monica,
Stockholm, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tshwane, Vancouver and
Washington (C40 2018).
1.2.7 GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings

and Construction in Africa
In Africa the building sector is responsible for 61% of final energy use,
yet few countries have building codes that mandate minimum energy
efficiencies. Against this backdrop the GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for
Buildings and Construction in Africa sets ambitious targets and pathways
towards a net zero emission sector by 2050 (GlobalABC et al. 2020).
These include the introduction of mandatory energy codes for most
countries by 2030, with some voluntary near-zero codes. By 2040 man-
datory energy codes would be in place for almost all buildings (with
many at near-zero), and by 2050 all countries would have near-zero car-
bon codes.
With population and urbanisation growing more rapidly than in any
other region in the world, there is a high demand for new buildings and
construction materials in Africa, with total floor area expected to dou-
ble between 2020 and 2050. Reducing embodied carbon emissions
while achieving the necessary new construction for sustainable and
equitable development in Africa could be a challenge. The Roadmap
sets targets for the development of reporting systems and open access
16 D. Prasad et al.
databases for materials in Africa by 2030, with mandatory disclosure of

embodied carbon in all buildings by 2050. The aim would be to reduce
embodied carbon of new buildings by 40% by 2040, with some build-
ings achieving net zero embodied emissions at this time. Most new
buildings would be net zero embodied carbon by 2050, along with a
90% reduction in material product emissions, 60% use of local materi-
als and a 40% reduction in carbon intensity of cement and steel
(GlobalABC et al. 2020).
1.2.8 IEA Roadmap for Energy-Efficient Buildings

and Construction in ASEAN
This Roadmap sets targets for a net zero carbon-built environment in

ASEAN member states (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia,
Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam). Current
analysis by the International Energy Agency suggests that without
ambitious changes in policy, both operational energy consumption and
carbon emissions in buildings will continue to grow in the region
between 2020 and 2040—from 450 MtCO2 to over 600 MtCO2
(IEA 2022).
The strategy for reducing operating emissions is to establish robust
building energy codes across the region by 2025, in all countries and
for all building sectors, along with the development of net zero carbon
standards. This would cover operational emissions first, but also include
embodied carbon by 2030 with lifecycle analysis used in most new
buildings at this time. The aim would be to reduce embodied emissions
by 40% in the region by 2030, along with increasing recycling and
reuse of materials by 40% and reducing on-site waste by 30%. The
decarbonisation of existing buildings would also be vital, with signifi-
cant uptake of renovation by 2030 to improve energy efficiency and
reduce operating emissions. Given the hot tropical climate, renovation
strategies will focus on improving insulation, the use of high emissivity
materials, solar control glazing and widespread use of solar shading
(IEA 2022).
1.3 Challenges and Gaps in Achieving Net

Zero Carbon in the Built Environment
Achieving net zero carbon performance in the built environment requires
dramatic and immediate action from businesses, organisations, cities,
states and regions. While the above initiatives show promise, a number of
complex challenges to achieving this widespread change still exist.
1.3.1 Increasing Global Construction
Buildings and construction play an incredible role in the economic devel-

opment of humanity. The construction, renovation and management of
our buildings and urban infrastructure is worth trillions of dollars annu-
ally, with the sector employing between 110 and 180 million people
(with a further 220 million in sectors reliant on construction) (Santamouris
and Vasilakopoulou 2021). Yet while this growth provides economic ben-
efits, there are obvious environmental challenges. Perhaps the most sig-
nificant challenge to achieving net zero carbon (whole of life) emissions
in the built environment is the anticipated growth of new building con-
struction. Estimates suggest humanity will construct around 230 billion
square metres of new floor area by 2060—during the exact same time-
frame we need to reduce emissions to net zero (UNEP 2017). This will
require millions of tonnes of materials (with associated embodied carbon
emissions) and require heating, cooling and ventilating more floor area
(with associated operational carbon emissions). The IPCC (Lucon et al.
2014) notes a number of trends that add to this challenge; as we improve
the energy efficiency of our buildings, the energy needed to heat and cool
a single square metre of space is decreasing. However, the area per person
and number of households is increasing far faster. What this means is
that, in a ‘business as usual’ scenario, the heating and cooling energy
required in our building stock could increase in an absolute sense. In
addition, each square metre of floor space requires materials, labour and
energy—even in the most efficient of buildings. For example, global
demand for steel and cement is expected to grow by 31% and 14%,
respectively, by 2050 (Deetman et al. 2020). Other research suggests this
18 D. Prasad et al.
growth will see greenhouse gas emissions from building materials rise
from 3.5 GtCO2e per year in 2020 to 4.6 GtCO2e per year in 2060
(Zhong et al. 2021). The IEA sums up the challenge by noting “building
sector energy intensity (final energy use per m2) has been decreasing continu-
ously by 0.5% to 1% per year since 2010. However, this rate is significantly
below average annual floor area growth, which has remained around 2.5%
since 2010” (IEA 2020).
Clearly, we need to build. One billion people globally have no access
to electricity (Habitat for Humanity 2021a), and 1.6 billion people live
without adequate shelter (Habitat for Humanity 2021b). The challenge
will be to meet the needs of society through the provision of safe and
affordable housing, schools, hospitals and other buildings, while also
reducing whole-of-life cycle emissions.
1.3.2 Urban Heating and the Growing Demand

for Cooling
As the world warms, temperature increases and associated natural disasters

can lead to an increase in material and structural damage or even building
collapse and the reduction of service life, especially in relation to extreme
heat, rainstorm and bushfire (Climate Change Adaptation 2019; Wang
et al. 2012). This can subsequently lead to an increase in embodied carbon
for building maintenance, repair, refurbishment or new construction. A
deterioration in indoor climate due to increases in temperature is a driver
to more extensive adoption of HVAC system for cooling purposes, which
can significantly increase electricity use and operational carbon emissions.
The increases in heat related to global climate change can be further
aggravated by localised urban warming called the urban heat island
(UHI) effect. This is a phenomenon where cities are much hotter than
their surrounding rural/suburban areas due to the use of materials that
absorb and re-radiate solar energy (asphalt, concrete, etc), the urban form
of cities (with canyons and taller buildings that can trap heat and limit
urban ventilation) and the release of heat from anthropogenic activities
(cars, air-conditioning extracts, etc). In short, urban areas can experience
temperatures 4–5°C higher, and in many cases exceed 8°C higher than
rural surroundings (Santamouris et al. 2017).
This can have a detrimental impact on thermal comfort, health and
building resilience, but can also increase the demand for artificial cooling,
increasing energy needs and subsequent greenhouse gas emissions.
Globally, there is expected to be a major increase in air-conditioning
demand in the twenty-first century, driven by increases in wealth in hot-
ter countries and increasing climate change. For instance, studies suggest
global warming will reduce heating demand worldwide by 34%, but
increase air-conditioning energy demand by 72% by 2100 (Isaac and van
Vuuran 2009). To combat this, net zero carbon buildings will need to
utilise passive and active systems to reduce cooling needs. These might
include the use of greenery, reflective and novel coatings, maximising
urban ventilation, utilising significant shading systems, and the use of
urban water features.
1.3.3 Lack of Building Codes, Policy and Regulation
Appropriate local building codes that set mandatory performance for

energy, comfort and efficiency are essential to achieve net zero carbon
buildings. However, globally building energy codes are fragmented and
generally not stringent enough to achieve this. Around the world, 80
countries have building energy codes, of which 43 are mandatory.
However, regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa and South and Central
America have less developed building energy codes—although countries
such as Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, the
Gambia, Kenya, Senegal, Tanzania and Uganda are in the process of their
development (UNEP 2021).
In many countries, building energy codes are mature and have been in
place for decades. However, very few cities, countries or municipalities
have mandatory embodied carbon performance codes in place. The
Netherlands is one of few places where regulations exist, with all residen-
tial and commercial buildings over 100 m2 required to consider embod-
ied carbon as part of an ‘environmental impact cap’ (UNEP 2021). In
France the RE2020 sets maximum embodied carbon figures for new
20 D. Prasad et al.
buildings, with dwellings expected to be less than 610 kgCO2e/m2 in

2022, moving down to no more than 415 kgCO2e/m2 in 2031 and
beyond (Bourgeon and Giddings 2021). Other countries such as
Denmark, Norway and Finland are following suit. In Australia, plans are
emerging to consider embodied emissions as part of NABERS (NABERS
2021), and in the UK a proposal for Building Regulations ‘Part Z’ seeks
to enforce the reporting and limitation of whole lifecycle carbon (Part
Z 2021).
While such developments are promising, many are in the early stages,
and there are few embodied carbon regulations in the regions where most
construction is taking place. For more on policies, see Chap. 6.
1.3.4 Upgrading and Retrofitting Existing Buildings
While there is an urgent need to ensure new building construction is net

zero carbon, we also need to upgrade our existing building stock so that
it too meets our future performance requirements. As of 2015, there were
223 billion square metres of floor area globally (UNEP 2016) of which
less than 1% is net zero carbon ready (IEA 2021b). The need to upgrade,
retrofit and refurbish billions of square metres of existing floor area to net
zero operations is essential. This would not only serve to reduce carbon
emissions, but also improve occupant comfort, reduce serious health
issues related to substandard housing, improve internal environmental
conditions and relieve energy poverty.
Achieving net zero ready performance in most existing buildings
requires deep retrofit; this is the upgrade of building fabric, services and
systems in a single comprehensive stage, as opposed to piecemeal or
incremental upgrades to individual parts of the building. While smaller
upgrades can be cheaper in the short term, and less disruptive, they can
create ‘missed opportunities’ that cause higher carbon emissions in the
longer term (Zhivov and Lohse 2021). For instance, replacing a gas boiler
with an electric heat pump in a dwelling may provide an environmental
benefit. But, if the façade is poorly performing and not retrofitted, the
heat pump would need to be over-sized to provide sufficient comfort,
using more energy than is necessary should a deep retrofit be undertaken.
As well as retrofitting deeper, we also need to retrofit faster. According

to the International Energy Agency, current retrofit rates are less than 1%
of building stock per year. This needs to increase to 2.5% per year, by
2030. Any delay in this would “make retrofitting the vast majority of build-
ings by 2050 virtually impossible” (IEA 2021b, p. 148). The figures can be
daunting; in the UK it is expected that 26 million homes need retrofit-
ting by 2050 at a cost of £26,000 GBP per dwelling—or £676 billion
over the next 28 years (Boydell 2021).
1.3.5 Education and Training
The decisions and designs made today will continue to impact for 60 and more
years. A rapid transition is therefore needed in universities and training colleges
in the scope and nature of the knowledge and skills that are provided to students
and existing professionals/workers. (Stevenson and Kwok 2020, p. 687)
Our current and future built environment workforce needs upskilling

to tackle the climate crisis. Take, for example, a student entering an archi-
tecture degree program in 2023. They would likely complete their stud-
ies, graduate and move into the profession towards the end of the decade,
by which time all new buildings in many regions across the world need to
be net zero carbon in operations. The application of whole life cycle car-
bon analysis and measurement along with significant embodied carbon
reductions is also likely to be far more widespread. The need for students’
current education to prepare them for a future climate-change-challenged
profession is clearly vital. Yet this is only partially occurring. A study of
637 architecture students and staff in Australia, for example, found that
95% wanted to see more teaching on climate change and sustainability
during their studies (Brogden et al. 2022). In the UK, a study by the
Architects Climate Action Network (ACAN) suggests 77% of architec-
ture students feel their degree is not adequately preparing them for future
work in terms of climate change (ACAN 2022).
Yet it’s not just in higher education where change is needed, but across
all built environment industries. For instance, a 2021 RIBA survey of
their members found only 5% of organisations always undertake industry-
standard whole lifecycle carbon assessments, with 57% of organisations
22 D. Prasad et al.
having never done so (RIBA 2021b). A survey of architects in Bangladesh

found just 4% felt they were equipped to respond to sustainability chal-
lenges (Afroz 2020). In North America, the availability of skilled trades
for the net zero carbon retrofit of buildings is seen as a major barrier with
a need for innovative new training models to overcome this (C40 and
Delphi Group 2022). It’s clear that far more substantive post-professional
education, continuing practice development (CPD) and vocational train-
ing programs will be required to meet built environment climate goals.
This is not only a challenge but also a significant opportunity for develop-
ing millions of new highly skilled workers and widespread new employ-
ment opportunities across low carbon industries, with the IEA suggesting
nearly seven million new workers are needed in the net zero construction
sector by 2030 (IEA 2021b).
1.4 Summary and Upcoming Chapters

This introduction sets out the climate emergency and the role the built
environment plays in global greenhouse gas emissions. It presents the dif-
ferent types of emissions buildings contribute to over their life—embod-
ied and operational—and maps some of the high-level targets that exist
globally to reduce these to net zero in the coming decades. Finally, it
outlines some of the most significant challenges in achieving these targets.
The remainder of the book is centred around a far deeper investigation
into the development of targets, benchmarks, strategies and policies
needed to achieve net zero in the built environment. The book examines
these with a particular focus on the Australian context, although with key
evidence, data and case studies drawn from around the world. Chapter 2
provides an overview of operational carbon in the built environment,
looking at how this is measured, rated and benchmarked, before present-
ing a detailed analysis of the operational carbon profile of buildings in
Australia today. Chapter 3 focusses on embodied carbon, outlining the
challenges associated with its measurement and benchmarking, suggesting
there are inconsistencies with embodied carbon figures and targets that
exist globally. Both Chaps. 2 and 3 also document the different strategies
available to the design and development team to reduce operational and
embodied emissions in the building environment. Chapter 4 presents

methods to determine operational and embodied carbon reduction targets
for buildings to achieve net zero. As an example, Australian benchmarks
and targets are calculated to demonstrate how these methods can be used
to generate climate emergency pathways for different building types and
climate zones within different counties, or regions.
Chapter 5 presents low carbon case studies from both Australia and
around the world, with key data and performance descriptions, while
Chap. 6 provides an analysis of both Australia’s current policy pathways
and some of those that exist globally. Finally, Chap. 7 presents a conclu-
sion with recommendations for future research and collaborations across
the built environment industry.
References
ACAN (2022). Students! Climate Action Network. https://www.architectscan.
org/stucan.
Afroz, R. (2020). Developing a low-carbon architecture pedagogy in Bangladesh.
Buildings and Cities, 1(1), pp. 637–649.
Architecture 2030 (2021). Architecture 2030. https://architecture2030.org.
Bourgeon, F. & Giddings, J. (2021). How the emerging environmental regulations
will apply to new buildings in France. https://www.architectscan.org/post/
environmental-building-regulations-france.
Boydell, R. (2021). Five numbers that lay bare the mammoth effort needed to
insulate Britain’s homes. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/
five-n umbers-t hat-l ay-b are-t he-m ammoth-e ffort-n eeded-t o-i nsulate-
britains-homes-162540.
Brogden, L., Iftikhar, N., Oldfield, P., Stead, N., Kessler, C., Knapp, C. &
Reinhardt, D. (2022). Climate Literacy and Action in Architecture Education:
Australasian Perspectives. AASA / AIA.
C40 & Delphi Group (2022). Delivering net zero carbon buildings: The
role of cities in skills development and training in North America. https://
www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Delivering-n et-z ero-c arbon-
buildings-The-role-of-cities-in-skills-development-and-training-in-North-
America?language=en_US.
24 D. Prasad et al.
C40 (2018). Net zero carbon building declaration. https://www.c40.org/declara-

tions/net-zero-carbon-buildings-declaration/.
Climate Change Adaptation (2019). Climate change impacts on buildings and
construction. Ministry of Environment of Denmark / Environmental
Protection Agency, https://en.klimatilpasning.dk/sectors/buildings/climate-
change-impact-on-buildings/#:~:text=Buildings%20can%20be%20vulnera-
ble%20to,climate%20and%20reduced%20building%20lifetime.
Deetman, S., Marinova, S., van der Voet, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Edelenbosch,
O. & Heijunngs, R. (2020). Modelling global material stocks and flows for
residential and service sector buildings towards 2050. Journal of Cleaner
Production, Vol. 245, 118658.
European Environment Agency (2021). Economic losses from climate-related
extremes in Europe. https://www.eea.europa.eu/ims/economic-losses-from-
climate-related.
Fankhauser, S., Smith, S.M., Allen, M., Axelsson, K., Hale, T., Hepburn, C.,
Kendall, J. M., Khosla, R., Lezaun, J., Mitchell-Larson, E., Obersteiner, M.,
Rajamani, L., Rickaby, R., Seddon, N. & Wetzer, T. (2022). The meaning of
net zero and how to get it right. Nature Climate Change. 12, pp. 15–21.
GBCA (2021). A Climate Positive Roadmap for the Built Environment. July, 2021.
GlobalABC, IEA and UNEP (2020). GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings
and Construction in Africa: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient
Buildings and Construction Sector. IEA, Paris.
Habitat for Humanity (2021a). Energy poverty: effects on development, society, and
environment: Europe, Middle East and Africa. https://www.habitat.org/emea/
about/what-we-do/residential-energy-efficiency-households/energy-poverty.
Habitat for Humanity (2021b) What is a slum. https://www.habitatforhuman-
ity.org.uk/what-we-do/slum-rehabilitation/what-is-a-slum/.
IEA (2022). Roadmap for Energy Efficient Buildings and Construction in ASEAN:
Timelines and Actions Towards Net Zero Carbon Buildings and Construction.
IEA, Paris.
IEA (2021a). Tracking Buildings 2021. November 2021. https://www.iea.org/
reports/tracking-buildings-2021.
IEA (2021b). Net Zero by 2050: A Roadmap for the Global Energy Sector. October
2021, 4th revision.
IEA (2020). Tracking Buildings 2020. June 2020. https://www.iea.org/reports/
tracking-buildings-2020.
IPCC (2021). Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, V.,
P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen,

L. Goldfarb, M.I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J.B.R. Matthews,
T.K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, and B. Zhou (eds.)]. In Press
Isaac, M & van Vuuran, D. P. (2009). Modelling global residential sector energy
demand for heating and air conditioning in the context of climate change.
Energy Policy, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 507–521.
ISO (1997). Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles
and framework, International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
LETI (2021a). LETI Climate Emergency Retrofit Guide. London, UK.
LETI (2021b). Whole Lifecycle Carbon. https://asbp.org.uk/wp-content/
uploads/2021/05/LETI-Whole-Life-Carbon-one-pager.pdf.
LETI (2020). LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide. London, UK.
Lucon O., D. Ürge-Vorsatz, A. Zain Ahmed, H. Akbari, P. Bertoldi, L. F. Cabeza,
N. Eyre, A. Gadgil, L. D. D. Harvey, Y. Jiang, E. Liphoto, S. Mirasgedis,
S. Murakami, J. Parikh, C. Pyke, and M. V. Vilariño (2014): Buildings. In:
Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change [Edenhofer, O., R. Pichs-Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani,
S. Kadner, K. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier,
B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel and
J.C. Minx (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom
and New York, NY, USA
Meinshausen, M., Lewis, J., McGlade, C., Gütschow, J., Nicholls, Z., Burdon,
R., Cozzi, L. & Hackman, B. (2022). Realization of Paris Agreement pledges
may limit warming just below 2 °C. Nature. 604, pp. 304–309.
NABERS (2021). NABERS embodied emissions initiative. https://www.nabers.
gov.au/publications/nabers-embodied-emissions-initiative.
NOAA (2020). Global Climate Report, June 2020 https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
sotc/global/202006.
Oxford Languages (2019). Word of the year, 2019. https://languages.oup.com/
word-of-the-year/2019/.
Part Z (2021). Part Z: A proposed amendment to UK Building Regulations 2010.
https://part-z.uk/.
Read, P. & Denniss, R. (2020). With costs approaching $100 billion, the fires
are Australia’s costliest natural disaster. The Conversation. https://thecon-
versation.com/with-costs-approaching-100-billion-the-fires-are-australias-
costliest-natural-disaster-129433.
RIBA (2021a). RIBA 2030 Challenge. Version 2. London, UK.
26 D. Prasad et al.
RIBA (2021b). A Decade of Action: RIBA Members and the Sustainable

Development Goals. September, 2021. London, UK.
Ritchie, H & Roser, M (2022). CO2 and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Our World
in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/co2-and-other-greenhouse-gas-emissions.
Robine, J.-M., Cheung, S. L. K., Le Roy, S., Van Oyen, H., Griffiths, C.,
Michel, J.-P. & Herrmann, F. R. (2008). Death toll exceeded 70,000 in
Europe during the summer of 2003. Comptes Rendus Biologies, 331, Issue
2, 171–178.
Santamouris, M & Vasilakopoulou, K. (2021). Present and future energy con-
sumption of buildings: Challenges and opportunities towards decarbonisa-
tion. ePrime, vol. 1, 100002.
Santamouris, M., Ding, L., Fiorito, F., Oldfield, P., Osmond, P., Paolini, R.,
Prasad, D. & Synnefa, A. (2017). Passive and active cooling for the outdoor
built environment—Analysis and assessment of the cooling potential of miti-
gation technologies using performance data from 220 large scale projects.
Solar Energy, Vol. 154, pp. 14–33.
Stevenson, F. & Kwok, A. (2020). Mainstreaming zero carbon: Lessons for
built-environment education and training. Buildings and Cities, 1(1),
pp. 687–696.
Torcellini, P., Pless, S. & Deru, M. (2006). Net zero buildings: A critical look at
the definition. To be presented at ACEEE Summer Study Pacific Grove,
California August 14−18, 2006. National Renewable Energy Laboratory,
Golden, CO.
UKGBC (2021). Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Roadmap: A Pathway to Net Zero
for the UK Built Environment. London, UK.
UNEP (2021). 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction: Towards
a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction
Sector. Nairobi.
UNEP (2020). Emissions Gap Report 2020. Nairobi.
UNEP (2017). Global Status Report 2017: Towards A Zero-Emission, Efficient,
and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi.
UNEP (2016). Global Status Report 2016: Towards A Zero-Emission, Efficient,
and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. Nairobi.
Wang, X., Stewart, M. G. & Nguyen, M. (2012). Impact of climate change on
corrosion and damage to concrete infrastructure in Australia. Climatic
Change, 110, 941–957.
WHO (2020). Heatwaves. World Health Organization, https://www.who.int/
health-topics/heatwaves.
World Meteorological Organization (2020). State of the Climate in Africa, 2019.

World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Geneva, Switzerland.
Zhivov, A. & Lohse, R. (2021). Deep Energy Retrofit—A Guide for Decision
Makers. Springer, Switzerland.
Zhong, X., Hu, M., Deetman, S., Steubing, B., Lin, H. X., Hernandez, G. A.,
Harpprecht, C., Zhang, C., Tukker, A., & Behrens, P. (2021). Global
greenhouse gas emissions from residential and commercial building materials
and mitigation strategies to 2060. Nature Communication, 12, 6126.
2
Operational Carbon in the Built
Environment: Measurements,
Benchmarks and Pathways to Net Zero
2.1 Measuring Operational Energy

and Carbon
Measuring operational energy use and its associated carbon emissions are
key steps to undertake in order to decarbonise building stock. Measuring
operational energy is a familiar process to many designers, consultants
and engineers, and is a requirement to assess building performance
against benchmarks and standards. The following sub-sections provide
detailed insight into benchmarking, rating schemes, building perfor-
mance assessment tools and methods.
2.1.1 Benchmarking and Normalisation Factors
Residential and commercial buildings are responsible for one-fifth of all

Australia’s carbon emissions (UNEP 2020a). All buildings require energy
to operate and consume significant amounts of power for lighting, appli-
ances, hot water, space heating and cooling. In Australia, commercial
buildings acquire 80% of their energy from electricity with the remaining
from gas. In contrast, residential buildings use electricity for only half of
their energy use, with the remainder derived mostly from gas and
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_2
30 D. Prasad et al.
biomass (DISER 2019). As of 2021, 21% of the electricity provided by

the grid is sourced from renewable energy sources. It is predicted that the
proportion of renewable energy supply in the grid will rise to 30% by
2030 (AEMO 2021). Future carbon emissions for the Australian build-
ing sector are likely to be heavily influenced by the speed and extent to
which the power grid is supplied by renewable sources. However, a more
prompt action to reduce operational carbon emissions and contribute
towards decarbonising the building sector would be to increase the energy
efficiency and use of on-site renewable systems for new builds and retro-
fitting existing buildings.
Measuring operational energy use and its associated carbon emissions
are key steps to undertake in order to decarbonise building stock.
Fundamental to this is creating empirical benchmarking to compare
actual building performance against the broader building stock to assess
whether the performance is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. In creating such a bench-
mark, the comparability of the building to the dataset must be assured.
This typically requires the use of a range of normalisation factors to bring
both back to a common basis for comparison.
A comparative benchmarking process involves design-based and
empirically based assessments. Design-based assessments aim to identify
the presence or otherwise of features deemed to be associated with energy
efficiency. This may be done via a checklist or the use of computer simu-
lation tools. Although this approach usually applies to new buildings, it
can also be used for existing buildings and retrofits. Empirically based
assessments aim to look at the actual building performance and deter-
mine its efficiency on that basis. This approach is usually applied to exist-
ing buildings and retrofits, but can be also used for new buildings.
Predicted building performance is mostly calculated through com-
puter simulations and assesses design-based performance. It is generally
geared towards absolute energy use prediction and there can be signifi-
cant challenges in the reconciliation of this against actual empirically
based assessments. For example, the National Construction Code (NCC)
published by the Australian Building Codes Board uses what is called a
‘reference’ or ‘benchmark’ building to digitally predict performance and
compare it against a ‘proposed’ building that achieves an equal or
improved performance based on legislative requirements (ABCB 2019).
2 Operational Carbon in the Built Environment: Measurements… 31
This approach aims at comparing the building’s performance to a refer-

ence one, rather than focusing on its actual performance result.
Normalisation of energy use in buildings is a common approach to deter-
mine the performance of a building to provide a comparable result against
precedents (Berggren and Wall 2017). Normalisation can be defined as:
… adjusting values measured on different scales to a notionally common scale

in order to bring the entire distributions of adjusted values into alignment …
(Dodge 2003, p. 243)
In order to make a meaningful comparison of a building against the

broader population in the building stock, it is essential to define a com-
mon basis that allows the efficiency-related issues (e.g. operation) to be
differentiated from primary factors (e.g. building size). This requires nor-
malisation factors to be introduced to correct a building back to a bench-
mark of normal operation. For example, an office building can be
characterised in terms of an energy per square metre figure that has been
corrected to a standard climate and operating hours. This approach per-
mits the building to be compared reasonably accurately against other
buildings. This is called energy use intensity (EUI), a uniform terminol-
ogy used to define energy consumption per square metre.
Carbon emission coefficients characterise the amount of the specific
GHG released from undertaking a certain activity, such as burning one
tonne of fuel in a furnace. Carbon emission coefficients are generally
based on the delivered/on-site energy carrier. In particular, the following
information should be given to determine the carbon emission coeffi-
cients (ISO 2017). In addition, the priority of determining carbon emis-
sion coefficients should:
• Note sources of information (e.g. national, international)

• Indicate the greenhouse gases included in CO2 equivalent (e.g. follow-
ing the Kyoto protocol, Montreal protocol or other protocols)
• Include elements in the supply chain (e.g. on-site or on-site plus
upstream processes)
• Indicate the time frame of environmental impacts (i.e. 100 years)
• Provide the year of reference of emission coefficient data
32 D. Prasad et al.
When using normalisation to resolve issues of building size, it is impor-

tant to use a relevant variable that is closely linked with the productive
function of the building. For example, the net lettable area in a commer-
cial office building provides better recognition of the productive variable
for the office, whereas the gross floor area may include significant areas of
the building that are not lettable and are unproductive. Similarly, hotels
and hospitals are arguably better characterised in terms of the number of
beds rather than the floor area. In both cases, the beds are associated with
productivity, rather than the floor space.
There are two main methods to create normalisation factors:
• Empirical deviation through the identification of trends in the build-

ing population correlated to individual normalisation factors
• Theoretical derivation through the identification of trends predicted
from simulation modelling
The traditional benchmarking approach sets a single figure that is con-

sidered, typically, either as an ‘average’ or ‘best practice’ performance. The
alternative approach is to establish a rating, which provides most build-
ings with a place on a comparative scale. This approach is adopted in
many standards and schemes, such as the National Australian Built
Environment Rating System (NABERS), the Nationwide House Energy
Rating Scheme (NatHERS) and Green Star from the Green Building
Council of Australia (GBCA) (NABERS 2022; NatHERS 2022; GBCA
2022). For example, NABERS places building on a point scale from 1 to
6 stars with half star intervals (NABERS 2022). This has the advantage of
being more inclusive, so that less highly rated buildings can still use the
scale to identify and promote performance improvements without neces-
sarily being best practice. However, it also requires some care in inform-
ing the marketplace as to the meaning of the ratings.
Current works and future trends in benchmarking suffer from a lack of
a unified and global approach. Future global benchmarks can consider
the following:
• Greater data and lesson sharing internationally.

• Improved understanding of benefits, challenges and limitations of
available processes.
• Improved understanding of the meaning of the benchmark results in

different climates, countries and subsectors.
• Collaboration with and feedback to design assessment systems.
• Improved industry acceptance and use.
2.1.2 Building Performance Ratings
Operational carbon, within the lifecycle of a building, mainly happens

during building use stage, namely stage B6 as defined by EN 15978:2011.
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) addresses this
with the standard, ISO 16745 (2017): Sustainability in buildings and civil
engineering works. It provides an applicable and widely accepted method
for operational carbon measurement and reporting. It presents the basic
principles which ensure that the operational carbon assessment is con-
ducted in a true and fair manner as follows:
• Completeness: Include all relevant GHG emissions and removals that

provide a significant contribution to the carbon metric.
• Consistency: Apply assumptions, methods and data in the same way
throughout the carbon metric determination to arrive at conclusions
in accordance with the needs of the intended user and intended use.
• Relevance: Select the GHG sources, GHG sinks, GHG reservoirs,
data and methodologies appropriate to the needs of the intended user
and the intended use.
• Coherence: Select methodologies, standards and guidance documents
already recognised and adopted for energy measurement and con-
sumption to enhance comparability between common carbon metrics.
• Accuracy: Ensure that the carbon metric quantification and commu-
nication are accurate, verifiable, relevant, not misleading and that bias
is avoided, and uncertainties are minimised.
• Transparency: Address and document all relevant issues in an open,
comprehensive and understandable presentation of information.
• Avoidance of double counting: Avoid counting greenhouse gas emis-
sions and removals that have already been allocated within other car-
bon metrics (ISO 16745 2017).
34 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.1 Green building rating tool categories. (Source: Redrawn based on
Illankoon et al. 2019; Note: Some countries or regions are running several types of
green building rating schemes. Various refers to various types of new and existing
buildings such as single-family residential, multi-residential housing, residential
complex, office, school, retail, hotel, home and others)
To support the development of best practice buildings, various coun-

tries have released green building rating schemes which aim to assess energy
performance, and which may also focus, for example, on land, water and
materials. Such rating tools fall into the categories including frameworks,
analytical tools, checklists and guidelines, software and expert systems, and
rating, ranking and organising tools (Fig. 2.1) (Illankoon et al. 2019).
2.1.3 Building Performance Assessment Tools
Building energy simulation is an important method for building assess-

ment and measurement, especially at the design stage. Building energy
simulation supports various purposes including building energy use and
carbon emissions estimation in design and rating. It is also important for
research purposes like analysing the impact of different factors on build-

ing performance for optimisation (Energy.Gov 2021).
In terms of operational energy and carbon performance estimation,
vital building information consists of factors including geometry, con-
struction materials, lighting, HVAC, refrigeration, water heating, renew-
able generation system configurations, component efficiencies and
control strategies. At the same time, the simulation should also consider
the pattern of building operation and occupation, such as the occupancy,
lighting, plug loads and thermostat settings.
In addition, building performance assessment tools use information about
local climate and physics equations to calculate thermal loads, system response
to those loads and resulting energy use, along with related metrics like occu-
pant comfort and energy costs. Simulation can estimate energy or carbon in
a full year of calculations on an hourly or even shorter time basis (Energy.Gov
2021). The output of building energy/carbon simulation can be versatile.
Apart from energy use and carbon emissions (e.g. from lighting, equipment
and auxiliary systems), there could be temperature prediction (e.g. in areas, at
specific points or in specific layers), a comfort index (e.g. PMV and PPD,
heat stress, relative humidity, pollutant concentration), load (e.g. water, heat-
ing and cooling, electricity for lighting) and daylight availability (Table 2.1).
There have been numerous measurement tools created for building
energy/carbon simulation, ranging from whole building simulation to
model calibration and auditing (IBPSA-USA 2022). These tools include
but are not limited to AccuRate, FirstRate, the Building Energy Rating
Scheme (BERS), DesignBuilder, TRNSYS, EnergyPlus and IES-VE,
among many others (IBPSA-USA 2022).
AccuRate is a software tool used for the calculation of annual space
heating/cooling requirements of residential buildings. It is currently used
for compliance with the building code to regulate the energy efficiency of
new houses. AccuRate is a useful tool for optimising energy-efficient
house designs in Australian climates. FirstRate5 is a residential thermal
performance assessment software, used by the majority of industry to rate
the energy efficiency compliance of residential dwellings to the 6-star
standard under NCC.
The BERS computer program is a powerful tool used to simulate the
thermal performance of Australian houses in climates ranging from alpine
to tropical. The star rating that is calculated can be used to show
36 D. Prasad et al.
Table 2.1 Inputs for the building energy/carbon simulation (Source: Authors)
compliance with the thermal regulatory requirements of the Building

Code of Australia (BCA) (BERS 2007).
DesignBuilder incorporates EnergyPlus, a whole building simulation
engine, developed and maintained by the US Department of Energy (US
DOE 2022; DesignBuilder 2022). EnergyPlus predicts building green-
house gas emissions and occupant thermal comfort. It is one of a very few
simulation engines that integrates heat and mass balance calculations and
accurately predicts free-floating temperatures in naturally ventilated
spaces (EnergyPlus 2022).
TRNSYS is an extremely flexible graphically based software environ-
ment used to simulate the behaviour of transient systems. It has been
primarily used in the fields of renewable energy engineering and building
simulation for passive as well as active solar design. The vast majority of
simulations are focussed on assessing the performance of thermal and
electrical energy systems (TRNSYS 2020).
IES-VE predicts building energy consumption, peak demand, energy

cost and renewable energy production. The whole-building energy simu-
lation analysis capabilities of the IES-VE software tools cover a wide
range of assessment types including energy efficiency, comfort, ventila-
tion, HVAC performance and optimisation (IES 2021).
2.1.4 Post-occupancy Evaluation
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE) is defined as the process of evaluating

buildings in a systematic and rigorous manner after they have been built
and occupied for some time (Preiser et al. 2015). Explicitly, the POE is
conducive to developers and architects obtaining a high standard in their
projects and is helpful to inform the designer on the gap between the
designed energy expectation and operational performance. Accordingly,
the designers can close the gap through renovation or fine tuning to
improve the performance of buildings for their clients (RIBA 2019).
According to the Federal Facilities Council, POEs evolve across different
levels from the ‘indicative POE’ to ‘investigative POEs’, and then ‘diagnos-
tic POEs’ (NRC 2002). Specifically, an indicative POE aims to reveal a
building’s performance in terms of major strengths and weaknesses, through
interviews with knowledgeable informants and field observations. The
investigative POE aims to generate a deep understanding of the causes and
effects of different problems, based on objective evaluation criteria (e.g.
functional program guidelines, performance standards and published lit-
erature). The diagnostic POE aims to generate new knowledge in terms of
building performance by correlating the physical environmental measures
with subjective occupant response measures (NRC 2002).
The procedure of the POE consists of planning the process, post-
occupancy evaluation and recommendations for interventions. First, the
process planning stage is designated to prepare the POE project, through
three steps including reconnaissance and feasibility, resource planning
and research planning. In this phase, the parameters for the POE project
are established; the schedule, costs and human resources needs are deter-
mined; and plans for data collection procedures, times and amounts are
laid out (NRC 2002). The post-occupancy evaluation stage initiates the
on-site data collection process, monitoring and managing data collection
38 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.2 Evolution of POE levels and the steps to conduct POE. (Source: Authors)
procedures and analysing data. The final stage of providing recommenda-

tions includes reporting findings, recommending actions and reviewing
outcomes. This stage identifies solutions to problems and recommends
actions to be taken. Monitoring the outcome of recommended actions is
a significant step, as the benefits and value of POEs are established in this
final step of the applying phase (Fig. 2.2).
2.2 Factors Impacting Operational

Carbon Benchmarks
2.2.1 Overview of Factors
Operational carbon benchmarks are determined by many factors, mainly

the location, climate, building design and information, active and passive
building systems and differences in regional carbon intensity (Fig. 2.3).
Fig. 2.3 Key variables determining operational carbon benchmarks. (Source: Authors)
Operational carbon benchmarks are also impacted by floor area defini-

tion. These area definitions may include gross floor area (GFA), net let-
table area (NLA), gross internal area (GIA) and net internal area (NIA),
amongst others. For example, GFA is the total floor area contained within
a building, including the horizontal area of external walls (Standards
Australia 2020). NLA is the area of a building or industrial park for
which, under a lease, a tenant could be charged for occupancy. Generally,
it is the floor space contained within a tenancy at each floor level mea-
sured from the internal finished surfaces of permanent external walls and
permanent internal walls but excluding features such as balconies and
verandas, common use areas, areas less than 1.5 m in height, service areas
and public spaces and thoroughfares (Standards Australia 2020).
2.2.2 Overview of Factors: Australian Context
There are six states and two territories in Australia, including NSW (New
South Wales), VIC (Victoria), QLD (Queensland), SA (South Australia),
40 D. Prasad et al.
Table 2.2 Fuel mix CO2 emission factors in Australia (Source: Australian
Government, 2020)
WA (Western Australia), TAS (Tasmania), ACT (Australian Capital

Territory) and NT (Northern Territory). The regional and end-use fuel
mix differs in terms of CO2 emissions. This difference can be calculated
via emission factors for consumption of purchased electricity or loss of
electricity from the grid. For example, the emission factor in VIC is 0.98
being the highest and in TAS is 0.17 being the lowest (Australian
Government 2020). Table 2.2 outlines the emission factors for Australian
all states and territories.
There are eight climate zones across Australia according to NCC, and
within each zone the requirements for building design and construction are
distinctly different (Fig. 2.4) (ABCB 2019). Considering the difference
in local geographic characteristics (e.g. wind, latitude), each climate zone
defined by NCC can be subdivided into sub-zones locally. NatHERS defines
69 sub-zones among the eight climate zones, in which the sub-zones are also
linked with postcode for convenience (NatHERS 2022). Some of the most
2
Operational Carbon in the Built Environment: Measurements…
Fig. 2.4 Eight climate zones across Australia. (Source: ABCB 2019; Image credit: Creative Commons Attribution-No
41
Derivatives—4.0 International Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ © Commonwealth of Australia and

the States and Territories of Australia 2019, published by the Australian Building Codes Board)
42 D. Prasad et al.
populated areas in Australia fall in different climate zones like zone 2—warm
humid summer, mild winter (e.g. Brisbane); climate zone 5—warm temper-
ate (e.g. Sydney, Adelaide and Perth); climate zone 6—mild temperate (e.g.
Melbourne); and climate zone 7—cool temperate (e.g. Canberra, Hobart).
There are ten building classifications in Australia based on NCC
(Table 2.3). In alignment with the ten building classes, there are five build-
ing archetypes such as residential, commercial, public buildings and others.
2.3 Comparison of Published Benchmarks

and Targets
Several institutes and organisations have started to undertake concerted
action to reduce operational energy and carbon to chart a pathway
towards net zero. These targets are presented in the following sub-sections
globally and in the context of Australia.
2.3.1 The Current State of Operational Energy

and Carbon in Australia
The Australian building sector is highly dependent on the electricity grid,

with electricity accounting for 86% of total carbon emissions (Fig. 2.5). As a
result, the development of Australia’s renewable energy industry plays a
major contribution in any reduction in carbon emissions of the building sec-
tor. Australia’s renewable energy capacity is increasing with the construction
of large-scale PV and wind farms which contributed 21% of the energy in
the fuel mix generated from renewable sources (Clean Energy Council 2021).
At the same time, both residential and commercial buildings are
responsible for the direct carbon emissions because of their gas consump-
tion. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the direct combustion emissions
will decrease by 9% by 2030 compared with 2020 (DISER 2019; DAWE
2021). There is a need to remove fossil fuels entirely from buildings, that
is, replacing gas cookers and boilers with heat pumps.
Another factor which has arisen in Australia is the reduction in national
electricity demand. According to the Australia Energy Regulator, the
Table 2.3 Building archetypes and classifications (ABCB, 2019)
national electricity demand started decreasing from 210.5 TWh in

2008–2009 to 192.4 TWh in 2019–2020, during which period Australia’s
population increased (from 21.69 million in 2009 to 24.99 million in
2018) (Fig. 2.6) (AER 2021).
Fig. 2.5 Percentage of total emissions (MtCO2e) by building type and energy
source in 2013. (Source: ASBEC 2016)
Fig. 2.6 Electricity demand of Australia and states in 1999–2020. (Source: Author-
drawn based on AER 2021)
Fig. 2.7 Annual renewable energy generation and percentage variations.

(Source: Author-drawn based on the Clean Energy Council 2021)
The decrease in electricity demand from 2008 is broadly related to the

sharp increase in the electricity prices, which is, in turn, directly related
to the increase in the expenditure on ‘poles and wires’ to stabilise electric-
ity supply created by increased peak electricity demand due to climate
change (Harrington and Hoy 2019; Diesendorf 2019). An increase in
electricity prices has resulted in reduced use of electricity among consum-
ers, resulting in a decrease in national carbon emissions.
In the building sector, at the same time, policies from different levels
of governments, the improvement of building and construction technol-
ogies and techniques and best practice in design and building have fur-
ther contributed to the reduction in building energy intensity (Fig. 2.7).
Since it was established, Green Star has developed into a norm for the
design and fit out of commercial buildings (GBCA 2021). In particular,
the buildings certified by Green Star (4, 5 and 6-star) are designed and
built to produce 55% less carbon emissions and consume 66% less elec-
tricity, compared to buildings which comply with the minimum stan-
dards (GBCA 2019). Another commercial building rating scheme,
NABERS, was adopted to assess the energy consumption and carbon
emissions of a building. It has evolved from a voluntary rating system to
being mandated for the sale or lease of any office building over 1000 m2.
It is estimated that NABERS has led to an 830,000 tonnes reduction in
carbon emissions since it was developed in 1998 (NABERS 2022).
46 D. Prasad et al.
Government and industry are working for a further reduction in car-

bon reduction in the future. For instance, GBCA has issued the ‘Carbon
Positive Buildings’ for carbon neutrality which features high levels of
energy efficiency, 100% renewables and the avoidance of fossil fuels for
new buildings by 2030 and existing buildings by 2050 (GBCA 2022).
The NCC also updated the building code every three years to improve
commercial building energy efficiency with a pathway towards net zero
operational carbon ready buildings (ABCB 2019).
In terms of residential buildings, the Department of Industry, Science,
Energy and Resources—on behalf of the states and territories—has admin-
istered NatHERS since 1993 to assess the thermal performance (heating
and cooling needs) of residential buildings since 1998 (ClimateWorks
2013). It was incorporated into the Building Code of Australia in 2003
with a focus on single dwellings and set minimum energy efficiency
requirements (3-star) for multi-residential buildings. Those requirements
became more stringent with subsequent updates to the Code. In 2010,
Class 1 buildings had to meet 6-star requirements and Class 2 buildings
had to meet 5-star requirements (NatHERS 2015). While the national
requirements have not been improved for around 10 years, the average
performance for housing has been increased to at least 6-star from the
initial 1.5-star, resulting in a significant reduction in carbon emissions.
In NSW, BASIX is applied to assess water, energy and thermal comfort
performance among all residential dwelling types. With the implementa-
tion of BASIX since 2004, it is estimated that 8.8 million tonnes of car-
bon emissions have been prevented (BASIX 2022).
According to NABERS, the average rating level of all commercial
office buildings also met 4.5 stars (without green power) by the 2019
financial year, increasing from 3.5 stars in the 2010 financial year. At a
base building level, 57% of the office building are 4.5 star and above, and
at a whole building level, 49% of the office buildings are 4.5 star and
above (Fig. 2.8) (ABCB 2019). The 5.5-star and 6-star buildings are con-
sidered as the aspirational scenario for setting the current carbon bench-
marks (Fig. 2.8) (ABCB 2019). It also supports Sydney’s minimum
standard of 5.5-star NABERS for new commercial buildings from 2018
(JEWELL 2014).
NABERS has set the following three benchmarks:
Fig. 2.8 The average star level of commercial office buildings in Australia.
(Source: NABERS 2020b)
48 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.9 Carbon emissions of commercial office buildings according to base, ten-
ancy and whole buildings (Conservative scenario: 4.5 stars; aspirational scenario:
5.5–6 stars). (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of NABERS and
the CBD program)
• Base building: Central services such as heating and cooling systems,

lifts and lobby lighting are rated.
• Tenancy: The space for business such as office spaces is rated.
• Whole building: Both central services and spaces for business
are rated.
According to the database of the NABERS star rating scheme and the
Commercial Building Disclosure (CBD) Program, mean carbon emis-
sions of existing commercial base office buildings in Australia is
78.1 kgCO2e/m2/year (Fig. 2.9). The conservative (4.5 stars) and aspira-
tional (5.5–6 stars) benchmarks of new office base buildings are 74.2 and
44.4 kgCO2e/m2/year, respectively.
Meanwhile, the mean operational carbon emissions of existing ten-
anted buildings are 67.9 kgCO2e/m2/year (Fig. 2.9). The conservative
(4.5 stars) and aspirational (5.5–6 stars) performance of new office ten-
ancy buildings is 75.4 and 48.8 kgCO2e/m2/year, respectively. The
existing whole buildings mean is 162.8 kgCO2e/m2/year, with conserva-

tive and aspirational performance of new office whole buildings at 137.9
and 92.7 kgCO2e/m2/year mean, respectively. Overall, this demonstrates
higher NABERS ratings have statistically lower operational carbon emis-
sions across base, tenancy and whole buildings (except new tenancy 4.5
stars, which is slightly higher than existing).
In addition, the operational carbon emissions varies significantly with
state which indicates the difference in construction, climate and mostly
electrical energy source fuel type. The carbon emission intensities of exist-
ing commercial office buildings (e.g. base, tenancy, whole), for instance,
of eight states are calculated and given in Fig. 2.10.
Tasmania possesses the lowest operational carbon emissions among all
states, in terms of the base, tenancy and whole building scenarios because
of regional low carbon energy sources, with 80% of state electricity gener-
ated by hydro power. Commercial office buildings in Tasmania are closer
to achieving the net zero operational carbon target than other states, with
the current average carbon intensities of 13.9 kgCO2e/m2/year (existing
base building), 12.6 kgCO2e/m2/year (existing tenancy building) and
36.4 kgCO2e/m2/year (existing whole building). In comparison, commer-
cial office buildings in Queensland have the highest mean operational car-
bon emissions, with 101.6 kgCO2e/m2/year (existing base building) and
74.3 kgCO2e/m2/year (existing tenancy building) indicating significant
Fig. 2.10 Operational carbon emission intensity of commercial office base build-
ings across different states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of
NABERS and the CBD program)
50 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.11 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office tenancy buildings

across different states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of
200.9 221.6
190.9 166.9
169.6
150.1
96.3
36.4
Fig. 2.12 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office whole buildings

across different states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of
challenges in transitioning to net zero operational carbon targets. In

addition, the achievement of net zero operation carbon targets amongst
commercial buildings in Victoria, New South Wales and the Northern
Territory also presents significant challenges (Figs. 2.11 and 2.12).
Fig. 2.13 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office base buildings in

NSW according to climate zones. (Source: Author-calculated based on the data-
bases of NABERS and the CBD program)
Within all states, operational carbon performance is the influenced by

climatic conditions and state government policies and regulations. While
in an individual state (e.g. NSW) climate conditions can vary significantly.
For instance, NSW has six types of climate zones according to the NCC,
which can result in the variations in operational carbon performance. As
indicated in Fig. 2.13, Climate zone 6 (mild temperate), such as Parramatta
in NSW, has an average operational carbon of 90.5 kgCO2e/m2/year for
existing commercial office base buildings, while Climate zone 5 (warm
temperate), such as Sydney in NSW, has a slightly higher figure of
94.4 kgCO2e/m2/year. Nevertheless, the comparison of two representative
cities including Sydney and Parramatta that have different climatic condi-
tions indicates that Paramatta has a higher carbon emission intensity
(92.2 kgCO2e/m2/year) compared with Sydney (87.1 kgCO2e/m2/year).
A further comparison of the operational carbon emissions of commer-
cial buildings is shown in, Fig. 2.14 a gradual improvement in building
performance. For instance, the average carbon emission intensity of exist-
ing-build NABERS 2019 is 78.1 kgCO2e/m2/year, much lower than that
of minimum standard new build 2012 (110 kgCO2e/m2/year) and aver-
age new build 2012 (94 kgCO2e/m2/year). Moreover, the operational
carbon emissions of NABERS new build in the conservative and aspira-
tional scenarios reduce to 74.2 kgCO2e/m2/year and 44.4 kgCO2e/m2/
year, the aspirational (best practice) NABERS new build benchmark is
roughly equivalent to that of 6-star Green Star 2003–2012 (Fig. 2.14).
52 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.14 The reduction in the carbon emission intensity of commercial office
buildings. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of NABERS and the
CBD program)
According to the modelling and estimation of the Centre for International

Economics (2019), up until 2029, retail buildings (shopping centres) will
be the largest energy consumer among new commercial buildings, account-
ing for about 39% of the total energy consumption of the newly built com-
mercial buildings in Australia (ABCB 2019). This highlights the importance
of improving the energy performance and reducing the carbon emissions of
retail buildings.
The number of retail buildings (mostly shopping centres) certified by
NABERS increased from 23 in the 2010 financial year to 188 in financial
year 2019 (NABERS 2020b). Correspondingly, the building area reached
9 million square metres. In the past several years, the energy performance
of retail buildings has been significantly improved, from only 0.9 stars in
financial year 2010 to 3.9 stars in financial year 2019. A 4-star grade is
therefore regarded as the current level of new build shopping centres.
There are also some best practice shopping centres that have achieved
5.5-star and 6-star NABERS Energy labels.
It should be noted that NABERS is only suitable for shopping centres
that have more than 15,000 m2 in floor area, which indicates that 78% of
the commercial buildings are excluded (Jewell 2014). Meanwhile, NABERS
is only voluntarily applicable for shopping centres, indicating that many
buildings have not been captured (ABCB 2019). In addition, tenancy
energy is not covered (e.g. in-store lighting), indicating the energy use and
operational emissions from shopping centres are potentially underestimated.
Fig. 2.15 Operational carbon emissions for retail buildings in Australia. (Source:
Author-calculated based on the databases of NABERS and the CBD program)
Nevertheless, the benchmarks of existing shopping centres, conservative

new build shopping centres (4 stars) and aspirational new build shopping
centres (5.5–6 stars) are presented to facilitate our understanding of the per-
formance of shopping centres. More accurate carbon benchmarks will be
updated with when data becomes available and when there is stringent regu-
lation of shopping centres.
Figure 2.15 illustrates the average operational carbon emissions of
existing NABERS shopping centres of 65.0 kgCO2e/m2/year. However,
the conservative new build shopping centres emissions are an average of
73.1% kgCO2e/m2/year. The relatively low carbon emissions of existing
shopping centres, compared with the conservative new building, may
result from uneven samples. Nevertheless, the carbon emission intensity
of shopping centres certified with 5.5–6 stars is much lower, about
17.1 kgCO2e/m2/year. This indicates the significant potential for achiev-
ing lower carbon emissions among retail buildings through implement-
ing best practice.
Figure 2.16 presents the carbon emission performance of existing
NABERS shopping centres across different states in Australia. The results
indicate that the existing shopping centres in Tasmania have the lowest
carbon emission intensity, about 6 kgCO2e/m2/year. Shopping centres in
South Australia also have low carbon emission intensities, about
29.6 kgCO2e/m2/year on average. Whilst the shopping centres in Western
Australia also have relatively low operational carbon emissions, the value is
52 kgCO2e/m2/year on average, about two times of that in South Australia.
54 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.16 Carbon emission intensity of retail buildings across different states.
(Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of NABERS and the CBD
program)
Shopping centres in ACT are carbon intensive, with an average emis-

sion intensity of 83.3 kgCO2e/m2/year, followed by that in NSW
(75.6 kgCO2e/m2/year) and then that in Victoria (73.6 kgCO2e/m2/year)
and Queensland (71 kgCO2e/m2/year), respectively. Nevertheless, the
carbon emission results of shopping centres in ACT, TAS and VIC may
be undermined by the limited number of samples: ACT (3), TAS (2) and
VIC (7).
The operational carbon emissions of residential buildings based on the
data available from NatHERS rating scheme for each Australian cities are
presented in Fig. 2.17. It is important to note that NatHERS rating
scheme accounts for heating and cooling loads in residential buildings,
and not the plug loads. Carbon emissions reduce with an increased
NatHERS star rating, as would be expected. Sydney and Darwin have the
highest carbon intensity for residential buildings with 7.5 stars, 41.2 and
41.3 kgCO2e/m2/year, respectively. Canberra and Melbourne have the
highest carbon intensity for 6.4 star rated residential buildings, 43.2 and
42 kgCO2e/m2/year, respectively, similar to 6.5 star rated residential
buildings in Sydney and Darwin.
In residential buildings across Australia, some of the bigger contribu-
tors to operational carbon emissions are domestic hot water and appli-
ances in general. When major Australian cities are looked at in detail,
heating is the biggest contributor in Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and
Fig. 2.17 Carbon emission intensity of residential buildings across different

states. (Source: Author-calculated based on the databases of NatHERS and the
CBD program)
Canberra. Over 19% of the total carbon emissions of 6.4 star rated resi-
dential buildings in Melbourne are generated by heating. In Brisbane,
Sydney, Darwin and Hobart, the biggest contributor to operational car-
bon emissions is cooling. Over 42% of the total operational carbon emis-
sions of 6.4-star rated residential buildings in Darwin are generated by
cooling.
2.3.2 Global Targets
Globally, several institutions and organisations have defined operational

carbon reduction targets. Some are short-term and stringent with ambi-
tious 2030 targets, while others are interim targets towards net zero oper-
ational carbon buildings by 2050. One of the reasons for setting interim
targets is to help close the performance difference between new builds
and existing buildings. In most global targets, it is expected that new
builds can achieve net zero operational carbon status more quickly whilst
the existing building stock is given a longer time to deliver net zero opera-
tional carbon emission goals (Table 2.4).
Almost all organisations and institutions listed in Table 2.4 have set
operational carbon targets for 2030. For example, the Global Alliance for
Buildings and Construction (GABC), WGBC (World Green Building
Council), LETI (London Energy Transformation Initiative), Architecture
Table 2.4 Global targets for operational carbon reduction 2020–2050, as defined
by different institutions and organisations (Source: RIBA, 2021; WGBC, 2020; LETI,
2020; Architecture 2030, 2022; AIA, 2019; IEA, 2022; Climate Programme, 2020;
DGBC, 2022)
2030 and AIA (American Institute of Architects) and DGBC (Dutch

Green Building Council) established targets for all new buildings to be
net zero in operational carbon emissions. In addition, the Danish
Government suggests phased targets from 2023 so that 90% of new con-
struction performs better by 2029. The IEA (International Energy
Agency) has set targets for all new buildings to be net zero carbon ready
and 20% of existing buildings retrofitted to be net zero carbon ready. A
zero carbon ready building in this sense can be defined as one which is
highly energy efficient, such that by 2050 a decarbonised electricity sup-
ply, or on-site renewables, can ensure the building will be net zero opera-
tional carbon without any additional changes or retrofitting. Moreover,
RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) has established minimum
operational energy reduction targets of 60% for non-domestic buildings
and 50% for domestic buildings (and NTE [not-to-exceed] targets), as
well as to offset remaining carbon emissions in the building sector by 2030.
Long-term targets have been established by international organisations
and institutions but are for mostly existing buildings. For example,
GABC (Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction) suggest that
most new buildings reach net zero whole life carbon emissions and most
existing buildings operate at net zero carbon emissions by 2050. WBGC
recommends net zero operational carbon status to be achieved by all
buildings, including existing buildings. LETI has set a target to upgrade
existing homes at a rate of 3750/day, and existing non-domestic build-
ings to net zero carbon between 2025 and 2050.
2.3.3 Australian Targets
In Australia, specific targets for delivering net zero operational carbon

buildings have been set in each state and territory as presented in Table 2.5.
These net zero emission targets are mostly to be fully achieved by 2045 or
2050, accompanied by immediate and short-term interim targets for
increasing renewable energy generation between 2022 and 2030. In addi-
tion, it is proposed to reduce emissions from electricity to zero by 2030.
For example, ACT (Australian Capital Territory), where the capital city
Canberra is located, aims to achieve net zero operational carbon emissions
58 D. Prasad et al.
Table 2.5 Australian states’ targets for net zero emissions and the electricity emis-
sion variations from 2020 to 2030 (Source: ClimateWorks, 2014)
by 2045 with a 100% renewable energy generation target by 2020. This

plan also involves reducing electricity emissions by 33% between 2020
and 2030. The states of NSW (New South Wales), QLD (Queensland),
SA (South Australia), WA (Western Australia), TAS (Tasmania) and ter-
ritories such as NT (Northern Territory) commit to net zero emissions by
2050. In terms of renewable energy generation targets, almost all states
and territories are aiming to achieve by 2030. For instance, NT, SA and
VIC are targeting a 50% increase in renewable energy generation by 2030.
Several institutions and organisations are establishing pathways to
reduce operational carbon, as summarised in Table 2.6. These institutions
and organisations are BZE (Beyond Zero Emissions), COAG (Council of
Australian Governments), NatHERS (Nationwide House Energy Rating
Scheme), GBCA (Green Building Council of Australia), Climate Active,
AIA (Australian Institute of Architects), Climate Council, Australian
Architects Declare and government bodies such as City of Sydney (in
NSW), City of Melbourne (in VIC) and City of Brisbane (in QLD).
Table 2.6 Australian pathways for operational carbon reduction, as defined by

different institutions and organisations (Source: Beyond Zero Emissions, 2014;
NatHERS, 2022; GBCA, 2022; AIA, 2022; COAG, 2019)
60 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 2.18 An overview of strategies to reduce operational carbon. (Source:

Authors)
2.4 Strategies to Reduce Operational Carbon

This section provides strategies to achieve the transition to net zero opera-
tional carbon buildings. These are summarised in Fig. 2.18.
2.4.1 Energy-Efficient Design: New Build and Retrofit
To achieve net zero operational carbon in new buildings, the process of

building design should start with delivering energy-efficient strategies
and using improved building systems. Energy efficiency is considered the
most cost-effective method to reduce operational carbon, compared to
energy generation technologies (Drosou et al. 2019). Energy-efficient
design, if adopted at early stages, can contribute towards a higher overall
decrease in cost and faster transition towards net zero operational carbon.
Optimising a building’s preliminary design plays an important role in
achieving a cost-effective energy-efficient design. Preliminary design con-
siderations include responses to macro and microclimate, site characteris-
tics, solar access, considerations of the surroundings and studies on urban
morphology, followed by building form and layout. Other design decisions
relating to an efficient building fabric include walls, roofs, floors, openings,
external and internal shading devices, external surface colours for decreased
heat absorption, properties of the window glazing, insulation and infiltra-
tion. Some other considerations relate to selection of energy-efficient sys-
tems and services including efficient HVAC systems, lighting, hot water
systems, air delivery systems, dew point coolers, heat exchangers and other
services such as lifts (Fig. 2.19) (Beyond Zero Emissions 2014).
Fig. 2.19 Energy-efficient strategies for demand reduction. (Source: Authors)
New Build Design Strategies
A combined list of major energy-efficient design strategies for new build-

ings are listed below and provided in further detail in this section.
1. Designing in response to climate and site
• Climate-responsiveness
• Appropriate external surface colour and surrounding vegetation
2. Building size, form and orientation
• Optimum building size

• Appropriate orientation and efficient form
3. Efficient building fabric and openings
• Efficient and appropriate glazing and shading

• Appropriate insulation
• Appropriate airtightness
• Providing natural ventilation
• Appropriate levels of thermal mass
• Avoiding thermal bridges
(continued)
62 D. Prasad et al.
(continued)
4. Efficient HVAC and lighting
• Efficient ventilation, heating and cooling

• Using control systems
• Providing a range for setpoints
• Efficient artificial lighting and improving daylighting
• Efficient hot water heating
• Using passive heating and cooling
• Efficient appliances
• Using smart home systems
Climate-responsive design is a significant consideration to be taken

at an early design stage in delivering new buildings. Macro and microcli-
mate have a major influence on the occupant’s thermal and visual com-
fort, and the building’s energy use. Macroclimate refers to major climate
zones and does not comprise the diurnal variations in climate as such. On
the other hand, microclimate considers local conditions, surroundings,
urban heat island and other challenges associated with the climatic influ-
ences in a specific area. Microclimate plays an important role in deliver-
ing an energy-efficient building, especially in the case of commercial
buildings, since most are located in urban areas and central business dis-
tricts in various Australian cities (Augros et al. 2019).
Lighter external surface colour and increased vegetation can help
reduce the urban heat island effect. For example, through the strategies of
installing cool roofs with reduced heat absorption and green roofs and
walls, unwanted solar heat gain can be reduced. While rooftop surface tem-
peratures reach 50–90 °C on an exceedingly hot day, cool roofs can reduce
this by up to 33 °C (Osmond and Sharifi 2017). As a consequence, indoor
temperatures can drop and cooling demand can be lowered. Green roofs
and walls provide shading and cooling through evapotranspiration, also
contributing to lower surface temperatures. With the use of green envelope
components, surface temperatures can be reduced by 5–15 °C (Osmond
and Sharifi 2017). In addition to green envelope systems, vegetation used
in landscape design contributes towards mitigating the urban heat island,
improving human outdoor comfort, and increasing the effect of indoor
passive heating and cooling. Some strategies include the use of trees to
provide shade and reduce summer temperatures and thus building energy
demand, permeable paving to support evaporative cooling effects, cooling
gardens, that is, localised vegetated areas to insulate against summer heat
and reduce reflected solar radiation (Bryne et al. 2019).
Appropriate orientation and efficient building form can signifi-
cantly impact the building’s performance, particularly in dense urban
areas where many restrictions exist. The orientation, form, size and floor
plan of a building have an impact on operational carbon emissions.
Efficient design of these aspects will help reduce energy demand and
increase occupant comfort.
Appropriate insulation in the building fabric acts as the thermal and
optical barrier between the interior and exterior of a building, and can
greatly influence energy demand (Bryne et al. 2019). Insulation provides
resistance to heat flow through the building fabric. Appropriate insula-
tion must be used in the building fabric through the measure of the
R-value for opaque components like a wall and U-value for translucent
components, for example, glazing. Minimum requirements for such
measures of insulation are outlined in NCC (ABCB 2019).
Appropriate airtightness is another important attribute for performance
improvement in buildings. In addition to appropriate insulation levels,
buildings should be designed to have an airtight building fabric to control
infiltration, which is unwanted ventilation. Controlling infiltration and air
leakage through airtightness significantly improves the efficiency of the pas-
sive design strategies and active systems implemented in a building. It also
has a great impact on improving occupant comfort. Blower door tests are
carried out in Australian commercial buildings to ensure the building fabric
is airtight. According to the GBCA, best practice air changes per hour
(ACH) in offices must be between 2 m3/h and 3 m3/h. The Green Star rating
scheme allocated one point for a whole building airtightness test and another
point to achieve best practice (GBCA 2021). Other rating schemes require
even greater levels of airtightness such as the PassivHaus standard, reaching
0.6 ACH that significantly reduced operational carbon emissions in build-
ings (PassivHaus Institute 2021). By comparison, the current average new
Australian home has an airtightness of 15.4 air changes per hour at 50 pas-
cals (Pa) (that is, 15.4 ACH50), which means that most existing homes fall
far below the 0.6 ACH PassivHaus goal (Ambrose and Syme 2015).
64 D. Prasad et al.
Efficient glazing and shading systems, especially for commercial

buildings with a high window-to-wall ratio (WWR) play an important
role in reducing operational carbon emissions. Due to the cost-effective
instalment and construction of curtain walls, highly glazed façade is com-
mon in commercial buildings—in Australia and globally. High WWR
may reduce the need for artificial lighting and provides views to the out-
side. On the other hand, the probability of glare increases with large glass
walls resulting in visual discomfort. In such circumstances, users may use
internal blinds which then increase the need for artificial lighting. In
addition, a high WWR may cause local overheating in perimeter zones in
summer and user discomfort in winter. Most existing office buildings
have a WWR of 50% to 80%. Studies suggest that the optimum value for
WWR in commercial offices for reduced heating, cooling and lighting
demand is between 30 and 45% in climate zones 2, 5 and 6 (Goia 2016).
Providing natural ventilation and ceiling fans as means of passive
cooling is an effective strategy to reduce operational carbon and improve
occupant thermal comfort in residential buildings, especially in buildings
in temperate climates. In warmer and hot climates in Australia, cooling
breezes that come from the ocean and over the bodies of fresh water, for-
ests and mountains are highly desirable. Occupant thermal comfort
thresholds can be increased by introducing ceiling fans as a more sustain-
able option over air-conditioning, based on lower energy use. Studies
have found that up to 76% decrease in energy use is achieved with ceiling
fans with an air speed of 1 to 2 m/s (Malik et al. 2022).
Using thermal mass acts as a measure and property of a building mate-
rial’s ability to absorb and store heat. Heavyweight materials including
bricks, tiles and concrete are able to absorb and retain heat at higher rates
since they have a high thermal mass. Thermal mass stores thermal energy
through solar heat gain when ambient temperatures increase or when the
material receives direct solar radiation. Thermal mass retains the heat for a
time period and releases it back to air when the air temperature decreases.
Avoiding thermal bridges in the connection points, which link the
interior and exterior of a building’s components, is important to limit
unwanted heat loss and gain. Thermal bridges negatively impact the over-
all thermal performance of the building fabric. They occur when a build-
ing fabric is uninsulated due to geometry, construction or detailing.
Other strategies to avoid thermal bridges include appropriate building
envelope sealing, avoiding changes and disconnections in the thermal

resistance properties of the insulation and providing a continuous insula-
tion layer along the building envelope (Bryne et al. 2019).
Efficient ventilation ensures that a building is designed to operate with
minimum energy. Integrating air-conditioning together with natural ven-
tilation, known as mixed-mode ventilation, is an alternative way to reduce
the operational carbon in commercial buildings. This, however, must be
handled with careful design to optimise the control of outdoor air quan-
tity, air flow control during high wind events, zoning and thermal perfor-
mance of rooms within a building, and avoiding potential clashes between
the mechanical and natural ventilation occurring simultaneously.
Efficient cooling, specifically for large commercial buildings, is very
important. One of the most energy-efficient and cost-effective ways of
providing cooling is through generating chilled water and pumping it
throughout the building in air-handling units positioned near internal
spaces. Efficient heating alongside efficient cooling is also quite impor-
tant. In commercial buildings, one of the more energy-efficient heating
systems is a heat pump, compared to boilers.
Using control systems such as Building Management Systems can
control and operate a building plant and regulate its capacity based on
the requirements and changing conditions. For example, room tempera-
ture sensors can be linked to a control system that switches the plant on
and off to optimise its operation. Metering of the plant can also be con-
sidered in control systems along with technological developments, espe-
cially through innovations relating to the Internet of Things.
Efficient hot water heating is one of the most significant strategies to
reduce energy demand. In residential buildings, space heaters followed by
water heaters are the largest contributor to energy use. Together, they may
account for 20% of household energy. Using efficient artificial lighting
and appliances is particularly important as these account for 26% of
household carbon emissions in Australian homes (Bryne et al. 2019).
Using smart home systems such as control systems and intelligent home
technologies provides a degree of automated control and efficiency for
homes. Such systems rely on connectivity with appliances and offer an
interface for controlling home systems from a central point allowing resi-
dents to program timers. Home systems can be automated to a degree
in which they can respond to weather changes. Moreover, an optimised
66 D. Prasad et al.
algorithmic design to control the systems by pre-defined parameters can

be adopted to minimise carbon emissions (Bryne et al. 2019).
Retrofit Design Strategies
To reduce operational energy in the building stock, energy-efficient strat-

egies must be employed in minor and major retrofit projects for existing
buildings. A combined list of potential energy-efficient design strategies
for retrofits is listed below and provided in further detail in this section.
This list provides an understanding of how strategies for new buildings
can be adapted for retrofits mostly through system upgrades.
1. Building fabric and openings upgrades
• Improving or adding insulation

• Installing cool and green roofs
• Deciduous planting
• Improving natural ventilation through openings
• Window upgrades
• Providing window shading
• Improving airtightness
• Adding thermal mass
2. HVAC and system upgrades
• HVAC upgrades
• Using combined heat and power plants
• Using high-efficiency lighting
• Incorporating natural lighting enhancement elements
• Using high-efficiency equipment
• Building automation and controls
• Hot water systems upgrades
• Air-conditioning upgrades
• Using ceiling fans
• Appliances upgrades
• Energy monitoring
Improving or adding insulation aims to reduce the heating and cool-

ing loads and costs in existing buildings.
Installing cool roofs can help reduce energy demand as the exterior
surface material of a roof plays an important role in determining thermal
conductivity. Cool roofs, to this end, are designed to reflect more sunlight
and absorb less heat when compared against a standard roof structure. Cool
roofs are designed to include adding special materials onto the roof tiles,
claddings and cement or by painting the roofs white or in lighter colours
(Feng et al. 2022). Implementing green roofs can also provide microcli-
matic cooling benefits and reduced cooling demand through the evapo-
transpiration of green vegetation (Shafique et al., Shafique et al. 2018).
Using advanced glazing, including the development of double and
triple glazing, as well as low emissivity (low-e) glazing systems, can provide
a significant reduction in energy demand. Low-e glazing systems are cov-
ered with a thin and transparent coating or film that can reflect long-wave
infrared energy and sometime short-wave solar infrared energy. Compared
to standard glass with an emissivity factor of 0.82, low-e glazing can achieve
an emissivity as low as 0.02. This low value significantly reduces thermal
losses and the heating and cooling requirements in buildings.
Adding shading devices helps limit direct sunlight through windows
and openings and reduces energy demand through managing solar radia-
tion. Replacing the window glazing with tinted glass can further reduce
energy requirements. Solar passive design can provide natural tempera-
ture control throughout the year and reduce the need for mechanical
ventilation systems in homes. High window louvres and shading devices
installed to vent hot air and shade the incoming sunlight are efficient
ways of improving solar control. Outdoor timber ceilings and external
overhangs can help provide added shading to block morning and after-
noon sun and reduce solar heat gain.
Incorporating natural lighting enhancement elements can provide a
visually comfortable indoor environment without the need for energy and a
reduced need for artificial lighting. Through the implementation of certain
types of retrofit strategies, commercial buildings can increase their capability
to incorporate natural lighting. These include clerestory windows, hollow
structured light tubes, skylights and transparent solid light tubes.
68 D. Prasad et al.
Improving natural ventilation through openings is readily feasible for

homes built in tropical and mild temperate climates such as climate zones
1, 2 and 5 in Australia. Air movement provided by natural ventilation can
reduce the requirement for cooling demand and increase occupant com-
fort. It can also increase heat dissipation. A very efficient natural ventilation
method is cross-ventilation, which can be improved in existing homes by
maximising the placement of window openings (Whitehouse et al. 2019).
Adding thermal mass has the capability to store heat from the air and
release it back to the indoor environment when it is needed. Thermal
mass in rooms can receive winter sun to store heat and provide passive
means of heating. For example, floor tiles allow the concrete slab to cool
the home by providing increased thermal mass (Whitehouse et al. 2019).
HVAC upgrades involve the upgrades of sub-systems, including the
plant and equipment, delivery system, emission system and integration.
In commercial buildings, HVAC systems or their sub-systems are usually
replaced or upgraded every 20–25 years. This presents an opportunity to
increase the efficiency of the HVAC systems through upgrades in retro-
fits. Several HVAC systems can be selected for upgrading or replacing the
existing systems. These include heating and cooling thermal units, which
are forced air systems, radiant systems and hydronic systems.
Using high-efficiency lighting in new developments in the technology
of artificial lighting systems and increasingly stringent lighting standards
has reduced the amount of lighting energy demand in commercial build-
ings. A high-efficiency lighting system would use both natural and artificial
means of providing light to decrease energy demand and its associated
costs. A mix of natural and artificial lighting, smart lighting control systems
and good architectural design can dramatically reduce the lighting energy
consumption while providing sufficient indoor illuminance levels.
Using high-efficiency equipment and computers reduces a signifi-
cant proportion of the energy consumed in commercial buildings.
Equipment and computers also have a substantial effect on heating and
cooling loads due to the heat losses and gains they generate. Overall,
equipment and computer loads are called plug loads, and they contribute
to the total energy consumption of commercial buildings.
Building automation and controls (BAC) and Technical Building
Management (TBM) systems are control centres of buildings which
drive energy efficiency and efficient control of HVAC, equipment and

lighting systems. In commercial buildings, access and security can be also
controlled through building automation. Some of the functions of build-
ing automation include networked room automation, automatic demand
control, scheduled maintenance, energy monitoring, sustainable energy
optimisation and thermostatic valves for radiators (Asadullah 2016).
Domestic hot water system upgrades in homes reduce a significant
amount of energy use, making their upgrade and replacement during
retrofit very important. For example, electric storage hot water systems
can be replaced with a heat pump hot water system (Whitehouse et al.
2019). In addition, improving heating systems is an option, and shifting
from gas boilers to electric heat pumps.
Energy monitoring accompanied with smart metering will help
understand, analyse and potentially reduce the energy needs of residential
buildings. Smart systems can also be embedded in the overall monitoring
system architecture to increase its efficiency and possibly move towards
an automated building services and system setup.
2.4.2 Energy Generation
Energy generation from renewable sources is an essential step towards

achieving net zero operational energy and carbon in buildings. Generated
energy can be sourced from on-site renewable systems such as photovoltaic
panels, off-site renewable sources such as solar farms and ultimately from
the grid that increases its proportion of renewable energy supply (Fig. 2.20).
Fig. 2.20 Energy generation and carbon offset for increased supply. (Source:
Authors)
70 D. Prasad et al.
New Build and Retrofit

1. Generating energy from on-site renewables
• Photovoltaic systems
• Building-integrated wind turbines
2. Generating energy from off-site renewables
• Precinct-level energy generation

• Power purchase agreement (PPA)
• Green power
3. Energy storage
• Electric storage hot water systems

• Distributed energy storage systems
Incorporating photovoltaic systems is one of the most common on-

site renewable energy generation approaches used in buildings. The effec-
tiveness of photovoltaic (PV) systems and building-integrated PV (BIPV)
systems depends on several factors. These factors include building loca-
tion, orientation and solar access, building form, overshading from the
surroundings, roof space or façade area available as mountable space as
well as the efficiency of the PV technology. Most residential buildings,
especially low-to-medium size ones, have the capacity to offset their
entire energy consumption due to their often large rooftop area. However,
it is challenging to do this in larger buildings or urban districts (e.g.
CBD—Central Business District) areas due to density and overshading.
Building-integrated wind turbines are a recently developed low car-
bon technology to generate on-site renewable energy. Power output from
a wind turbine is proportional to the cube of wind speed; therefore, a
slight increase in wind speed results in greater quantities of energy

generation.
Precinct-level energy generation can be the case for buildings with a
large footprint and high energy demand. Especially the location, urban
environment and surroundings of a building may suggest that on-site
renewables may not offset the carbon emissions. For example, a tall office
building in a central business district with higher energy demand has the
potential to offset some of its energy use; however, in order to achieve
100% green power for energy generation off-site, renewables may be used
as well. Precinct-level tri-generation systems that are powered by electric-
ity are good options for off-site renewables.
A green grid through the decarbonisation of the electricity grid is per-
haps the ultimate solution to a fully green-powered built environment.
However, such changes take time and depend on numerous aspects that
most stakeholders in building design and development have limited
capabilities to influence. As of 2021, the electricity grid in Australia is
powered by 21% renewable sources (AEMO 2021) and Australia is com-
mitted to delivering a fully green-powered grid in the near future (AER
2021). However, it is not sufficient to rely on the decarbonisation of the
grid, and a faster approach to deliver a net zero operational carbon-built
environment is to design energy-efficient buildings with on-site renew-
able systems instead. Moreover, Chap. 3 discusses the implications of
embodied carbon emissions associated with this aspect.
Electric storage hot water systems should all be powered with excess
on-site renewable energy generation in residential buildings. This can be
achieved through implementing a controller that detects the availability
of excess energy and transforms it into energy storage. This phenomenon
is known as load shifting which moves the hot water load to a time when
it can be met with renewable energy. A timer can be a cost-effective alter-
native to the load-shifting phenomenon by enabling the hot water system
to switch on during the time period that renewable energy production is
at its peak (Augros et al. 2019).
Distributed energy storage systems are electricity storage devices
that retain energy from on-site renewable systems. Common
72 D. Prasad et al.
technologies include lead-acid and lithium-ion batteries. A distributed

energy storage system can increase the amount of renewable energy used
on-site rather than exporting it to the grid (Bryne et al. 2019).
2.5 Towards Net Zero Operational Carbon

In order to decarbonise building stock from the operational carbon per-
spective, the goal is to firstly reduce the need for energy by improving
energy efficiency and to fully electrify buildings for minimal reliance on
non-renewable sources. Then to also generating electricity from on-site
or off-site renewable systems and, ultimately, sourcing energy from a fully
green grid. The balance between an energy-efficient building design,
energy generation from renewable sources and carbon offset for any defi-
cit provides a net zero operational pathway. The maximum improvements
associated with several energy-efficient design techniques and technolo-
gies, accompanied with the potential energy generation proportion of
residential and commercial building types, are presented in Fig. 2.21.
The energy generation potential of residential buildings is much higher
than commercial buildings, mostly because detached dwellings have suf-
ficient rooftop area to accommodate on-site renewable systems.
Considering this, single dwellings can easily produce 100% of their
energy needs from renewable energy. On the other hand, in apartments
and commercial buildings, provision is only up to 11% on average
(Beyond Zero Emissions 2014) although, through technological improve-
ments to the system efficiency of renewable sources, this proportion is
likely to increase.
Technological improvements will also affect the effectiveness and effi-
ciency of the building systems, components and technologies. This is
going to increase the energy efficiency potential these strategies may offer.
This is particularly important as the need for energy generation will
depend on energy consumption, especially in the case of opera-
tional energy.
Fig. 2.21 Commercial and residential buildings’ energy efficiency and genera-
tion to achieve net zero operational carbon emissions (Source: BZE, 2014)
74 D. Prasad et al.
References
ABCB. (2019). Building Classifications. National Construction Code,
Commonwealth of Australia and the States and Territories of Australia.
Asadullah, M. 2016. An overview of home automation systems. In the
Proceedings of The 2nd International Conference on Robotics and Artificial
Intelligence (ICRAI), 1–2 November 2016. https://doi.org/10.1109/
ICRAI.2016.7791223.
Augros, R., Dixon, I., Partridge L., Oldfield, P., Slee, B., Vasilakopoulou,
K. 2019. ‘Guide to low carbon commercial buildings—new build’, Low
Carbon Living CRC: Sydney.
Australian Government. 2020. National greenhouse accounts factors. Australian
Government, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resouces:
October. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/national-
greenhouse-accounts-factors-2020.pdf.
AER. 2021. Annual electricity consumption—NEM. Australian Energy
Regulator. https://www.aer.gov.au/wholesale-markets/wholesale-statistics/
annual-electricity-consumption-nem.
AEMO. 2021. ‘NEM Generation information’, Australian Energy Market
Operator. https://www.aemo.com.au/energy-systems/electricity/national-
electricity-market-nem/nem-f orecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-
planning-data/generation-information.
AIA. 2019. 2030 Challenge. American Institute of Architects https://architec-
ture2030.org/.
AIA. 2022. Sustainability and climate action. Available online at: https://www.
architecture.com.au/about/carbonneutral.
Ambrose, M. D. Syme, M. 2015. House Energy Efficiency Inspections Project—
Final Report. CSIRO, Australia. https://research.csiro.au/energyrating/wp-
content/uploads/sites/74/2016/05/House-Energy-Efficiency-Inspect-Proj.pdf.
Architecture 2030. 2022. The 2030 Challenge. Avaialble online at: https://
architecture2030.org/2030_challenges/2030-challenge/.
ASBEC. 2016. Building Energy Performance Scoping Workshop Outcomes
Report. Australian Sustainable Built Environment Council, https://www.asbec.
asn.au/research-items/building-energy-performance-scoping-workshop-
outcomes-report/.
BASIX. 2022. About BASIX, Building Sustainability Index, https://www.plan-
ningportal.nsw.gov.au/basix/about-basix.
Berggren, B. Wall, M. 2017. Two Methods for Normalisation of Measured

Energy Performance—Testing of a Net-Zero Energy Building in Sweden.
Buildings (7):86. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings7040086.
BERS. (2007). Education in Building, BERS Pro Software. Available at: www.
eib.edu.au
Beyond Zero Emissions. 2014. ‘Zero carbon Australia buildings plan’, Scribe
Publications: Melbourne.
Bryne, J. Taylor, M. Ambrose, M. Berry, S. Sproul, A. 2019. ‘Guide to low car-
bon residential buildings—new build’, Low Carbon Living CRC: Sydney.
Clean Energy Council. 2021. Clean Energy Australia report. 193–207. https://
assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-
australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2021.pdf.
Climate Programme. 2020. Denmark’s mid-century, long-term low greenhouse gas
emission development strategy. Danish Ministry of Climate, Energy and
Utilities. https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/ClimateProgramme2020-
Denmarks-LTS-under-the%20ParisAgreement_December2020_.pdf.
ClimateWorks. 2013. Tracking Progress Towards A Low Carbon Economy.
ClimateWorks Australia, https://apo.org.au/sites/default/files/resource-
files/2013-07/apo-nid35717.pdf.
ClimateWorks. 2014. Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation in 2050: How
Australia can prosper in a low carbon world: Technical Report. Technical
Report, ClimateWorks Australia, https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/
resource/pathways-to-deep-decarbonisation-in-2050-how-australia-can-
prosper-in-a-low-carbon-world/.
COAG. 2019. Trajectory for low energy buildings. https://www.energy.gov.au/
government-priorities/buildings/trajectory-low-energy-buildings.
DAWE. 2021. Climate Solutions Package. Department of Agriculture, Water and
the Environment, Australia Government.
DesignBuilder. 2022. DesignBuilder Software Australia, CSIRO, https://design-
builder.com.au/.
Diesendorf, M. 2019. Energy Futures for Australia. In: Newton, P., Prasad, D.,
Sproul, A. & White, S. (eds.) Decarbonising the Built Environment: Charting
the Transition. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
DISER. 2019. Australia’s emissions projections 2019. Department of Industry,
Science, Energy and Resources, Australia Government.
Dodge, Y. 2003. The Oxford Dictionary of Statistical Terms, OUP, Entry for
normalisation.
76 D. Prasad et al.
Drosou, V., Giama, E., Oxizidis, S., Papadopoulos A., Santamouris, M. 2019.
‘Guide to low carbon commercial buildings—Retrofit’, Low Carbon Living
CRC: Sydney.
DGBC. 2022. Advancing net zero / Paris Proof. https://www.dgbc.nl/agenda/
dgbw-session-international-advancing-net-zero-paris-proof-220.
IEA. 2022. Net zero by 2050. Intenational Energy Agency. https://www.iea.org/
reports/net-zero-by-2050.
Energy.Gov. 2021. About Building Energy Modelling. https://www.energy.gov/
eere/buildings/about-b uilding-e nergy-m odeling#:~:text=Building%20
Energy%20Modeling%20(BEM)%20is%20a%20multi%2Dpurpose%20
tool,(program%20development%2C%20research).
EnergyPlus. 2022. EnergyPlus Software. Availalble at: https://energyplus.net.
Feng, J. Salliari, M. Gao, K. Santamouris, M. 2022. On the cooling energy con-
servation potential of super cool roofs. Energy and Buildings, 264, 112076.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2022.112076.
GBCA. 2022. Green Star Rating System. Available at: https://new.gbca.org.au/
green-star/rating-system/.
GBCA. 2021. ‘Green Star certification process’, in An overview of the certifica-
tion process, Accessed on 20/10/2021. Available at: www.new.gbca.org.au/
green-star/certification-process/.
Goia, F. 2016 ‘Search for the optimal window-to-wall ratio in office buildings in
different European climates and the implications on total energy saving
potential’, Solar Energy, 132, 467–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2016.03.031.
Harrington, P. & Hoy, V. 2019. The Trajectory to a Net Zero Emissions Built
Environment: The Role of Policy and Regulation. In: Newton, P., Prasad, D.,
Sproul, A. & White, S. (eds.) Decarbonising the Built Environment: Charting
the Transition. Singapore: Springer Singapore.
IBPSA-USA. 2022. Building Energy Software Tools—BEST Directory.
International Building Performance Simulation Association. https://www.
buildingenergysoftwaretools.com.
IES. 2021. Building Energy Modeling with IESVE. https://www.iesve.com/
software/building-energy-modeling.
Illankoon, C. S., Tam, V. W., Le, K. N., Tran, C. N. & Ma, M. 2019. Review
on green building rating tools worldwide: Recommendations for Australia.
Journal of Civil Engineering Management, 831–847.
ISO. 2017. ISO 16745-1: Sustainability in buildings and civil engineering
works—Carbon metric of an existing building during use stage—Part 1:
Calculation, reporting and communication. International Organization for

Standardization.
Jewell, C. 2014. Mandatory disclosure of energy ratings for shopping centres is
off the table. The Fifth Estate, https://thefifthestate.com.au/business/govern-
ment/mandatory-disclosure-of-energy-ratings-for-shopping-centres-is-off-
the-table/.
LETI. 2020. Climate Emergency Design Guide. London Energy Transformation
Initiative. UK. https://www.leti.london/cedg.
Malik, A. Bongers, C. McBain, C. Rey-Lescure, O. de Dear, R. Capon,
A. Lenzen, M. Jay, O. 2022. The potential for indoor fans to change air con-
ditoning use while maintaining human thermal comfort during hot weather:
an analysis of energy demand and associated greenhouse gas emissions. The
Lancet 6:4, 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(22)00042-0.
NABERS. 2022. National Australian Built Environment Rating System.
Available at: https://www.nabers.gov.au.
NABERS. 2019. Commitment Agreement documentation, https://www.nabers.
gov.au/publications/commitment-agreement-documentation.
NABERS. 2020b. NABERS ANNUAL REPORT 2018/19. https://nabers.
info/annual-report/2018-2019/office-energy/.
NatHERS. 2022. Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme. Available at:
https://www.nathers.gov.au.
NatHERS. 2015. Administrative and Governance Arrangements. Nationwide
House Energy Rating Scheme, https://www.nathers.gov.au/sites/default/files/
Admin%2520Governance%2520Arrangements-August%25202015.pdf.
NRC. 2002. Learning from our buildings: A state-of-the-practice summary of post-
occupancy evaluation, National Research Council, National Academies Press.
Osmond, P., Sharifi, E. 2017. ‘Guide to urban cooling strategies’, Low Carbon
Living CRC: Sydney.
PassivHaus Institute. 2021. ‘Passive House requirements’, in About Passive house,
Accessed on 20/10/20121. Available at: www.passiv.de/en/02_informations/
02_passive-house-requirements/02_passive-house-requirements.htm.
Preiser, W. F., White, E. & Rabinowitz, H. 2015. Post-Occupancy Evaluation
(Routledge Revivals), Routledge.
RIBA. 2019. RIBA Sustainable Outcomes Guide. Royal Institute of British
Architects, UK, https://www.architecture.com/-/media/GatherContent/Test-
resources-page/Additional-Documents/RIBASustainableOutcomesGuide
2019pdf.pdf.
RIBA. (2022). RIBA 2030 Challenge. Version 2. London, UK.
78 D. Prasad et al.
Shafique, M. Kim, R. Rafiq, M. 2018. Green roof benefits, opportunities and

challenges—A review. Renewable Sustainable Energy Reviews, 90, 757–773.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.04.006.
Standards Australia, Gross Floor Area. 2020. National Dictionary of Building &
Plumbing Terms. Available from: https://www.constructiondictionary.com.
au/term/gross-floor-area. (Accessed 17 November 2021).
Standards Australia, Net Lettable Area. 2020. National Dictionary of Building &
Plumbing Terms. Available from: https://www.constructiondictionary.com.
au/term/net-lettable-area. (Accessed 17 November 2021).
TRNSYS. 2020. Transient System Simulation Tool. http://www.trnsys.com/#2.
UNEP. 2020a. 2020 Global Status Report for Buildings and Construction:
Towards a Zero-emission, Efficient and Resilient Buildings and Construction
Sector. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi.
US DOE. (2022). Energy Plus Documentation, The United States of America,
Department of Energy. Available at: www.energyplus.net
WGBC. 2020. Whole Life Carbon Vision. World Green Building Council.
https://www.worldgbc.org/advancing-net-zero/whole-life-carbon-vision.
Whitehouse, M. Osmond, P. Daly, D. Kokogiannakis, G. Jones, D. Picard-
Bromilow, A. Cooper, P. (2019). ‘Guide to low carbon residential buildings—
retrofit’, Low Carbon Living CRC: Sydney.
3
Embodied Carbon in the Built
Environment: Measurements,
Benchmarks and Pathways to Net Zero
3.1 The History of Measuring

Embodied Carbon
The study of embodied energy in buildings and materials can be traced
back to the 1980s through the work of Costanza (1980) whose resource
accounting was applied to the planning and development implications of
buildings and the economy. This early approach utilised a whole econ-
omy computation method known as ‘economic input-output’ (EIO) to
establish embodied energy. Whilst complete at the national scale, this
approach was less helpful at the individual material or building scale. As
such, two additional methods, process analysis (PA) and hybrid analysis
(HA), have emerged as methods for measuring embodied environmental
impacts at these differing scales.
In 1997, the carbon lifecycle assessment framework became more for-
malised with the publication of ISO 14040-1997 (ISO 1997). This pro-
vided an important step forward to systemise embodied carbon evaluation
of products and systems. Importantly, ISO 14040 (the family of stan-
dards) enshrined key requirements of assessment and disclosure in order
to improve study replication, results comparison, consistency and quality.
However, ISO 14040-44 left open the interpretation of the ‘scope’ of the
assessment as well as other critical variables such as the definition of
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_3
80 D. Prasad et al.
‘functional unit’ as the basis for the normalisation or benchmarking and

comparison of results, along with the inventory methodology, classifica-
tion of the building or product and regional context.
In 2011, the European Standard EN 15978:2011 emerged which
attempted to define further requirements for the environmental assess-
ment of buildings (European Committee for Standardisation 2011). This
standard provided a classification approach for the ‘stages’ of a building
lifecycle and attempted to limit the use of material information to PA
exclusively. This method was adopted by many building rating schemes
and calculation software tools. However, it still did not define critical
comparative parameters such as the scope of a material and/or building
to be included in the assessment. In addition, it made no reference to, or
connection with, foundation measurement standards, systems and proto-
cols enshrined in the building industry such as the building measurement
standards of the various institutes engaged with quantity surveying and
construction cost consultancies, as well as international standards of
building area measurements.
Between 2016 and 2022 a number of important and highly valuable
studies were carried out in an attempt to understand the ‘typical’ embod-
ied carbon of buildings (IEA 2016; Simonen et al. 2017; Pasanen and
Castro 2019; LETI 2020a, b; Röck et al. 2020; Röck and Sørensen
2022). Many of these studies conclude that current methodological
approaches inhibit comparisons of results and outline the reasons behind
many of the differences in published embodied carbon data including
boundary, data methods, scope, country of origin and assumptions (IEA
2016). For instance, the Carbon Leadership Forum concluded that:
There is an urgent need to standardize general building design data and build-
ing life cycle assessment data. Alignment in definitions of building area (gross,
internal or exterior), building life cycle stages and scopes are critical for com-
parison. (Simonen et al. 2017, p. 7)
LETI (2020a, p. 28) further concludes that EN 15978:2011 is “open

to interpretation and leads to inconsistency and a lack of comparability
between different projects” and, as such, recommends the use of the RICS
Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment (RICS 2017) as
3 Embodied Carbon in the Built Environment: Measurements… 81
the preferred approach. The RICS standard critically defines the scope of
a building that must be included and the allocation method needed to
meet the definition of ‘benchmarking’ which is fundamental in the disci-
pline of cost consulting.
It is pleasing to note that in November 2021, the Global Coalition of
Institutes of Quantity Surveying and Cost Consultants issued the
International Cost Management Standard V3—Global Consistency in
Presenting Life Cycle Costs and Carbon Emissions (ICM Coalition 2021)
for buildings and infrastructure as a global way forward to achieve a level
of robustness and industry alignment to support embodied carbon
benchmarking and its ultimate regulation. This aligns to, and further
improves, critical aspects of area measurement definition as well as defini-
tions of lifecycle stages, and aligns them with globally accepted property
asset management practices.
The embodied carbon methods presented in this book are drawn
from the doctoral thesis prepared by one of the authors (Noller 2005)
and the professional work and data collection of the Footprint
Company. This chapter sets out the factors impacting embodied car-
bon measurement in practice, and explains why diverse figures emerge.
It sets forward a consistent measurement framework for the future to
enable the full scale of embodied carbon to be understood, and robust
benchmarks set. If we are to genuinely tackle embodied carbon in the
built environment, at the scale necessary, addressing this is an urgent
requirement for action.
3.2 Factors Impacting Embodied

Carbon Benchmarks
Benchmarking can be defined as:
…to put all studies on the same basis providing consistency among results,
enabling meaningful comparisons at different levels… (RICS 2017, p. 5)
82 D. Prasad et al.
Before embodied carbon can be regulated at any, or all scales (i.e. mate-
rial/building/infrastructure/city), it is essential that the variability evident
in embodied carbon figures must be addressed and suitably representative
empirical benchmark values agreed.
An ‘empirical benchmark’ is one that allows comparison of building
performance against the broader building market to achieve a view as to
whether performance is ‘good’ or ‘bad’. Fundamental to this goal is hav-
ing clear confidence in the comparability of the underlying building and/
or material data set. This requires a range of normalisation factors to
provide a common basis for comparison. In relation to embodied carbon
differences in area measurement, the scope of building materials included,
the lifecycle stage considered, the building classification and the lifecycle
method utilised, for example, must be aligned to support valid compari-
son. For instance, the ICMS-3 Standard for measuring and reporting cost
and carbon (ICM Coalition 2021) has significantly progressed the stan-
dardisation and comparability potential of studies in a number of signifi-
cant ways including:
• Mandating the adoption of the International Property Measurement

Standards (IPMS 2021) for functional unit area definition by building
classification.
• Adopting the international building element classification for embod-
ied carbon to align to cost management practices and to ensure that
embodied carbon is related to the building element—rather than
accounting for embodied carbon on the basis of material mass alone.
• Refining the lifecycle stage classification to better align with property
industry asset management norms by separating: Stage B1 as ‘property
operations’ embodied carbon; Stages B2–B3 as ‘maintenance’ embod-
ied carbon; and Stages B4–B5 ‘replacement’ (capital works) embodied
carbon. This is critical to recognise and harmonise with the asset man-
agement process as distinct from the building-level practical property
management operation.
The approach suggested for embodied carbon in this book adopts the
ICMS-3 structure (which covers both buildings and infrastructure) as the
standard for building measurement and allocation. It provides a sound

foundation for empirical comparability of results to benchmarks.
Some well-known and adopted benchmarking methods for carbon
and the built environment include the National Building Environmental
Rating Scheme, Australia (NABERS); Energy Star, United States; and the
Energy Rating Label, Australia (for appliances). The use of a simple ‘star
rating’ to define ‘performance bands’ based on a measurement protocol is
widely understood and adopted in the property sector. As discussed in
Sect. 3.1, the need for robust empirical benchmarks at the material,
building and infrastructure scale is absolutely critical if there is to be any
chance of addressing embodied carbon mitigation to both the scale and
timeframe defined by the climate emergency we face. This work suggests
that the extension of the NABERS scheme to include embodied carbon
at building and infrastructure scales would be a low cost, high impact
option which would eliminate many of the existing time, cost and capac-
ity barriers which impact the embodied carbon landscape globally.
Significantly, an empirical benchmarking approach of this nature seeks to
characterise performance outcomes but does not seek to characterise how
that performance is achieved: for example, there is no requirement for
timber over concrete, no mandate for a percentage of cement replace-
ment and so on.
In terms of embodied carbon measurement, there are six critical vari-
ables that must be standardised in order to make progress towards com-
parability of embodied carbon benchmarks. These are:
1. Functional unit area definition

2. Building classification
3. The method used for lifecycle inventory coefficients
4. Building-scale lifecycle carbon methodology
5. Completeness—or scope of items included
6. Geographic context
These factors are discussed in Sects. 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4, 3.2.5
and 3.2.6.
84 D. Prasad et al.
3.2.1 Functional Unit Area Definition: Estimated

Impact on Embodied Carbon Measurement
of 12–30%
The building floor area metric used to normalise embodied carbon can
impact the resulting figures by 12–30%. The IPMS defines property mea-
surement standards internationally to provide confidence and transpar-
ency and has recently been adopted by ICMS-3 as the standard functional
unit for reporting carbon and cost. For example, the floor area ratio of a
building is an important measure of efficiency; net occupied or leased
area is an internationally recognised unit of performance for buildings,
and gross building area is always larger. The criticality of this point has
gone mostly unrecognised and is a crucial weakness in published embod-
ied carbon benchmarks. ICMS-3 requires the disclosure of absolute
embodied carbon in both gross and net normalised terms for transparency.
The publication of many benchmarks is either silent on the definition
of the functional unit area or refers to gross floor area. This has two impli-
cations: (1) without disclosure, benchmarks cannot be confidently com-
pared, and (2) benchmarks could be 30% higher or lower depending on
the actual basis of analysis.
The NABERS scheme in Australia has recognised this point and has
defined net lettable area (NLA) as the functional unit reference for the
purpose of calculating the ‘intensity’ and its comparability to opera-
tional performance bands. The embodied carbon benchmarks presented
in this book are normalised on the basis of NLA or equivalent.
3.2.2 Building Classification: Estimated Impact

on Embodied Carbon Measurement
of up to 100%
The Australian Construction Code provides nine habitable building type

classifications (ABCB 2020). Embodied carbon performance bench-
marks must be considered by both main classification and quality sub-
classification to be robustly comparable. A number of published
benchmark studies have grouped buildings together as ‘domestic’ and
‘commercial’ or ‘non-domestic’ and drawn comparisons—largely because

of limited data points. The term ‘commercial’ can be taken to include
office, retail, industrial and hotel, and ‘domestic’ to cover single, dual
occupancy and multi-family typologies.
Within all classes, quality standards will also impact embodied carbon
to a significant extent. For example, Class 5 in Australia includes: subur-
ban Class C, B and A grade and Premium A grade building types. Under
the Property Council of Australia (PCA) standards matrix, façade, servic-
ing, floor-to-floor heights and finish quality, for example, are all signifi-
cantly different for these sub-categories so as to make the resulting
embodied carbon incomparable for the purpose of benchmarking. If sub-
classifications were not recognised, it would have the effect of making
suburban grade office space appear excellent and premium grade office
space poor, for example. Subsequently, the benchmarks presented in this
book are classified based on the Australian Construction Code with fur-
ther sub-classifications for Class 1 (timber/brick or concrete/brick) and
Class 2 (above and below 25 m building height). With greater data avail-
ability, further sub-categorisations could be made.
3.2.3 Methodology for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

Coefficients: Estimated Impact on Embodied
Carbon Measurement of between 2 and 99%
There are three accepted lifecycle assessment methods used for the pur-
pose of calculating an individual material or product’s embodied carbon,
as noted above—PA, EIO and HA.
PA can be classified as a ‘bottom-up’ approach where direct emission
flows are quantified through the product system upstream from the final
production point (e.g. factory gate) through a manual tracing process. It
can be accurate for two or three processes upstream from the final point,
but given the complexity of supply chains, it suffers from significant
truncation cut-off errors. Input-output by contrast is a ‘top-down’
method using statistical input-output analysis at an economy level and its
sectors, to determine complete (i.e. direct scope 1, 2 and 3) emission
flows to identify an intensity per dollar of demand. It is very complete
86 D. Prasad et al.
but is weak in terms of distinguishing between products where value is

the same. Hybrid analysis is a combination of the two methods (PA and
EIO) and attempts to achieve greater completeness and accuracy at the
specific product level by utilising the strengths of both methods (Crawford
et al. 2019).
Because of the difference in these methods, and in particular the
incompleteness or truncation limits of PA, large differences in the carbon
coefficient or intensity of a product may occur between the methods. For
instance, in the research and development of the EPiC database in
Australia, it was found that PA data was on average 55% incomplete
compared to HA data, but with total incompleteness varying between 2
and 99% (Crawford et al. 2022).
There are a number of well-regarded commercial and academic con-
struction material Lifecycle Inventories (LCIs) which have been used to
develop generic and industry-level materials emissions values, and it is
important for the users of this data to appreciate the limits and LCI meth-
odology to ensure appropriate application. This process has enabled an
acceleration of LCI data points and is a valid approach for the foreseeable
future. However, it is also essential to understand that all LCIs and conse-
quently product declarations are subject to accuracy errors. Depending
on the LCI, it is possible for the energy flow analysis for a product to be
founded on a single-point study of a specific factory process, which is
defined as the basis of truth for all processes of the same type. This is a
problematic approach and certainly brings into question the ‘one percent’
error margin declared in most published ISO14025 product declarations.
Because PA is such an expensive and time-consuming process, this will
always generally be a limitation to global development.
3.2.4 Building-Scale Lifecycle Carbon Methodology:

Measurement of up to 77%
This book argues that all three methods (PA, EIO and HA) can be suit-
able for application at the whole building scale depending on the design
stage, and can be mixed, subject to the study author disclosing the
methodology and limits in a manner consistent with the requirements of

ISO14044. For instance, we argue that the use of EIO ($ × EIO kgCO2-e
coefficients) is a suitable method to determine embodied carbon at the
initial project feasibility and preliminary design stages. After this, there is
a need to transfer as soon as practical to a HA method which would com-
bine material units × kg CO2-e PLUS $ × EIO kgCO2-e coefficients. This
should happen at the concept design stage and continuously evolve at
each major design step to include higher proportions of physical material
measures as far as possible until the building is complete (when a substan-
tive bill of quantities should be available).
Fundamental to any building material or whole building assessment
(and therefore benchmarks) using EN15987/ISO14025 are that they are
PA based, and consequently prone to ‘incompleteness’ at both the mate-
rial and overall building level. EN: 15978 relies on the physical measur-
ing of building materials in terms of mass (i.e. kilograms of materials).
This is a severe limitation on completeness because the truncation error
magnifies itself at the whole building level. This is particularly the case at
feasibility and early-stage design where little about the physical properties
of a building are known short of building class, quality, area and cost. It
is also the reason why LCA has been limited to the detailed design/con-
struction stage where embodied carbon reduction potential is restricted
largely to the question of procurement of a material from ‘Supplier A’ or
‘Supplier B’—as opposed to the larger mitigation strategies generally
available at earlier design stages, such as adaptive reuse.
In cost planning practice, early-stage/concept measures are understood
to have, at best, only 40% of a building defined in physical measured
terms and have a 20–30% ‘contingency’ applied to allow for early-stage
design uncertainty. It is rare for published reports to adequately disclose
the extent of measurement. The RICS Method for Whole Lifecycle
Assessment in the Built Environment has recognised this limitation and
requires at least 95% of the building by value to be measured (RICS 2017).
The benchmarks presented in this book (in detail in Chap. 4) have
been prepared on the basis of HA methods where physical quantities have
been applied to coefficients where possible and added to the ‘unmea-
sured’ values multiplied by EIO coefficients delivering a high degree of
completeness being achieved.
88 D. Prasad et al.
3.2.5 Completeness or Scope of Items Included:

of up to 50%
Historically, many whole building assessments have been relatively complete

for the major elements of structure, external walls and internal walls as these
are easy to measure and assess. More complex elements such as builders’
preliminaries, fitments, services and external works have been systematically
excluded. These elements can have significant embodied carbon; for
instance, mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) systems and tenant
improvements have been shown to have an embodied carbon as high as a
commercial building’s shell and core over 60 years (Rodriguez et al. 2020).
As such, many published benchmarks of average embodied carbon
have been low since they can miss much of the buildings’ materials. As
noted previously, the RICS Method for Whole Lifecycle Assessment in the
Built Environment nominates at least 95% of the building by value to be
included in the measurement of embodied carbon, which addresses this
concern. This should be aligned to the main building elements and
reported in a manner consistent with that defined by ICMS-3 to improve
the completeness of whole building results.
3.2.6 Geographic Context: Estimated Impact

on Embodied Carbon of 30% or More
Geographic context can also significantly impact embodied carbon. For

instance, research has shown the energy-related CO2 emissions (PA) for
steel production in China are nearly twice as high (2148 kgCO2/tonne)
as compared to Mexico (1080 kgCO2/tonne), due to Mexican produc-
tion using a greater amount of electric arc furnaces which contribute to
lower emissions (Hasanbeigi et al. 2015).
EU responsible product stewardship rules have the effect of accelerat-
ing EU-based embodied carbon reduction for construction products.
Thus, a PA-based whole building carbon assessment using exclusively EU
country-of-origin products is likely to have a lower embodied carbon
measurement than a building in another region. Using EU, UK or US
benchmarks, even if ‘complete’, and comparing these with different
regions, should be done with great caution.
3.2.7 Case Study Example: Clay Brick
To demonstrate the impact of some of these variables on embodied car-

bon results, a simple case study of clay bricks is presented. Table 3.1 and
Figs. 3.1 and 3.2 present a comparison of data. Embodied carbon data
for the materials is taken from five different sources that use different
methodologies, including process analysis (PA), input-output analysis
(EIO) and hybrid analysis (HA). Figures for AusLCI, The Footprint
Calculator/EPiC (see Crawford et al. 2019) and IE Lab are Australian.
One Click data is ‘adjusted’ within their system to Australia and e-Tool
data is assumed to be Australian.
Table 3.1 Embodied carbon comparison of 1 m2 of brick wall fair faced (kgCO2-e)
A1–A3 (excluding preliminaries)
Note: Technically, The Footprint Calculator/EPiC and IE Lab are A1–A5 due to the
underlying HA/EIO method completeness
90 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 3.1 Comparison of embodied carbon per kg of brick (kgCO2-e/kg) (by

authors)
Fig. 3.2 Comparison of embodied carbon of 1 m2of brick wall (kgCO2-e) A1–A3.
(Note: Technically, The Footprint Calculator/EPiC and IE Lab are A1–A5 due to the
underlying HA/EIO method completeness (by authors))
Including cutting waste, there are fifty bricks per square metre of wall
for a standard Australian brick. There is 3 kg of sand/cement mortar with
10 mm joints and 10% waste. There are five brick ties per square metre
required. The total for one square metre of finished wall is between
26.4 kgCO2-e and 76.1 kgCO2-e depending on which tool and method
are used.
At the whole building level for a typical house (220 m2 gross floor area
and 179 m2 net habitable area), the absolute figures vary from
3696 kgCO2-e to 10,653 kgCO2-e. On a functional unit normalised
basis, this translates to 21 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA (low) to 60 kgCO2-e/m2
NHA (high). This provides a major variation in the embodied carbon
benchmark of +28% to −56%, assuming the AusLCI data as the reference
(Table 3.2 and Fig. 3.3).
ICMS-3 standards, as discussed, now require both net and gross areas
to be reported, which is a significant and important progression to ensure
that intensity results are compared on a consistent basis. This means
depending on the methodology and metrics used, the embodied carbon
Table 3.2 Whole building comparison (brick only) (kgCO2-e) A1–A3 (excluding
preliminaries)
Note: Technically, The Footprint Calculator/EPiC and IE Lab are A1–A5 due to
the underlying HA/EIO method completeness
92 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 3.3 Comparison of embodied carbon of brickwork in a typical house (kgCO2-

e) (by authors)
of brickwork in a typical house could range from 17 kg CO2-e/m2 GFA

to 60 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA—this is a difference of 353%.
3.3 Existing Embodied Carbon Benchmarks

Given the increasing recognition and importance of embodied carbon, a
number of institutions and organisations have started concerted action to
reduce its impact and chart a pathway towards net zero. Some of these
reduction targets are listed in Table 3.3.
Such targets are obviously beneficial. However, what is defined as a
representative ‘baseline’ or ‘current practice average’ to measure these
reductions against is an essential question. As has been observed, many
published embodied carbon results are incomplete; that is, they do not
include the entire scope of the building—in particular services, prelimi-
naries and other ‘unmeasured’ elements. This means that it has been dif-
ficult to establish robust and reliable benchmark data for comparative
purposes.
Table 3.3 Targets for embodied carbon reduction 2020–2050
Source: data from GBCA (2021), Architecture 2030 (2021), RIBA (2021), LETI
(2020a), GlobalABC et al. ( 2020) and IEA (2022)
The approach in this book is aligned to the best practice previously

identified for the measurement of area normalisation (i.e. using net floor
area), building classification and completeness (i.e. the inclusion of both
physical quantities from cost plans and monetary value for items which
are not individually measured). The reason we argue that the method
outlined here is appropriate to adopt is because it results in the most
complete picture of embodied carbon intensity, and because the hybrid
approach can be effectively applied from the earliest feasibility stage all
the way through to as-built and beyond to asset management.
Tables 3.4 and 3.5 and Figs. 3.4 and 3.5 show a comparative analysis
of embodied carbon benchmarks for Class 1, 2, 5 and 6 buildings from
this book (the full range of embodied carbon benchmarks for buildings
in Australia are in Chap. 4) and a selection of other published embodied
carbon benchmarks from around the world. This comparison serves to
explain the large variance in embodied carbon figures available.
The data shows all values in kgCO2-e/m2 of functional area, usually
A1–A5. The tables compare the inclusions, exclusions and variables for
each of the values as a way of highlighting the reasons for differences, and
why it is critical to understand the challenge of comparing embodied
carbon figures. The data for the embodied carbon benchmarks in this
book are derived from The Footprint Company and its Footprint
Table 3.4 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for Class 1 and 2 buildings (detached residential and
apartments)
Calculator dataset of 1020 whole building carbon assessments. These are
based on embodied carbon assessments completed using the ‘hybrid/
hybrid’ method which this chapter outlines. The hybrid/hybrid approach
embraces hybrid LCI material coefficients and hybrid lifecycle analysis
including both physical quantities from cost plans and monetary value
and preliminaries. What this means is these embodied carbon figures are
higher than most other studies. In both the tables and figures, attempts
have been made to ‘adjust’ existing studies to include some of the bound-
aries of the embodied carbon benchmarks here. That includes adjusting
from gross to net lettable area (where appropriate), adjusting for process
analysis truncation and adding preliminaries.
A discussion of some of the embodied carbon benchmarks presented,
their study methods and findings is outlined here. Carre (2011) evaluates
a typical Class 1 residence of 220 m2 gross dwelling area. The embodied
carbon of five versions of the residence is determined, with different com-
binations of cladding (brick or timber) and frame material (steel or tim-
ber). The results found a timber frame with timber cladding had the
lowest embodied carbon (94 kgCO2-e/m2 GDA), while a steel frame
with brick cladding had the highest (171 kgCO2-e/m2 GDA). The aver-
age of all five is presented in Table 3.4 and Fig. 3.4. When adjusted, this
equates to 492 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA. This is lower than the benchmarks
presented in this book, likely due to different inclusions, exclusions and
methods used.
Carre and Crossin (2015) compare the lifecycle carbon emissions of
two multi-storey Class 2 residential buildings in Australia, one with a
lightweight timber frame, and the other a more conventional concrete
structure. While the whole lifecycle emissions are determined (including
operational emissions) as part of the study, only stages A1–A5 are pre-
sented here, (though it is worth noting construction processes were
excluded from the study due to a lack of data). The results find the
embodied carbon of the timber building to be 383.5 kgCO2-e/m2 GDA
and the concrete as 536.4 kgCO2-e/m2 GDA—the average of the two is
included in Table 3.4 and Fig. 3.4. When adjusted, this is 1072 kgCO2-
e/m2 NHA. The study doesn’t include services which could explain the
lower results than the figures in this book.
Table 3.5 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for Class 5 and
6 buildings (office and retail)
98 D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 3.4 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for Class 1 and
2 buildings (detached residential and apartments). (Sources: The Footprint
Company; Carre 2011; Carre and Crossin 2015; GBCA and Thinkstep 2021; Schmidt
et al. 2020; Robati et al. 2021; Röck and Sørensen 2022; Simonen et al. 2017;
Pasanen and Castro 2019; LETI 2020b)
The GBCA study (GBCA and Thinkstep 2021) focussed on the ele-
ments of foundation, structure and façade and evaluated embodied car-
bon using PA, HA and EIO methodologies. A gross building area
functional unit was nominated. Using a PA method and PA LCI coeffi-
cients, they obtain an embodied carbon of 228 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA with
HA and EIO results 8% and 127% higher, respectively. The study pro-
vides values for non-domestic buildings (assumed to be Class 5 office)
using the same method and determines a typical embodied carbon of
433 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA. When adjusted for floor area, PA and to include
preliminaries, these increase to 623 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA (Class 1) and
1382 kgCO2-e/m2 NFA (Class 5).
Schmidt et al. (2020) considered a similar approach to Carre (2011),
using a Class 1 project home design (230 m2), but with floor area and
Fig. 3.5 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for Class 5 and
6 buildings (office and retail). (Sources: The Footprint Company; Pasanen and
Castro 2019; GBCA and Thinkstep 2021; Röck and Sørensen 2022; Simonen et al.
2017; LETI 2020b)
build quality adjusted for each of Australia’s eight states/territories. They

found an average intensity of 660 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA. When adjusted to
add preliminaries, the resulting intensity increases to 939 kg CO2-e/m2
NHA. The study also found that national housing GHG emission
100 D. Prasad et al.
projections in Australia are being underestimated by around 60%, due to

the failure to consider embodied carbon.
Robati et al. (2021) study the whole lifecycle emissions of a mixed-use
(mostly Class 2) 18-storey building in Sydney, with five floors of base-
ment. They consider all lifecycle stages (A-C), but A1–A5 and B4 are
presented here. The study includes structure, foundation, envelope, inter-
nal walls and some finishes, but excludes services and preliminaries due
to a lack of data. The overall lifecycle methodology is PA, with no inclu-
sion of additional costs outside the bill of quantities. They obtain an
embodied carbon result of 743 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA, which adjusted here
would be 1498 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA.
Röck and Sørensen (2022) provide a recent and comprehensive meta-
analysis of embodied carbon, with a total sample size of 769 buildings.
Their aim is to generate a baseline embodied carbon for Europe, to inform
policy makers and design professionals. Figures were obtained from
industry partners, using data and tools specific to the country of origin
and harmonised for a 50-year lifecycle. Analysis includes different base-
lines for building types, structural systems, lifecycle stages and more, thus
providing great value for the field. For residential, they found embodied
carbon emissions mostly within the 400–800 kgCO2-e/m2 range, and for
non-residential, from 100 to 1200 kgCO2-e/m2. Large variations were
found between different countries; for instance, in France non-residential
buildings ranged from 550 to 1800 kgCO2-e/m2, while in Denmark and
the Netherlands they were typically 350–400 kgCO2-e/m2. This is put
down not only to differences in the buildings themselves, but also the use
of different datasets, methods and tools used.
The Carbon Leadership Forum study (Simonen et al. 2017) was one of
the first comprehensive meta-analyses of embodied carbon and thus pro-
vided great insight and value into the current state of knowledge. The
study provides a data visualisation tool which allows for typical embodied
carbon figures to be examined for different scope and lifecycle stages. The
tool shows that when considering structure and foundation alone (where
the clearest statistical figures were found), the embodied carbon of Class
2 buildings averaged 404 kgCO2-e/m2, with a range of 250–581 kgCO2-
e/m2 (excluding outliers). For office buildings, the average was 424 kgCO2-
e/m2, and the range 10–772 kgCO2-e/m2, but with outliers found as high
as 1314 kgCO2-e/m2, again, just for structure and foundations. Using the
average figures, and adjusting for floor area, process analysis and prelimi-
naries, the figures are 987 kgCO2-e/m2 for Class 2 and 1327 kgCO2-e/m2
for Class 5. These are lower than the benchmarks in this book, likely due
to the exclusion of many building elements beyond the structural system.
Pasanen and Castro (2019) present embodied carbon figures as part of
the ‘Carbon Heroes Benchmark Program’. Their analysis is mostly
focussed on Eastern Europe, includes lifecycle stages from A to C, and
uses gross floor area and One Click LCA data with an expert LCA review
of scope and materials. Data for embodied carbon is presented as a
median, but the averages can be read from graphs as 580 kgCO2-e/m2
GFA for Class 2 and 560 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA for Class 5. When adjusted
here, this translates as 1253 kgCO2-e/m2 NHA for Class 2 and
1526 kgCO2-e/m2 NLA for Class 5. It is interesting to note the study also
found figures as high as 2200 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA for Class 5 buildings.
Finally, the LETI Embodied Carbon Target Alignment (2020b) sets
benchmarks and targets for UK embodied carbon figures. It presents a
letter band rating system for building performance with embodied car-
bon figures ranging from A++ (best) to G (worst). It suggests typical cur-
rent performance is Band E, with ‘good design’ achieving Band C, and
targets for 2030 of Band A. Data for the benchmarks was provided from
industry, acknowledging there is a large variation in terms of analysis
inputs and reporting figures. Data is presented for both A1–A5 and also
A1–A5, B1–B5 and C1–C4. When looking at Band G (A1–A5), figures
are 1200 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA for Class 2 and 6 and 1300 kgCO2-e/m2
GFA for Class 5. Adjusted here, they translate to 2188 kgCO2-e/m2
NHA for Class 2, 2713 kgCO2-e/m2 GFA for Class 6 and 2608 kgCO2-
e/m2 GFA for Class 5.
In summary, a number of Australian and international embodied car-
bon studies have been used to compare embodied carbon benchmarks in
this book, which are presented in full in Chap. 4. What can be concluded
from this comparison is:
• The majority of published values on embodied carbon differ in terms

of inclusions, exclusions and methods, making comparisons challeng-
ing. The need for greater consistency is paramount.
• It is critical to adopt as fast as possible the 95% measurement target

using the methods outlined by RICS / ICMS (on the basis of total $
value). Where embodied carbon results are presented in an incomplete
manner—for example, excluding services and fitments, it is akin to
presenting operating emissions without considering plug loads.
• We need to start measuring and reporting embodied carbon in all
buildings—with clear disclosure of key variables as fast as possible to
build a comprehensive and valid results pool, which can be used to
expand and build on the understanding of what is ‘typical’, ‘good’
and ‘bad’.
• A single-point value as the definition of average is flawed and consid-
eration should be given to a NABERS style performance band defin-
ing average performance (e.g. 3 Star being +/−10% from the average
value). A similar approach is being championed by LETI (2020b).
• The adoption of a NABERS style performance benchmark using a
hybrid method would allow for rapid expansion of industry capacity
at low cost. The technical complexity forced by EN15978/ISO14025
necessitates the third-party independent peer review requirement
which is cumbersome and expensive and restricted to a very limited
pool. On the other hand, NABERS energy assessors, cost consultants
and accountants are abundant and have the base capability to leverage
large-scale delivery at a reasonable cost for the benefits achieved.
• Material inventory data prepared by any of the three methods outlined
before (PA/HA/EIO) is currently imperfect, and it is essential that
research and development investment is made towards government-
backed national and/or regional databases. We argue this on the basis
that many nations, including Australia, now have government-
published ‘greenhouse gas factors’ for many emissions sources. Moving
forward to government-funded and governed national materials emis-
sions factors is the best way to achieve higher levels of completeness
and coverage in a timeframe suitable to support industry mitiga-
tion action.
3.4 Strategies to Reduce Embodied Carbon

We are well along the pathway to reducing operational carbon in build-
ings, after decades of development. Through incrementally tightening
building regulations, improving energy efficiency and the decarbonisa-
tion of energy supplies, we are reducing the GHG emissions associated
with the day-to-day running of buildings, per unit floor area at least. But
as our operating carbon is reduced, the importance of embodied carbon
will grow, through the use of greater quantities of materials to improve
energy efficiency, and through the sheer amount of new construction we
are undertaking. As such, there is a clear need to radically reduce embod-
ied carbon in our new buildings (and during building refurbishment).
However, while mandatory minimum operational performance standards
for buildings are mature and well established in many countries, the same
standards for the embodied carbon of buildings are rare, in part due to
the challenges outlined previously.
To reduce embodied carbon, this book categorises a number of strate-
gies available to the design and development team under four headings,
outlined in Fig. 3.6. It is worth noting that the effectiveness of these
strategies is not equal. That is, ‘building nothing’ is far more effective
(and far cheaper!) at reducing embodied carbon than using low carbon
materials.
3.4.1 Design Strategy 1: Building Nothing/

Adaptive Reuse
Perhaps the greatest challenge to reducing embodied carbon is our cur-

rent demand for new buildings. According to estimates, globally, we are
expected to build 230 billion square metres of new floor area by 2060,
equivalent to constructing the entire building stock of Japan—every
year—for the next four decades (UNEP 2017). This is driven by a num-
ber of factors, such as population growth, urbanisation, demographic
changes and increases in wealth. But it also poses a huge challenge, in that
this growth is projected during the exact same timeframe that we need to
get our embodied carbon emissions down to net zero. The challenge of
104
D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 3.6 Diagram outlining strategies for reducing embodied carbon at different points in the design process, along with
their potential percentage reductions. The top line also suggests different embodied carbon calculation methods for these
different stages (by authors)
building so much more, while needing to use, or emit, so much less, has
led many to question whether such growth is feasible within net zero
targets.
If the world, and especially the already industrialised nations, continue to build
so extravagantly and at such a rate, global ambitions to attain net zero by 2050
will almost certainly be jeopardised. (Ness 2020, p. 4)
How can we reduce the growth of new built floor area, and subsequent
embodied carbon emissions, while still meeting the needs of society? We
know that our buildings are getting bigger. For instance, the average floor
area per occupant in new detached houses in Australia rose from around
57 m2/person in 1984 to around 94 m2/person in 2012 (Stephan and
Crawford 2016). Smaller more compact houses would provide embodied
carbon savings and reduce land and resources, while also creating less
floor area to heat or cool. But such reductions would need to be accept-
able to the market and society as a whole.
It is also important to question what we build, not just how big. There
are few things we can do as a society that are more transformational than
to build, including the creation of new housing, hospitals, libraries and
more. With 1.6 billion people living without adequate shelter (Habitat
for Humanity 2021), it is clear we do need to build more, high-quality,
healthy and sustainable buildings for the benefit of humanity. But there
are likely new buildings, especially in the more developed world, which
are less essential for the good of society. Movements such as working
from home in the wake of the Covid-19 pandemic, for example, might
reduce the need for speculative office development.
Another effective way to reduce embodied carbon is to consider the
upgrade and retrofit of existing buildings before demolition and new
build. While a new build may be able to achieve improved energy effi-
ciencies compared with refurbishing an existing building, the embodied
carbon outlay of creating an entirely new structure, façade, systems and
more will often dwarf potential operational carbon savings (Fig. 3.7).
A good example of this is the United Nations Headquarters in
New York. Originally completed in 1951, the tower was refurbished in
2015 to upgrade its façade and systems, but retaining the structure, core,
Fig. 3.7 Comparison of whole lifecycle carbon emissions of ‘demolish and new
build’ versus ‘deep refurbishment’. In this scenario, it is assumed the new build
has a slightly higher energy efficiency than the deep retrofit, hence the retrofit
curve is slightly steeper (by authors)
and opaque façade elements. A study undertaken in the aftermath of this

refurbishment suggested if the building had been demolished and
replaced, rather than refurbished, it would have taken 35–70 years for the
energy efficiency of the new building to offset the additional emissions
associated with its construction (Adlerstein 2016).
The refurbishment and adaptive reuse of existing buildings is broadly
recognised in the industry as being able to provide significant environ-
mental benefits while improving the lives of occupants. Despite this, it is
clear more of our existing building stock could be reused to reduce the
industry’s carbon footprint. The Architects’ Journal ‘RetroFirst’ cam-
paign, for example, suggests 50,000 buildings are demolished every year
in the UK (Hurst 2019). Instead, the campaign prioritises retrofit of
these buildings over their demolition, and has seen over 200 practices,
organisations and individuals declare their support.
Making better use of existing buildings, infrastructure and materials

requires a shift from a linear economy to a circular one. When it comes to
sourcing building materials and components, this would mean we should
look to use waste and recycled materials first, sourcing materials from other
industries and buildings and not virgin materials from the ground.
Components and structures would be leased, rather than purchased, with
clients paying for a service rather than a product. At the end of a building’s
life, it would be repurposed, either refurbished, or its parts turned into
equally useful materials or components for other buildings or industries.
This would require large-scale prefabrication, demountability and reconfig-
urations of buildings such that they are pre-designed for retrofit (Arup 2016).
3.4.2 Design Strategy 2: Optimise and Dematerialise
When we do need to create new buildings, there should be strategic

attempts to significantly reduce carbon-intensive material usage (known
as dematerialisation). There is strong evidence that structural optimisa-
tion and dematerialisation can significantly reduce embodied carbon
emissions. For example, in tall buildings, the choice of structural system
is vital for limiting embodied carbon. In a 60-storey tower in Chicago, an
all-concrete structure could contribute to a 18% higher embodied carbon
(around 5000 extra tonnes of GHG emissions) than a perimeter steel
frame with a concrete core (Trabucco et al. 2016). Identifying the opti-
mum structural system and materials for the building design, typology
and supply chain is vital to limiting embodied carbon. Other demateri-
alisation strategies include:
• Removing suspended ceilings and exposing services.

• Reducing floor-to-floor heights by minimising slab thicknesses and
services. This reduces the height of buildings, including the amount of
vertical structure and façade materials, for example.
• Exposing floors, and polishing floor finishes rather than using car-
pet or tiles.
• Using natural ventilation in some spaces to reduce the need for
mechanical equipment.
• Simplifying complex systems, such as using opaque façades with win-

dows, rather than double-skin, all-glazed curtain walls.
3.4.3 Design Strategy 3: Smart Design
At the sketch and detailed design stage, we need to use smart design to
adopt and integrate the lowest carbon systems into the building. For
example, it is well established that the built environment is a significant
contributor to global waste streams. In Australia 20 million tonnes of
construction and demolition waste was produced in 2015, of which 7.1
million tonnes was sent to landfill. By way of comparison, 13 million
tonnes of municipal waste was generated, with 6.5 million tonnes sent to
landfill (Pickin and Randell 2017). To combat this, prefabrication and
off-site construction methods are effective at reducing waste as much of
the construction and fabrication occurs in a controlled factory environ-
ment. Research has shown that in Hong Kong prefabrication can reduce
site waste by 52% (Jaillon et al. 2009).
3.4.4 Design Strategy 4: Low Carbon Supply Chain
Another strategy is to replace carbon-intensive materials with lower car-

bon versions that are still fit for purpose. Supply chain decisions can be
made at the detailed design stage, but if they include substituting one
material for another (e.g. using timber as a structural material instead of
concrete), such decisions should be made at the feasibility/concept stage.
Outlined in Boxes 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 are the main structural materials—
concrete, steel and timber—and a discussion on how these might con-
tribute to reduced embodied carbon in the future.
3.5 Net Zero Embodied Carbon

What is net zero embodied carbon, and how can we get there? In this
book, the following definition is used: A net zero embodied carbon build-
ing is one that achieves the highest level of materials efficiency through
rigorous application of circular economy principles, with all residual
Box 3.1 Concrete and Cement

Concrete is the most ubiquitous construction material on the planet, with
only freshwater used by humankind in larger quantities (Aitcin 2000). Its
primary ingredient, cement, is incredibly greenhouse gas intensive due to
the chemical release of CO2 from heating limestone during production,
meaning the cement industry is responsible for as much as 8% of global CO2
emissions (Andrew 2018). To reduce the carbon impact of concrete in build-
ings, there are a variety of strategies available:
• Use less concrete: Optimise and dematerialise building structures to use

less concrete or use alternative materials such as mass timber where via-
ble. For instance, there is evidence that buildings use structural materials
inefficiently due in part to habitual over-design, with significant oppor-
tunities for material reductions (Orr et al. 2019).
• Cement replacement materials: In a typical structural concrete mix,
cement is responsible for around 87% of embodied carbon emissions
across stages A1–A3 (ICE 2022). A variety of waste materials can be used
to replace carbon-intensive cement in concrete, and subsequently reduce
concrete’s embodied carbon. These include fly ash (a waste product from
coal-fired power stations), ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (a by-
product of steel manufacture) and silica fume (a by-product of manufac-
turing silicon).
• Geopolymer concrete: Geopolymer concrete uses materials containing
aluminosilicate (such as fly ash) to produce an inorganic polymer binder.
As geopolymer concrete does not use Portland cement, it can benefit
from an 80% reduction in embodied carbon compared to conventional
mixes (Ng et al. 2019).
However, achieving the necessary emission reductions from the cement

and construction industry required to limit global warming to 2 °C and
below will require additional technologies and strategies that are not yet
commercially viable. These include the scaling up of carbon capture and
storage (CCS) systems, and the development of novel cements that can radi-
cally reduce emissions, or even achieve carbon negativity (sequestering
more carbon dioxide than they emit). Even with these in place, it is antici-
pated there will be 0.8 gigatonnes of global cement GHG emissions in 2050
which will require offsetting (Lehne and Preston 2018).
annualised emissions being offset, on- or off-site, to achieve net zero

across a defensible design life span. Figure 3.9 demonstrates the concept.
This concept is simple enough; however, two key problems arise with
this definition. These are as follows:
Box 3.2 Steel

Like concrete, steel has received much criticism due to the significant green-
house gas emissions associated with its manufacture. According to the IEA,
steel is responsible for 7% of the energy sector’s CO2 emissions, with coal
being its main energy source (IEA 2020). In response, the steel industry is
implementing a number of decarbonisation strategies including the
following:
• Increasing manufacturing efficiency in conventional BF/BOF (blast fur-

nace/basic oxygen furnace) systems, which typically rely on coal.
• Increase steel manufacturing using electric arc furnaces (EAF) which rely
on scrap steel or direct reduced iron (DRI) as the raw material source,
and electricity, rather than coal as a fuel source. However, this relies on
the decarbonisation of electricity supplies through renewable sources,
and sufficient availability of local scrap steel.
• More long term, the best approach for near net zero carbon steel is to
use ‘green hydrogen’ in combination with EAFs. This replaces any fossil
fuels needed to create DRI with hydrogen. While such technologies are
available, their costs are currently high (Hoffmann et al. 2020).
Box 3.3 Timber

Timber and other bio-based materials (such as straw, bamboo and even
cork) have been heralded as beneficial in reducing embodied carbon due to
their carbon sequestration properties. As trees grow, they absorb CO2 from
the atmosphere and store this in their biomass. This sequestered carbon is
locked inside a timber building product until the end of its life and, as such,
can be considered a ‘benefit’ to the embodied carbon of a building, but
only where two criteria are met (RICS 2017):
• The timber is sustainably sourced and certified; that is, any trees that are
felled to create timber building materials are replanted/replaced, thus
not decreasing the global capacity of forestry to absorb CO2.
• That any embodied carbon measurement that includes the benefit of
sequestration (typically as a negative figure in stage A) also includes the
carbon emissions lost at the end of the timber product’s life (in stage C).
This is important as it is at this stage where significant GHG emissions can
occur in timber products, due to wood decomposing or being burnt. It is
broadly acknowledged that sequestration should not be included in any
embodied carbon measurements that only consider stages A1–A5, as this
can provide a misleading profile of emissions.
There is a growing body of research that suggests mass timber buildings

can have reduced embodied carbon emissions compared to steel and con-
crete structures, which is in part fuelling their proliferation (Fig. 3.8). For
example, in an 18-storey mixed-use building in Sydney, a mass timber struc-
ture with concrete cores and concrete basement would have 26% less
embodied carbon than a standard concrete frame, and 18% less than a
post-tensioned concrete structure, when sequestration and end-of-life
emissions are included across stages A to C (Robati et al. 2021). However,
there are several different methods for allocating carbon sequestration and
end-of-life emissions in timber buildings, which can be complex, meaning
there remains uncertainty about the significance of their true embodied
carbon benefits (Robati and Oldfield 2022).
Fig. 3.8 International House, Sydney. A seven storey commercial build-

ing constructed of engineered timber (Ben Guthrie, The Guthrie Project)
Fig. 3.9 The net zero embodied carbon concept. It is vital that emissions are
reduced as much as possible through reuse, optimisation, recycled materials and
the supply chain before any residual emissions are offset (by authors)
1. The term net zero requires the use of on-site offsets to achieve ‘zero’,
whereas the term carbon neutral refers to the practice of purchasing
offsets off-site so as to achieve effective zero. The practicality and feasi-
bility of on-site offsets for embodied carbon emissions is problematic
at scale. Schmidt et al. (2020), for example, estimate an equivalent of
8000 trees as necessary to offset the embodied carbon of a typical
230 m2 Australian home, which is not feasible on the average 400 m2
suburban block. Even where circular economy principles are rigor-
ously applied to achieve a 50% reduction of embodied carbon, the
area needed to achieve this on-site is impractical at this stage. Noller
(2021) estimates that up to one hectare (a soccer field) of the highest
efficiency solar PV panels running at peak unencumbered output
would be required to offset on-site the embodied carbon footprint of a
10,000 m2 NLA office base building over a twenty-year life span (with-
out consideration of the embodied carbon of maintenance over its
effective life). In dense urban areas and even most suburban settings,
this scale of area is unfeasible. With the decarbonisation of the grid,
the competition for ‘on-site offset’ will transition to favour embodied
carbon obligations. It is difficult to foresee a future where construction
materials can achieve 100% electrified production, and there is always
likely to be a residual footprint necessitating some form of offset.
Moreover, with the extension of the building scope of assessment to

include all elements (both measured and unmeasured), the actual scale
of embodied carbon will be higher than the prevailing convention
dictates. As such, there is the need for further research and feasibility
testing of the net zero embodied carbon definition and its timeframes.
2. The question of life span/service life or study period is problematic,
lacking transparency in most studies and requires clarification. In par-
ticular, the separation of upfront embodied carbon (Stage A1–A5) from
use embodied carbon (Stage B) is crucial. There are two sub-issues:
a. The use of a very long service life assumption (60 years as defined
by EN15978) provides a pathway for a proponent to engineer any
on-site offset to be small enough to be achievable, but without the
related additional capital carbon maintenance added. That is,
assuming that the offset is achieved over a 60-year life ignores the
possibility that the building may be demolished before that time—
thus gaming the carbon system.
b. The service life rules adopted for replacements. For example, while
the technical service life of verified tiling may be fifty years, it is
invariably replaced in many settings due to fashion and tenant
desires. To manage this issue, this research recommends the adop-
tion of the Australian Tax Office rules for equipment service lives
and depreciation schedules as a standard to apply when considering
the embodied carbon of maintenance (Stage B).
References
ABCB (2020). Building Classifications. National Construction Code,
Commonwealth of Australia and the States and Territories of Australia,
July 2020.
Adlerstein, M. (2016). Addresing the Carbon-Saving Value of Retrofitting ver-
sus Demolition and New Construction at the United Nations Headquarters.
Vidaris and Syska Hennessy Group, New York, USA.
Aitcin, P. C. (2000). Cements of Yesterday and Today: Concrete of Tomorrow.
Cement and Concrete Research (30):1349–1359.
Andrew, R. M. (2018). Global CO2 Emissions from Cement Production. Earth

Systems Science Data (10):195–217.
Architecture 2030 (2021). Architecture 2030. https://architecture2030.org
Arup (2016). Circular Economy in the Built Environment. London, UK.
Carre, A. & Crossin, E. (2015). A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Two
Multi Storey Residential Apartment Buildings. Forest & Wood Products
Australia Limited, Melbourne, Australia.
Carre, A. (2011) A Comparative Life Cycle Assessment of Alternative
Constructions of a Typical Australian House Design. Forest & Wood
Products Australia Limited, Melbourne, Australia.
Costanza, R. (1980) Embodied Energy and Economic Valuation. Science
210(4475): 1219–1224.
Crawford, R.H., Stephan, A. and Prideaux, F. (2022) The EPiC database:
Hybrid embodied environmental flow coefficients for construction materials.
Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 180, 106058.
Crawford, R.H., Stephan, A. and Prideaux, F. (2019). Environmental
Performance in Construction (EPiC) Database. The University of Melbourne,
Melbourne.
European Committee for Standardisation (2011) Sustainability of Construction
Works. Assessment of Environmental Performance of Buildings. Calculation
method.
GBCA (2021). A Climate Positive Roadmap for the Built Environment. July, 2021.
GBCA & Thinkstep (2021) Embodied Carbon and Embodied Energy in
Australia’s Buildings. Sydney, Australia.
GlobalABC, IEA and UNEP (2020). GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings
and Construction in Africa: Towards a Zero-Emission, Efficient and Resilient
Buildings and Construction Sector. IEA, Paris.
Habitat for Humanity (2021). What Is a Slum. https://www.habitatforhuman-
ity.org.uk/what-we-do/slum-rehabilitation/what-is-a-slum/ Accessed:
October, 2021.
Hasanbeigi, A., Cardenas, J. C. R., Price, L. K., Triolo, R. & Arens, M. (2015).
Comparison of Energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions Intensity of the
International Iron and Steel Industry: Case Studies from China, Germany,
Mexico, and the United States. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
December, 2015.
Hoffmann, C., Van Hoey, M. & Zeumer, B. (2020) Decarbonization Challenge
for Steel. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/metals-and-mining/our-
insights/decarbonization-challenge-for-steel Accessed: October 2021.
Hurst, W. (2019) Introducing RetroFirst: a new AJ campaign championing

reuse in the built environment. Architects Journal, London, UK. https://www.
architectsjournal.co.uk/news/introducing-retrofirst-a-new-aj-campaign-
championing-reuse-in-the-built-environment Accessed: October 2021.
ICE (2022). Low Carbon Concrete Roadmap: Setting the Agenda for a Path to
Net Zero. Institution of Civil Engineers, London, UK.
ICM Coalition (2021). ICMS: Global Consistency in Presenting Construction Life
Cycle Costs and Carbon Emissions. 3rd Edition, November 2021.
IEA (2022). Roadmap for Energy Efficient Buildings and Construction in
ASEAN: Timelines and Actions Towards Net Zero Carbon Buildings and
Construction. IEA, Paris.
IEA (2020). Iron and Steel Technology Roadmap: Towards More Sustainable
Steelmaking. International Energy Agency.
IEA (2016). Evaluation of Embodied Energy and CO2eq for Building
Construction (Annex 57). Institute for Building Environment and Energy
Conservation, Tokyo, Japan.
IPMS (2021). International Property Measurement Standards https://ipmsc.org/
standards/ Accessed: October 2021.
ISO (1997) Environmental management—Life cycle assessment—Principles and
framework. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva,
Switzerland.
Jaillon, L., Poon, C. S. & Chiang, Y. H. (2009) Quantifying the waste reduction
potential of using prefabrication in building construction in Hong Kong.
Waste Management, 29(1): 309–320.
LETI (2020a) LETI Embodied Carbon Primer. London, UK.
LETI (2020b) Embodied Carbon Target Alignment. https://www.leti.london/car-
bonalignment Accessed: October 2021.
Lehne, J. & Preston, F. (2018) Making Concrete Change: Innovation in Low-
Carbon Cement and Concrete. Chatham House Report, London, UK.
Ness, D. (2020) Growth in floor area: the blind spot in cutting carbon. Emerald
Open Research, 2020, 2:2.
Ng, T. S., Foster, S., Castel, A., Sanjayan, J. & Berndt, M. L. (2019). State of
Practice: High Volume Applications of Fly Ash and Barriers to Commercialisation.
Research Project RP1004-II, CRC for Low Carbon Living, Sydney, Australia.
Noller, C. (2021). The Footprint Company. Net Zero Pathway CPD, Sydney,
Australia.
Noller, C. (2005). Economic Impact Assessment of Embodied Greenhouse Emissions
for Office Construction, July 2005, University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Orr, J., Drewnoik, M. P., Walker, I., Ibell, T., Copping, A. & Emmitt, S. (2019).
Minimising energy in construction: Practitioners’ views on material effi-
ciency. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 140, pp. 125–136.
Pasanen, P. & Castro, R. (2019). Carbon Heroes Benchmark Program—whole
building embodied carbon profiling. IOP Conference Series: Earth and
Environmental Science (323) 012028.
Pickin, J. & Randell, P. (2017). Australian National Waste Report 2016.
Department of the Environment and Energy & Blue Environment Pty Ltd.
RIBA (2021). RIBA 2030 Challenge. Version 2. London, UK.
RICS (2017) Whole Life Carbon Assessment for the Built Environment. First
Edition, November 2017. Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors,
London, UK.
Robati, M. & Oldfield, P. (2022). The embodied carbon of mass timber and
concrete buildings in Australia: An uncertainty analysis. Building and
Environment (214) 108944.
Robati, M., Oldfield, P., Nezhad, A. A., Carmichael, D. G. & Kuru, A. (2021)
Carbon value engineering: A framework for integrating embodied carbon
and cost reduction strategies in building design. Building and Environment
(192): 107620.
Röck, M. & Sørensen, A. (2022). Towards embodied carbon benchmarks for
buildings in Europe #2 Setting the baseline: A bottom-up approach. Ramboll,
Aalborg University and Laudes Foundation.
Röck, M., Saade, M. R. M., Balouktsi, M., Rasmussen, F. N., Birgisdottir, H.,
Frischknecht, R., Habert, G., Lützkendorf, T. & Passer, A. (2020) Embodied
GHG emissions of buildings—The hidden challenge for effective climate
change mitigation. Applied Energy, 258(114107).
Rodriguez, B. X., Huang, M., Lee, H. W., Simonen, K. & Ditto, J. (2020).
Mechanical, electrical, plumbing and tenant improvements over the building
lifetime: Estimating material quantities and embodied carbon for climate
change mitigation. Energy and Buildings, vol. 226, 110324.
Schmidt, M., Crawford, R. & Warren-Myers, G. (2020) Quantifying Australia’s
life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for new homes. Energy and Buildings,
224(110287).
Simonen, K., Rodriguez, B., McDade, E,. Strain, L. (2017) Embodied Carbon
Benchmark Study: LCA for Low Carbon Construction. Carbon Leadership
Forum, University of Washington, USA.
Stephan, A. & Crawford, R. H. (2016) The relationship between house size and
life cycle energy demand: Implications for energy efficiency regulations for
buildings. Energy, 116, Part 1: 1158–1171.
Trabucco, D., Wood, A., Vassart, O. & Popa, N. (2016) A Whole Life Cycle of
the Sustainable Aspects of the Structural Systems in Tall Buildings.
International Journal of High-Rise Buildings, Vol. 5, No. 2: 71–86.
UNEP (2017) Global Status Report 2017: Towards A Zero-Emission, Efficient,
and Resilient Buildings and Construction Sector. United Nations
Environment Program.
4
Delivering a Net Zero Carbon-Built
Environment: Synthesis, Measurability,
Targets and Reporting
4.1 Methods Used to Determine Climate

Emergency Targets
4.1.1 Methods Used to Determine Operational
Carbon Targets
This section presents the methods used, climate emergency performance

targets calculated, and key strategies for achieving net zero operational
carbon. The performance targets are determined in the form of energy
use intensity (EUI) which is calculated by dividing the total energy con-
sumed by the building over a year (measured in kilowatt-hours) by the
total gross floor area (GFA) of the building measured in square metres,
and where applicable converting to other floor area benchmarks such as
net lettable area (NLA).
The methodology used to develop the operational carbon pathway
employed two complementary methods: a top-down and bottom-up
approach as presented in Fig. 4.1.
The Paris Proof method acts as a guide for achieving net zero opera-
tional energy and will be further developed to include detail and stricter
requirements which can be integrated into the method over time. The
targets are set for the EUI for different commercial and residential
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_4
Fig. 4.1 The top-down and bottom-up methods used to determine future carbon
targets for buildings. (Source: Authors)
building types. The EUI targets are intended as a minimum energy effi-
ciency target for buildings seeking to achieve net zero operational energy
status in new buildings in 2030, using a trajectory consistent with the
performance levels that assume all energy supply across the economy will
be sourced from renewables by 2050.
Top-Down Method: Paris Proof
A top-down approach seeks to identify the big picture and refers to using
comprehensive factors as a basis for decision-making and calculations. In
this study, we look at the building sector across the economy and divide
it into its individual sub-categories based on building type, location and
climate. The Paris Proof method has been adopted to establish opera-
tional carbon performance targets achieving net zero carbon in new build
and retrofitted buildings in Australia (DGBC 2020). The Paris Proof
method considers the energy supply and demand across the economy at
a large scale to calculate the individual building’s share of renewable elec-
tricity (DGBC 2020). The Paris Proof method has been previously used
by the DGBC (Dutch Green Building Council), UKGBC (United
Kingdom Green Building Council) and LETI (London Energy
Transformation Initiative) to establish what is called ‘budget’ energy tar-
gets for a building sector powered fully by renewable energy (Fig. 4.2)
(DBGC 2021; LETI 2020; UKGBC 2020).
To adapt the Paris Proof method to the Australian context, we have
enlarged its scope to encompass the building classifications in the National
Construction Code (NCC) of Australia and the diverse climate zones
4 Delivering a Net Zero Carbon-Built Environment: Synthesis… 121
Fig. 4.2 The Paris Proof method adapted to Australian context. (Source:
Authors)
Fig. 4.3 Steps of the top-down approach. (Source: Authors)
within the country. The steps to establish operational energy targets using
the Paris Proof method are outlined in Fig. 4.3.
The building archetypes and climate zones included here are depen-
dent on the availability of existing data. We have gathered data from
government and non-governmental organisations, such as the Council of
Australian Governments Baseline Studies, Australian Government
Department of the Environment and Energy Commercial and Residential

Buildings Baseline, NABERS (National Australian Built Environment
Rating System), NatHERS (Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme),
CRCLCL (Cooperative Research Centre for Low Carbon Living),
Building Code Energy Performance Trajectory, ClimateWorks Australia
and the Climate Council (CRCLCL 2019; ClimateWorks 2014). It is
expected that with the increased availability of, and access to, new data,
this method can be expanded and refined to include other building clas-
sifications and climate zones in the future.
Based on the data available from ClimateWorks Australia (2021), the
building sector’s current energy demand is around 36% of the entire
economy. The proportion of renewable energy to total energy supply in
Australia in 2020 was 21%, and ClimateWorks forecasts that this propor-
tion will increase to 27% by 2030, equal to approximately 96 TWh
(ClimateWorks 2021). Following the Paris Proof method and calculating
the future renewable energy available to the building sector, it is found
that the renewable energy share of the building sector in 2030 in Australia
is around 66 TWh, which is 8% of the total renewable energy supply
across the economy (DGBC 2020).
Current building energy use share between residential and commercial
buildings is 51% and 49%, respectively, presenting an almost equal share
in the energy demand. This proportion is used to determine the renew-
able energy budget per building type based on the commercial and resi-
dential baseline energy consumption data available from the Council of
Australian Governments (COAG 2020). A similar approach is employed
to determine the individual building type of commercial and residential
buildings by calculating the proportion of current energy consumption.
In commercial buildings, these values are determined for offices, retail
buildings, hospitals, hotels, educational buildings and public buildings.
In residential buildings, these values are determined for attached dwell-
ings, detached dwellings and residential apartments.
In order to determine the EUI figures for these building types, the
total floor space of each building type in 2030 has been predicted. To do
so, the proportion of yearly increase in floor space has been calculated
based on 20-year data from COAG (2020). Through this approach, we
have determined the new build floor space each year. Lastly, the future
renewable energy supply available to each building type has been divided
by the future new build floor space to determine the EUI values.
Bottom-Up Method
A bottom-up approach focuses on the individual parameters and compo-

nents brought together to provide an overall understanding. In this study,
we look at individually modelled building archetypes in different climates
to have an overall understanding of the building stock. The bottom-up
method used in this study looks at the extensive modelling data and sim-
ulation results available in the Building Code Energy Performance
Trajectory—Final Technical Report by the CRC for Low Carbon Living
(Bannister et al. 2018). The bottom-up modelling method is considered
to give an outline of the performance of different building archetypes
based on various Australian climate zones. The modelling performed in
the Energy Performance Trajectory Project is comprehensive and con-
tains recent information with respect to the current legislation
(CRCLCL 2019).
The modelling performed by the CRC for Low Carbon Living in the
Building Code Energy Trajectory Project examined multiple building
archetypes located in four Australian climate zones covering the country’s
largest population centres (Bannister et al. 2018). It also accompanies the
Built to Perform report that provides details on the underlying assump-
tions and results from the work (ASBEC and ClimateWorks Australia
2018). The steps are outlined in Fig. 4.4.
Combined Method to Determine Climate Emergency Targets
The combined method used to establish the EUI performance targets to

deliver net zero operational carbon buildings is a hybrid approach of the
top-down Paris Proof method and the bottom-up modelling method
(Fig. 4.5). The combination of methods defines the range for the mini-
mum EUI target. The range is determined by taking the lower and upper
bands that the top-down and bottom-up methods provide. It is
Fig. 4.4 Steps of the bottom-up approach. (Source: Authors)
important to note that the range these methods provide is defined as a

positive EUI. However, the actual target for delivering net zero opera-
tional carbon is net zero emissions. Therefore, the range provided aims at
establishing stringent EUI targets for highly energy-efficient buildings
(effectively net zero carbon ready buildings) to then achieve net zero
emissions through incorporating energy generation from on-site or off-
site renewable sources.
4.1.2 Methods Used to Determine Embodied

Carbon Targets
The scope for embodied carbon assessment benchmarks and targets in

this book is limited to the upfront stage (also known as A1–A5, or from
cradle-to-completed construction). As the construction industry’s capac-
ity to achieve quality, consistency and completeness for upfront
Fig. 4.5 Method of generating EUI targets. (Source: Authors)
embodied carbon assessment increases, there will be a basis for extending

benchmarks to lifecycle stages B (refurbishment) and C (end of life) in
future benchmarks and targets.
As outlined in Chap. 3, when setting out to compare embodied carbon
data, it is essential to be confident that embodied carbon data can be
compared on a consistent basis. One of the main challenges is the existing
variance in measurement of embodied carbon methods, inclusions and
exclusions and data sources. In the previous chapter, we outlined six criti-
cal variables that any approach to benchmarking embodied carbon must
address. These are:
• Functional unit area definition

• Building classification
• Methodology for LCI coefficients
• Building-scale lifecycle carbon methodology
• Completeness—or scope of items included
• Geographical context
The methodology used here to determine benchmarks for the embod-

ied carbon of Australian buildings sought to ensure consistency across
these variables. As such, data was drawn from a source with a consistent
calculation methodology, namely the LCA software platform known as
the Footprint Calculator™ (The Footprint Company 2020). The total
sample size (base building assessments) in the Footprint Calculator is
1020, encompassing over 120,000,000 m2 NLA across a broad variety of
building classifications, largely from end-to-end, that is, from design to
as built. The data quality and methods that underpin the quality and
consistency of the data are outlined below.
Building meta-data: There is certainty in building meta-data as The
Footprint Calculator registers key project characteristics including build-
ing classification, net and gross floor area, building quality (e.g. A grade
office), building height (smaller, or taller, than 25 m), country location
and occupancy.
Scope and Completeness: Embodied carbon scope is measured for
A1–A5 and allocated by building element (as per International Cost
Management Standards), as well as material. Where quantities of materi-
als could not be established, monetary quantities were used to achieve a
consistent completeness (therefore a ‘hybrid’ LCA approach—as outlined
in Chap. 3).
Quality: Quality checks were achieved both through the internal algo-
rithm in The Footprint Calculator, and expert LCA checks were con-
ducted on key material types and quantities, as well as matters like area
ratios, and country of origin for materials, for plausibility. Where values
fell ±15% outside of expected ranges, follow-up checks have been under-
taken to resolve inconsistencies. Where satisfactory resolution is not pos-
sible, the data point has been omitted or adjusted.
Sample size: The target sample size for each building classification and
sub-classification is n = >25. The benchmarks published here do not cover
all of the Australian building classes and sub-classes.
The results were determined by providing an average embodied carbon
(A1–A5) for each building classification. To provide a range for each
building, to reflect ‘good’ and ‘poor’ performance, a band of ±40% was
added to each average figure. Values at the lower range (e.g. lower than
average) generally represent project results where there has been the
systematic application of low embodied carbon design principles such as

build less/retain, recycled content and low carbon supply chain. For Class
2, 5 and 6 buildings, the range is large and reflects the additional sub-
categorisation within the building class. For example, Class 5 offices in
Australia can be sub-categorised as Class A (premium), A, B and C. These
sub-classifications have a direct bearing on the resultant embodied car-
bon intensity due to a variety of quality and servicing standards defined
by the Property Council of Australia (PCA). For example, lift servicing
(e.g. number, speed, quality) significantly increases between the classes
and has a direct impact on the embodied carbon content of lift services
(in many cases by a factor of up to 100%). This is repeated for most ele-
ments of the building. Thus, Premium A buildings will always have an
embodied carbon intensity that is above the average value. As such, in a
carbon constrained world, it would suggest the need for a further sustain-
ability review of PCA’s property standards to consider the issue and pos-
sibly incorporate the proposed embodied carbon quotas in the
environmental quality performance matrix (Property Council of
Australia 2019).
4.2 Climate Emergency Targets

4.2.1 Climate Emergency Targets for Operational
Carbon Emissions
The current performance of different building types as well as proposed

climate emergency EUI targets are presented in Table 4.1. The aim for all
new buildings and major renovations is to achieve net zero operational
carbon by 2030 (Table 4.1). The climate emergency targets are presented
with upper and lower limits, and where possible, the aim should be to
target a performance below the lower limit, in order to achieve perfor-
mance metrics as low as possible.
Table 4.1 Australian climate emergency targets for operational carbon perfor-
mance for new buildings and major renovations (Source: Authors)
Note: The calculations carried out to generate the EUI performance targets in this
book include different building conditions (new built and major renovations),
various Australian climate zones (climate zones 2, 5, 6 and 7) and several building
archetypes (building classes 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9a, 9b) as noted in the NCC. The
calculation method considers GFA to determine EUI performance targets, with
data converted to NFA where possible. In doing so, the targets defined in this
Table 4.1 (continued)
book are different, and hence not comparable to some other local and global
EUI targets. For example, for commercial office buildings, LETI defines a single
target for an entire country for GFA and NLA. In addition, the City of Sydney
defines targets for the specific context, geographical location and climate of the
City of Sydney for a base building or the whole building depending on building
types (WSP, Common Capital, WT Partnership, and Elton Consulting 2021)
a
Energy Use Intensity in kWh/m2GFA/year for whole building (including plug loads)
b
NatHERS assesses heating and cooling energy only and excludes other energy
uses. Where relevant, whole building energy use equivalent to NSW’s BASIX
rating scheme can be used with NatHERS
c
Area definition: GFA (m2) is used for all buildings, due to it being the basis of the
Paris Proof method. Where data is available, these have also been converted to
NFA (m2) to allow for comparisons with embodied carbon data, NABERS and
other rating schemes. The conversation factors used are 80% for Class 2, 87.5%
for Class 5 and 70% for Class 6 buildings. For more on this see ‘4.3.1: Comparing
and combining operational and embodied data’
4.2.2 Climate Emergency Targets for Embodied

Carbon Emissions
The embodied carbon benchmarks for Australian buildings are outlined

in Fig. 4.6.
For the future reduction of embodied carbon, we propose a stepped
approach with interim targets, as a pathway towards a 2040 net zero
embodied carbon goal. This approach considers the current Australian
average embodied carbon benchmark and the reductions possible through
the application of advanced circular economy practice available in the
building industry today. The recommended not-to-exceed (NTE) targets
towards net zero embodied carbon for all new buildings and major reno-
vations in Australia are outlined in Fig. 4.7 and Table 4.2. These steps are:
2021 targets: Immediately adopt the current average embodied car-
bon value (kgCO2e/m2 NLA) as the voluntary not-to-exceed (NTE)
quota for all building types. Where possible aim for a 40% reduction
below current averages (this is aligned with the 2025 targets). Adopt and
apply this method of embodied carbon measurement and reporting to
support disclosure of performance in compliance against the targets.
Undertake independent third-party review if desired, to increase assur-
ance of results, ensuring that peer review is consistent with the require-
ments of ISO14044.
Fig. 4.6 Typical embodied carbon values in Australian buildings (kgCO2e/m2

NLA). Scope of A1–A5. (Source: Authors)
Fig. 4.7 Proposed approach to interim embodied carbon targets. (Source:

Authors)
Table 4.2 Embodied carbon performance targets for new buildings and major
renovations (Source: Authors)
2025 target: Reduce the maximum NTE embodied carbon quotas to

40% below the average in 2021. At this time, the measurement and
reporting of embodied carbon should become mandatory for disclosure
of performance for all new buildings and major renovations.
2030 target: Further reduce the maximum NTE embodied carbon
quotas to 20% below the average in 2025 (equivalent to a 60% reduction
on 2021 levels).
2040 target: Achieve net zero embodied carbon for all new buildings
and major renovations through the use of eligible carbon offsets either
on- or off-site.
It should be highlighted that these targets denote absolute not-to-exceed
figures, or minimum performance targets. In reality, many building design
and development teams could, and should, aim to achieve embodied car-
bon figures far below these and set ambitious embodied carbon reductions.
This application of benchmarking and future targets is performance
based and seeks to characterise performance outcome, rather than
attempting to establish how the actual performance is achieved (e.g. tim-
ber vs. concrete structure; double vs. single glazed façade; recycled vs.
virgin material). The following steps are suggested for design teams to
benchmark and compare building embodied carbon data with the targets
outlined in this book (Fig. 4.8).
132
D. Prasad et al.
Fig. 4.8 Method for benchmarking and comparing embodied carbon figures. (Source: Authors)
4.3 Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Pathway

The previous sections of this chapter have presented the methods and
targets for both operational and embodied carbon with the aim of deliv-
ering net zero carbon buildings in Australia. The graphic in Fig. 4.9 pres-
ents a holistic pathway to understand this.
Fig. 4.9 Net zero whole life carbon pathway. (Source: Authors)
Fig. 4.9 (continued)

4.3.1 Comparing and Combining Operational

and Embodied Data
This chapter sets out benchmarks and targets for operational energy and
embodied carbon using different metrics (kWh/m2 GFA/year and
kgCO2e/m2 NLA) because different methodologies have been used to
determine them. However, some practitioners may wish to compare or
combine the data for operational and embodied performance in their
building. To do so, two steps are needed to convert the operational energy
data to comparable carbon data.
tep 1: Convert GFA to the Floor Area Defined

S
in the Embodied Carbon Functional Unit
Convert or ensure that both operating carbon and embodied carbon val-
ues are based on the same Functional Unit area definition. It is essential
to remember that residential and non-residential buildings are measured
differently. For example, an office building may have an NLA that is 83%
of the total GFA. In this case, if its operational energy was 50 kWh/m2
GFA/year, it would also be 60.2 kWh/m2 NLA/year.
tep 2: Convert Electricity to Carbon Dioxide

S
Equivalent (CO2e)
The energy benchmarks in this chapter assume buildings are all electric.
However, each state in Australia has different emission factors for each
kWh of electricity consumed, due to different fuel mixes used. These fac-
tors are published by the Australian government (Table 4.3).
In the case mentioned above, an office building with operating energy
of 60.2 kWh/m2 NLA/annum would be responsible for carbon emissions
of 60.2 × 0.81 = 48.76 kgCO2e/m2 NLA in NSW and ACT, but
60.2 × 0.17 = 10.23 kgCO2e/m2 NLA in Tasmania.
Table 4.3 2020 indirect (scope 2) emission factors for purchased electricity
(Source: Australian Government, 2020)
Example: An Office Building in Sydney
An A grade CBD office building in Sydney is designed to perform at the

benchmark level for both operational and embodied emissions in 2030.
Its NLA is 80% of the GFA.
Operational = 66 kWh/m2 GFA/year (Climate zone 5, 2030 target)

Embodied = 1615 kgCO2e/m2 NLA (2030 target)
Step 1: Convert GFA to NLA
66 × (1/0.8) = 82.5 kWh/m2 NLA/year
Step 2: Convert EUI into carbon emissions
82.5 × 0.81 = 66.8 kgCO2e/m2 NLA
In this instance, the building’s embodied carbon (A1–A5) is equivalent

to 24.2 years of operating emissions (at a 2020 baseline).
Limitations
The method outlined here for comparing operational carbon with

embodied carbon is useful for 2020 only (one year). This is because as
we decarbonise the grid the emission factors will change. Therefore,
while 66 kWh = 53 kgCO2e in 2020 in NSW, it might be 45 kgCO2e
in 2025 and 30 kgCO2e in 2030—even where EUI stays the same.
With a fully decarbonised grid, 66 kWh would equal ≈ 0 kgCO2e
in 2050.
4.3.2 Implementation and Reporting of the Pathway
The contents of this chapter, including the climate emergency perfor-

mance targets, strategies and implementation and reporting templates
presented below, could all be useful during a practical conversation
between the client and the designers on how to navigate to net zero,
and by when. Such a conversation would ideally start with the project
brief and involve discussions about the levels of on-site efficiency to be
achieved, the optimisation of on-site renewable energy generation
(and storage as appropriate), and how best to balance the remaining
carbon emissions with either off-site renewable energy or, as a last
resort, eligible carbon offsets for a net zero whole life carbon outcome.
This could include considerations of any budget implications, time
factors or any other project specific constraints and opportunities for
net zero. Such a conversation should lead to a commitment for net
zero performance, which can anchor the conversations, and drive deci-
sions across the project stages from concept design through to con-
struction completion, as well as post-occupancy operational life and
beyond (Tables 4.4 and 4.5).
Table 4.4 Implementation checklist (Source: Authors)

Table 4.5 Reporting template (Source: Authors)
References
ASBEC and ClimateWorks Australia. 2018. Built to Perform: An industry led
pathway to a zero carbon ready building code. Retrieved from Melbourne:
http://www.asbec.asn.au/research-items/built-perform/
Australian Government. 2020. National greenhouse accounts factors. Australian
Government, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resouces:
October. https://www.industry.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/national-
greenhouse-accounts-factors-2020.pdf
Bannister, P., Moffitt, S., Zhang, H., Johnston, D., Shen, D., Robinson, D.,
Green, L. 2018. Building Code Energy Performance Trajectory—Final Technical
Report. Retrieved from www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/files/publi-
cations_file_attachments/sp0016_trajectory_project_final_tech_report.pdf
ClimateWorks. 2014. Pathways to Deep Decarbonisation in 2050: How
Australia can prosper in a low carbon world: Technical Report. Technical
Report, ClimateWorks Australia, https://www.climateworksaustralia.org/
resource/pathways-to-deep-decarbonisation-in-2050-how-australia-can-
prosper-in-a-low-carbon-world/.
ClimateWorks Australia. (2021). State and territory climate action: Leading poli-
cies and programs in Australia. Available from: https://www.climateworksaus-
tralia.org/wpcontent/uploads/2021/10/CWA_State-and-territoryclimate-
action_October-2021-1.pdf
COAG. 2020. Baseline energy consumption and Greenhouse Gas emissions: In
commercial buildings in Australia. Part 1 - Report, Council of Australian
Governments, November.
CRCLCL. 2019. CRCLCL Publications. Retrieved from http://www.lowcar-
bonlivingcrc.com.au/resources/crclcl-publications
DBGC. 2021. The Paris Proof Method. The Dutch Green Building Council.
Retrieved from https://www.dgbc.nl/themas/paris-proof
DGBC. 2020. Dutch Green Building Council, Paris Proof. Available from:
https://www.dgbc.nl/themas/paris-proof
LETI. 2020. LETI Climate Emergency Design Guide: How new buildings can meet
UK climate change targets. London Energy Transformation Initiative.
Retrieved from https://www.leti.london/cedg
Property Council of Australia. 2019. A Guide to Office Building Quality—3rd
Edition. Retrieved from https://research.propertycouncil.com.au/research-
and-data/a-guide-to-office-building-quality
The Footprint Company. 2020. The Footprint Calculator. Retrieved from

https://footprintcompany.com/the-lca-calculators/
UKGBC. 2020. Energy performance targets for net zero carbon offices: Technical
report and summary of consultation responses. United Kingdom Green Building
Council. Retrieved from London: https://www.ukgbc.org/ukgbc-work/
net-zero-carbon-energy-performance-targets-for-offices/
WSP, Common Capital, WT Partnership, and Elton Consulting. 2021. Planning
for net zero energy buildings: Performance standards to achieve high-performing
net zero energy buildings in Greater Sydney. Retrieved from https://www.
cityofsydney.nsw.gov.au/surveys-case-studies-reports/planning-for-net-zero-
energy-buildings
5
Case studies: Exemplars to Learn From
The 11 exemplar case studies achieving nearly or net zero energy/carbon

performance range across several commercial and residential building
types. They include an office, apartment, education centre, student
accommodation, single dwelling and detached house at the building
level, to the precinct scale such as residential settlements, communities
and a university hub, all built within the last 15 years. The case studies
presented in this chapter are divided into three main categories:
Exemplar Buildings
New Buildings—Residential
1. ZEB Pilot House (Larvik, Norway)

2. Asquith PassivHaus (Asquith, Australia)
3. Nightingale 2 Apartments (Fairfield, Australia)
4. Gillies Hall Student Accommodation (Frankston, Australia)
New Buildings—Non-Residential
5. CIC (Construction Industry Council) Zero Carbon Park (Hong Kong)

6. Kingspan Lighthouse (Watford, UK)
7. Bullitt Center (Seattle, USA)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_5
Exemplar Precincts
New Precincts
8. White Gum Valley Energy Village (White Gum Valley, Australia)

9. Narara Ecovillage (Narara, Australia)
Exemplar in Embodied Carbon Reduction
New Building
10. Atlassian Central (Sydney, Australia)
New Precincts
11. Kambri at ANU (Australian National University) (ACT, Australia)
5.1 Exemplar Buildings

5.1.1 New Buildings—Residential
ZEB Pilot House

Larvik, Norway
ZEB Pilot House is a net zero emission building offsetting 100% of its
carbon emissions. It presents a new direction in the vital drive towards a
sustainable construction industry (Figs. 5.1 and 5.2).
5 Case studies: Exemplars to Learn From 145
Fig. 5.1 ZEB Pilot House. (Image copyright agreements provided by Snøhetta /
Paal-André Schwital)
Fig. 5.2 The subtle interiors of ZEB Pilot House presenting the use of natural
materials such as timber, bricks and wood. (Image copyright agreements provided
by Snøhetta / Paal-André Schwital)
Design and Performance Profile
Building profile
Building name: ZEB Pilot House
Architect: Snohetta
Location: Larvik, Norway
Koppen climate classification: CFB—Marine west coast
Building type: Residential detached house
GFA: 220 m2
Year built: 2014
Storeys above ground: 2
Certification: PassivHaus Standard and Net Zero Carbon
Emissions
Environmental design profile
Passive solar strategies: • Reclaimed materials
• Atrium to provide daylight and external
views
• Thermal mass for passive heating
• Exterior shading devices
High-performance strategies: • Window glazing with an appropriate
U-value
• Heat exchanger
• Radiant floor heating
• Rainwater and greywater collection
Renewable systems: • 150 sqm PV array
• 16 m2 solar thermal panels for heating
and hot water
• Geothermal ring
Performance profile
Total annual on-site energy 19,200 kWh/yr. PV
produced: 4000 kWh/yr. solar thermal
Carbon dioxide emissions: Net zero (100% offset)
Design Intentions
ZEB Pilot House in Larvik, Norway is a demonstration building that

showcases high-performance, energy-efficient building systems and
achieves net zero carbon emissions. It incorporates highly environmen-
tally sustainable ambitions in creating new parameters in the design pro-
cess. The design intentions are driven by knowledge, new technology,
collaboration, use of local materials and optimal use of energy sources.
User comfort and well-being have governed the design and development
of the house, to the same extent as energy demand and the reduction of
carbon emissions. The landscape hosts a garden paved with recycled tim-
ber blocks and contains multiple facilities using solar-generated thermal
heat surplus.
Performance and Pathway to Net Zero
Heating and cooling are resolved with passive design techniques includ-
ing suitable orientation, building form and size and use of appropriate
transparent and opaque materials with thermal properties. Provision of
daylight and views contribute towards improving user comfort and aes-
thetic qualities. A sloping roof surface is tilted towards the southeast
and employs solar panels and collectors. In addition, geothermal energy
from wells in the ground generates enough surplus to power the house
as well as an electric car belonging to the family throughout the year
(Fig. 5.3).
Fig. 5.3 (a) The outdoor atrium, (b) indoor living areas and (c) the landscape, all
providing a comfortable feeling of cabin life in one of the world’s most
performance-wise advanced family houses. (Image copyright agreements pro-
vided by Snøhetta / Paal-André Schwital)
Case Study Information Source
Snohetta (2022).
Asquith PassivHaus
Asquith, Australia
Designed by Envirotecture, Asquith PassivHaus is a net zero energy and
carbon house with locally sourced Australian-made high-performing build-
ing systems (Figs. 5.4 and 5.5).
Fig. 5.4 Asquith PassivHaus. (Image copyright agreements provided by

Chris Nunn)
Fig. 5.5 Asquith PassivHaus under construction. (Image copyright agreements

provided by Chris Nunn)
Building profile
Building name: Asquith PassivHaus
Architect: Envirotecture
Location: Asquith, New South Wales, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CFA—Humid subtropical
Internal area: 270 m2
Year built: Under construction
Storeys above
ground: 2
Certification: PassivHaus Standard
(continued)
(continued)

High-performance • Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
building systems: unit—MVHR
• Ensuring every room is always well ventilated with
fresh air supply
• HEPA filters in MVHR for bushfire smoke
• 30 m3 per hour of air supplied
• 0.3 ACH air change rate—8.3 L/s per person
• CO2 kept below 1000 ppm all times
• Zero embodied carbon footprint materials
Efficient building • Double-glazed, tilt and turn operable windows
components: • Thermally broken AluClad timber frames
• Wood fibre Weathertex cladding panels made from
97% recycled Australian native hardwood timber
offcuts as waste products from timber harvesting
• Locally sourced, modular prefabricated CarbonLite
wall and roof panels
• PEFC and GreenTag certified, Declare eco-labelled
products
• Green roof
Environmental • Beekeeping and planter beds
strategies: • Organic waste and compost
• Active play areas for children to interact with
nature
• 20 kW rooftop PV array
• Rainwater tanks and greywater reuse
Renewable systems: • Net zero energy and carbon emissions
D
esign Intentions
Asquith PassivHaus is a state-of-the-art exemplar of affordable and certi-

fied sustainable housing that will achieve net zero energy and carbon
emissions. Its design incorporates numerous passive solar design strate-
gies, use of high-performance and energy-efficient building systems and
on-site renewable energy generation systems. The house design inten-
tions and performance ambitions are derived from the One Planet Living
framework that includes the following ten aspects helping to achieve a
holistic approach to sustainability (Bioregional 2022):
1. Zero carbon
2. Zero waste
3. Sustainable transport
4. Sustainable materials
5. Local and sustainable food
6. Sustainable water
7. Land use and wildlife
8. Culture and community
9. Equity and local economy
10. Health and happiness
The design and performance goals of Asquith PassivHaus are informed

by the concepts of ecological and carbon footprinting as a way of account-
ing for environmental impacts and improving occupant health and well-
being. The design and construction processes of the house have only cost
5% more compared to a similar custom project. However, the most sig-
nificant differences between a similar project and Asquith PassivHaus are
the use of highly efficient systems. The house is taped with an airtight
membrane for decreased infiltration. Its systems involve mechanical ven-
tilation with heat recovery (MVHR) that provides all-year-round com-
fort to its occupants. Double-glazed windows with thermally broken
frames are used to minimise unwanted heat loss and gains. The building
envelope is well insulated with appropriate materials for its climate.
Asquith PassivHaus has a 20 kW array of rooftop PV panels generating
enough energy from renewables to offset its energy consumption.
According to the Clean Energy Council’s conversion factors and calcula-
tion methods, the house will be able to generate up to 105 kWh/m2/yr.
energy from its rooftop PV systems (Clean Energy Council 2021). This
will bring a net zero energy status to the house, on top of its ambitious
PassivHaus certification (Fig. 5.6).
Fig. 5.6 (a) Asquith PassivHaus; (b) its construction process which incorporates
Australian-made sustainable timber wall and roof cladding CarbonLite, manufac-
tured in Melbourne, and (c) the mechanical ventilation system with heat recovery
for maximised efficiency and performance. (Image copyright agreements pro-
vided by Chris Nunn)
Nunn (2021).
Nightingale 2.0 Apartments

Fairfield, Australia
8.7-star NatHERS rated Nightingale 2.0 is part of a residential develop-
ment in The Commons, showcasing environmentally, economically and
socially responsive housing (Figs. 5.7 and 5.8)
Fig. 5.7 Nightingale 2.0, designed by Six Degrees Architects and delivered in col-
laboration between HIP V. HYPE and Six Degrees Architects in accordance with
the Nightingale Housing Values. Photographer Tess Kell. Nightingale 2.0. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Six Degrees Architects and Simon O’Brien)
Fig. 5.8 Nightingale 2.0 Apartments’ common roof terrace for its residents.
(Image copyright agreements provided by Six Degrees Architects and Simon
O’Brien. Nightingale 2.0, designed by Six Degrees Architects and delivered in col-
laboration between HIP V. HYPE and Six Degrees Architects in accordance with
the Nightingale Housing Values. Photographer Tess Kell)
Building profile
Building name: Nightingale 2.0 Apartments
Architect: Six Degrees Architects
Location: Fairfield, Victoria, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CFB—Marine West Coast
Building type: Residential apartment
GFA: 500 m2 (site)
Year built: 2019
Certification: 8.7-star NatHERS rating average, with 50% of
apartments achieving 8.9-star or above
Energy-efficient design: • Cross-ventilated apartments
• Double- glazed windows
• Exposed concrete thermal mass
• Locally manufactured recycled materials
Renewable systems: • Centralised heat pump hot water system
for hydronic heating and water
• 15 kW PV array
Performance profile
Total annual building
energy consumption: 68 MJ/m2/yr. ≈ 23 kWh/m2/yr.
Total annual renewable
energy generation: 19,710 kWh/yr. ≈ up to 40 kWh/m2/yr
Design Intentions
Nightingale 2.0 Apartments is the second in the Nightingale Housing

stable of affordable and environmentally sustainable housing develop-
ments in Victoria. The apartment building only uses renewable energy
produced by PV panels to meet its energy demand. The project contains
20 low energy apartments, three retail spaces and shared communal ame-
nities within the housing complex. The project demonstrates a collabora-
tive approach to multi-residential building design with community
involvement in the local neighbourhood. The project development incor-
porated meaningful participation of residents across the project, from the
early design stages up to its operation.
Nightingale 2.0 Apartments operate 100% fossil fuel free with full electric,
supported by on-site renewable energy generated by its PV array of 15 kW,
placed on its rooftop. In addition, there is a water harvesting system on the
productive rooftop gardens. To increase the energy-saving potential of the
housing, no air-conditioning is used. There is also no car park, but ample
undercover parking for around 70 bicycles and car share spaces located in
front of the building. In addition, multiple passive strategies are incorpo-
rated into the design, such as double-glazed windows, concrete thermal
mass for passive heating and locally manufactured recycled materials.
The project aimed at achieving a minimum 7.5-star NatHERS rating,
which is well above the 6-star requirement by the building code. It
achieved an ambitious NatHERS rating of 8.7 star, 40% lower than the
minimum requirement for new housing of 114 MJ/m2/year, according to
the NCC (Moore and Doyon 2018) (Figs. 5.9 and 5.10).
Fig. 5.9 Nightingale 2.0’s energy performance (by Authors). (Adopted from
Moore and Doyon 2018)
Fig. 5.10 Nightingale 2.0’s (a) shared communal spaces, (b) apartment interior
and (c) initial design sketches. (Image copyright agreements provided by Six
Degrees Architects and Simon O’Brien. Nightingale 2.0, designed by Six Degrees
Architects and delivered in collaboration between HIP V. HYPE and Six Degrees
Architects in accordance with the Nightingale Housing Values. Photographer
Tess Kell)
Six Degrees Architects (2022).
Gillies Hall Student Accommodation

Frankston, Australia
Gillies Hall is a PassivHaus Certified student housing in Monash University,
designed as a hilltop village integrating energy efficiency and reflecting the
surrounding landscape (Figs. 5.11 and 5.12).
Fig. 5.11 Gillies Hall. (Image copyright agreements provided by Jackson Clements
Burrows Architects and Peter Clarke)
Fig. 5.12 Common spaces and the games room in Gillies Hall, showcasing its
minimalist design and friendly environment. (Image copyright agreements pro-
vided by Jackson Clements Burrows Architects and Peter Clarke)
Building profile
Building name: Gillies Hall Student Accommodation, Monash University
Architect: Jackson Clements Burrows Architects
Location: Mornington Peninsula, Victoria, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CFB—Temperate oceanic climate
Building type: University student housing
NFA: 5185 m2
Year built: 2019
Certification: PassivHaus Standard
Latest awards: 2020 Australian Interior Design Awards: Sustainability
Advancement
AIA Awards VIC 2020—Award for Interior Architecture
& Residential Architecture
CIBSE Building Performance Awards 2020—Project of
the Year
(continued)
(continued)

Environmental design • Rainwater harvesting
strategies: • Water-sensitive urban design
• Improved indoor air and environmental quality
• Enhanced thermal and visual comfort levels
• Landscaped dry creek bed
• Managed stormwater flows
• Double-flow heat exchanger
Renewable systems: • Heat pump
• Fossil fuel free
• Extensive rooftop 60 kWpa PV array
• Remaining energy demand supplied from off-site
renewable sources
Performance profile
Total annual energy
consumption: 61 kWh/m2/yr.
Renewable energy
offset: 100% energy offset
Carbon status: Net zero energy
kWp refers to kilo Watt peak power
a
D
esign Intentions
Gillies Hall is the first PassivHaus Certified University building in

Australia. The design intentions centre on occupants’ comfort, health and
well-being. The building presents an inspiring example of a comprehen-
sive approach for environmentally sustainable design. As such, there are
many strategies and systems involved in the building and its surrounding
context. These strategies include rainwater harvesting, adopting water-
sensitive urban design, hosting a landscaped dry creek bed and managing
stormwater flows. In addition, the sustainable systems implemented
include a double-flow heat exchanger and heat pump.
Gillies Hall is designed to deliver an ambitious double accreditation of its

performance: PassivHaus and Net Zero Energy status. The design of the
building assures enhanced thermal and visual comfort as well as improved
indoor environmental and air quality. The building is expected to be at least
three times more efficient than their other halls of residence and have half of
the embodied carbon compared to the industry-standard concrete structure.
In addition to its environmental and comfort parameters, Gillies Hall
is also a net zero energy building. The total annual energy consumption
is offset by on-site and off-site renewable systems. The rooftop of the
building is covered with an extensive PV array. The remaining energy
needs that are not met by the rooftop PV system are sourced from off-site
solar power (Fig. 5.13).
Fig. 5.13 (a) The residential areas and (b) shared kitchen spaces in Gillies Hall dis-
playing the use of natural materials and simplicity in its interior design. (Image copy-
right agreements provided by Jackson Clements Burrows Architects and Peter Clarke)
JCBA (2022).
5.1.2 New Buildings—Non-residential
CIC Zero Carbon Park

Hong Kong
Construction Industry Council’s (CIC) Zero Carbon Park is the first net zero
carbon architecture for civilian use throughout China, showcasing state-of-
the-art zero carbon design and technologies (Figs. 5.14 and 5.15).
Fig. 5.14 CIC Zero Carbon Park. (Image copyright agreements provided by
Ronald Lu & Partners)
Fig. 5.15 (a) PV array covering the entire roof area. (b) View of CIC Zero Carbon
Park overlooking the courtyard. (Image copyright agreements provided by Ronald
Lu & Partners)
Building profile
Building name: CIC Zero Carbon Park
Architect: Ronald Lu & Partners
Location: Hong Kong
Koppen climate
classification: CFA—Humid Subtropical
Building type: Multi-purpose—office, exhibition, ecological park
Land area: 14,800 m2
Year built: 2011 (opened in 2012)
Storeys above ground: 2 above ground and 1 basement
Certification: BEAM Plus Platinum Rating
Awards: 2016 WGBC Asia Pacific Leadership in Green Building
Award—Winner (Leadership in Sustainable Design
and Performance)
2014 Quality Building Award-Grand Award (Hong
Kong Non-Residential New Building Category)
2021 Green Building Award-Grand Award (Hong Kong
Building Under Construction Category)
(continued)
(continued)
Passive solar strategies • Optimised built form and orientation for solar
energy harvest and natural ventilation
• External overhang and vertical shading devices
• High-performance façade design
• Light shelves and inclined ceiling soffit
Environmental strategies • Cross-ventilated layout
• Use of recycled materials
• Sustainable timber
• Urban native woodland with 220 native trees
High-performance • High-volume low-speed fans
strategies • Desiccant dehumidification
• Under floor displacement cooling
• Chilled beams
• Earth cooling
Renewable energy systems • Waste-to-energy tri-generation using biofuel
made from waste cooking oil
• Rooftop PV array
Performance profile
Total annual building
energy consumption
(design): 102.87 kWh/m2/yr.
Total annual on-site energy
produced (design): 113.15 kWh/m2/yr.
Carbon dioxide emissions: Net positive
D
esign Intentions
CIC Zero Carbon Park is an exhibition, education and information cen-

tre and is Hong Kong’s first net zero carbon building. It displays a range
of net zero carbon design features. The venue hosts numerous commu-
nity events and training programs to raise awareness of the importance of
sustainable living and green building design. In addition to its net zero
carbon status, CIC Zero Carbon Park is designed to achieve an ambitious
energy-positive status over the course of its building lifecycle stages. The
design intentions centre on an aspirational net zero carbon pathway as a
milestone achievement for the building industry in Hong Kong. It marks
a paradigm shift towards sustainable living and engaged community inte-
gration. It is a mixed-use building with its spaces designed to accommo-
date the community and support them through public and private
educational initiatives where they can learn more about a net zero carbon-
built environment. CIC Zero Carbon Park is a demonstration project
that provides a net zero whole life carbon vision and methodology show-
case for designers, consultants, builders and other built environment
professionals.
CIC Zero Carbon Park implements an innovative hybrid ventilation

design through enhancing air flow throughout the building using the
wind for one third of the year. The building also integrates high-vol-
ume low-speed ceiling fans to increase air circulation when needed.
During warm and humid summer, the building envelope becomes air-
tight under automatic window control and high-temperature air-con-
ditioning systems comprising underfloor cooling, chilled beams and
desiccant dehumidification provide energy-efficient cooling. These
strategies help reduce the cooling demand and tackle the substantial
cooling energy consumption in Hong Kong due to its dense urban
morphology and climate.
CIC Zero Carbon Park offsets its energy consumption through its
waste-to-energy tri-generation systems and PV array that covers its entire
roof area. The integrated on-site renewable energy provides 110% of the
building’s energy needs. The surplus electricity is sent to Hong Kong’s
electricity grid, which is equivalent to 100 MWh per annum, giving CIC
Zero Carbon Park a net zero energy-positive status. Besides operational
carbon reduction and offset, the ambitious zero carbon pathway also con-
siders offsetting the embodied carbon emissions generated prior to the
construction of the building, in the material production and from the
construction stages. The net whole-life zero carbon status is achieved
across a 50-year lifespan, estimated to be within the building’s lifecycle
(Fig. 5.16).
Fig. 5.16 CIC Zero Carbon Park’s energy performance (by Authors)
ARUP (2022) and Ronald Lu and Partners.
Kingspan Lighthouse
Watford, UK
Kingspan Lighthouse is the first dwelling in the UK to achieve the highest
level of the Code for Sustainable Homes: net zero carbon for all its energy
use (Figs. 5.17 and 5.18).
Fig. 5.17 (a) Kingspan Lighthouse and (b) its rooftop. (Image copyright agree-
ments provided by Hufton+Crow—Nick Hufton)
Fig. 5.18 Kingspan Lighthouse has a window-to-wall ratio of 18%, as opposed to

25–30% in traditional houses, which has driven the integration of living spaces on
the first floor with abundant daylight received through the skylights. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Hufton+Crow—Nick Hufton)
Building profile
Building name: Kingspan Lighthouse
Architect: Sheppard Robson
Location: Watford, UK
Koppen climate classification: CFB—Marine west coast
GFA: 93 m2
Year built: 2007
Storeys above ground: 2.5
Certification: Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Level 6—Net Zero
Energy

Environmental design • Triple-gazed windows
strategies: • Wind- catcher
• Phase-change material in the used ceiling
absorbing the room heat
• Rainwater harvesting for washing machine and
irrigation
• Bio-filtration through surface water
management
• Greywater recycling for WC flushing
• Improved biodiversity through native planting
and creating surface water environment
• Paved surfaces made from recycled and
sustainable sources
(continued)
(continued)
Energy-efficient systems and • Mechanical ventilation with heat recovery
design: (MVHR)
• 100% low energy lighting fixtures
• 0% secondary heating
• 88% heat recovery efficiency
• Specific fan power 0.92 W/l/second
• Water heating based on domestic hot water
estimate
• Smart metering
Renewable systems: • 4.7 kW PV array of 46 m2 area
• 4 m2 solar domestic hot water system
• 10 Kw automatic wood pellet boiler
• 2940 kWh/yr. solar thermal
Performance profile
Total annual building energy
consumption: 84 kWh/m2/yr.
Carbon status: 100% energy offset
Net zero energy
D
esign Intentions
Reducing energy demand and increasing the energy efficiency of systems

and building design have been of paramount importance to Kingspan
Lighthouse. It is a demonstration building for the Building Research
Establishment (BRE) Innovation Park in Garston near Watford and its
management organises visiting tours to the house. The house aims to be
an exemplar for strategies and pathways to net zero carbon that can be
applied at a wider scale in various buildings across the globe. The project
involves various high-performing building systems to provide energy effi-
ciency and the use of low carbon materials for reduced carbon emissions.
The house has MVHR, low energy lighting fixtures, efficient electrical
goods and appliances.
The building design involves optimal energy-efficient design consider-
ations, including very high standards of thermal insulation in the build-
ing envelope, triple-glazed windows, airtightness and thermal bridging.
Several other environmental design aspects have been embedded in the
overall design and development of the building as well—such as greywa-

ter recycling for flushing WCs and rainwater harvesting with a submers-
ible pump for the washing machine and irrigation system.
Kingspan Lighthouse is a net zero energy building that achieves a Code

for Sustainable Homes, Level 6 rating. A key requirement for a house to
achieve this rating is net zero energy through heating energy demand
reduction and the use of on-site renewables.
This project demonstrates how this can be achieved and illustrates
the process to a successful outcome that all new home designers can
learn from. The project incorporates an extensive array of rooftop PV
panels that generated enough electricity to offset its energy consump-
tion. The building also has solar thermal panels and a biomass boiler for
domestic hot water and heating needs. Through achieving these out-
comes, the house is net zero energy in its operation, including the elec-
tricity used for heating, domestic hot water, artificial lighting, cooking
and appliances.
Embodied carbon has not been considered in the net zero carbon
pathway as per the Code for Sustainable Homes Level 6 requirements;
however, the design extensively incorporates low carbon building materi-
als including the building’s timber structure and cladding and is built
with locally sourced sustainable materials (Holden and Twinn 2011)
(Fig. 5.19).
Fig. 5.19 (a) Low carbon timber cladding on the exterior brings a natural aes-
thetic to the house. (b) The transparent chimney on top of the staircase creates an
elegant lightwell bringing natural daylight into the lower levels of the building.
(c) The rooftop of the house is covered with a PV array. (Image copyright agree-
ments provided by Hufton+Crow—Nick Hufton)
Sheppard Robson (n.d.).
The Bullitt Center

Seattle, USA
A living laboratory for net zero high-performance architecture: Seattle’s
Bullitt Center is a net positive energy ‘Living Building’ certified commercial
office (Figs. 5.20 and 5.21).
Fig. 5.20 The Bullitt Center. (Image copyright agreements provided by Brad Kahn)
Fig. 5.21 The Bullitt Centre’s open plan office environment incorporates a mini-
malistic interior design within the high-performance net zero building. (Image
copyright agreements provided by Brad Kahn)
Building profile
Building name: The Bullitt Center
Architect: Miller Hull Partnership
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
Koppen climate classification: CSB—Mediterranean
Building type: Commercial office
GFA: 4658.34 m2
Year built: 2013
Certification: Living Building Challenge
Energy-efficient design: • Triple glazing windows
• Daylight dimming efficient
lighting
Renewable systems: • Radiant heat and cooling
• Heat recovery air system
• Ground source heat exchange
• Active solar control rooftop PV
system
(continued)
(continued)
Performance profile
Data collection: Post-occupancy evaluation over a year
Total annual building energy
consumption: 29.65 kWh/m2/yr.
Total annual on-site energy produced: 54.07 kWh/m2/yr.
D
esign Intentions
The Bullitt Foundation wanted their headquarters to be built to the high-

est level of environmental sustainability, and to set an example and new
standard for sustainable commercial building design and construction.
The Living Building Challenge and its ambitious aims were the ideal
vehicle for the Foundation. The Bullitt Center demonstrates that it is
possible to create a commercially viable building with a minimal environ-
mental footprint. The ambitious performance targets required a collab-
orative process including the client, designers, engineers and builders to
be integrated throughout the project from an early stage.
Key carbon-reducing strategies include a roof top solar array and on-site
management of water and waste requirements, on an extremely tight
urban block in Seattle. The building is operating net positive for energy
and is currently projected to remain net positive even when full occu-
pancy is achieved. It incorporates ground source heat pumps and on-site
geothermal wells for heating and cooling. In addition, 69% (484,532
litres) of the annual rainwater run-off is collected and stored for potable
and non-potable uses.
Every design decision was made with a performance metric in mind;
for example, energy production of the PV array was optimised through
parametric modelling tools prior to developed design stage. Daylighting
analysis was conducted to drive the configuration of the triple-glazed
curtain wall, skylight and shading devices for increased energy effi-
ciency. The digital assessments were validated through post-occupancy
evaluation using data collected over a year of operation, assessing net

zero energy and water, indoor air quality and occupant comfort. In
addition, interpretive displays in the lobby explain the building and an
online dashboard provides a window to real-time energy usage
(Figs. 5.22 and 5.23).
Fig. 5.22 The Bullitt Center’s energy performance (by Authors; Source: ILFI 2022)
Fig. 5.23 (a) The urban context of the Bullitt Center, (b) overlooking Seattle’s
skyline. (Image copyright agreements provided by Brad Kahn)
ILFI (2022).
5.2 Exemplar Precincts

5.2.1 New Precincts
White Gum Valley (WGV) Energy Village

Fremantle, Australia
The WGV Energy Village is a low carbon ‘Living Laboratory’ incorporating
various types of buildings, bioclimatic design, extensive urban greenery and
water management strategies (Figs. 5.24 and 5.25).
Fig. 5.24 WGV Energy Village. (Image copyright agreements provided by

Deo Prasad)
Datalogger Remote Server

EM
PME Application
EN
Router
Dashboards
WM SQL Database
Multiresidential Query 1 Query 2

Buildings
WM Outpost
Central
API
EM
Detached Inverter
Houses Device
Research Database Third Party Services Provider
Fig. 5.25 (a) WGV settlement aerial view and (b) the data collection process.
(Image copyright agreements provided by Deo Prasad)
Precinct profile
Precinct name: White Gum Valley Energy Village
Architect: Richmond Hammond Architect
Location: City of Fremantle, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CSA—Mediterranean
Type: Multi-residential housing at precinct level
Building types: 2-storey and 4-storey detached dwellings, single-storey
split-level block, 2-storey apartment block with units
Year built: 2016
Area: 145 m2 (dwellings ranging from 63 to 80 m2)
Size of land: 274 m2
Certification: 7.2 to 7.7-star NatHERS rating
Passive solar • Use of thermal mass
strategies: • Stabilised rammed earth (SRE)
• Reuse of construction and demolition waste
materials in walls and concrete slab
• Lightweight construction
• Double glazing
High-performance • 3-in-1 heat pump (hydronic heating, hot water and
strategies: air-conditioning)
• Smart home wiring preinstalled
• Sub-metering to trade electricity and water across a
mini grid
• Energy-efficient appliances and lighting
• Water treatment on site
• Reducing stormwater runoff
Renewable systems: • Greywater recycling
• Each dwelling includes a shared 9 kW solar power
and battery storage system
• 10,000 L underground rainwater tank
Performance profile
Building energy
consumption: 15.7 kWh/day
On-site energy
produced: 5.5 kWh/day
Energy export to
the grid: 3.5 kWh/dwelling/day
Carbon dioxide
emissions: A benchmark of 10 dwellings = 4100 kgCO2e/occupant/
year
Design Intentions
The WGV Energy Village demonstrates best practice low carbon pre-
cinct design and development in the City of Fremantle, Australia. The
precinct includes various types of buildings such as detached houses,
town houses and apartments totalling approximately 80 dwellings
when completed. The WGV Energy Village incorporates various inno-
vative and sustainable technologies, and is a ‘Living Laboratory’ proj-
ect, monitored in real-time following the development and operation
processes. The technologies implemented in the settlement are mea-
sured and analysed, and the energy, water and other performance out-
puts are shared with residents through an online dashboard. The
dashboard includes building and apartment-level energy consump-
tion, renewable energy generation and water consumption, amongst
others (Byrne et al. 2019).
The detached dwellings in the WGV Energy Village are the best per-
forming in regards to its energy consumption and generation. In fact, it
is an ‘energy-positive’ building. The average detached dwelling has a
3.75 kWp PV system, with an energy demand of 15.7 kWh/day which
consists of 5.5 kWh/day of self-supplied energy and 8.1 kWh/day of
grid imported electricity and 2.1 kWh/day of gas, whilst exporting
20.5 kWh/day to the grid. The detached dwelling is a net energy
exporter, exporting 12 kWh/day to the grid. When averaged out across
the precinct, WGV dwellings achieve a net export of 3.5 kWh/dwell-
ing/day (Byrne et al. 2019).
Byrne et al. (2019).
Narara Ecovillage
Narara, Australia
Narara Ecovillage is an intergenerational collaborative housing precinct
that embraces sustainable community living, shared ownership and envi-
ronmental values where residents live in harmony with nature (Figs. 5.26,
5.27, and 5.28).
Fig. 5.26 Narara Ecovillage under development in 2020. (Image copyright agree-
ments provided by Julian Bassett)
Fig. 5.27 Eighteen cluster units. (Image copyright agreements provided by Julian
Bassett)
Fig. 5.28 Named the ‘powerhouse with bedrooms’, this hempcrete house
achieves 8.8-star NatHERS rating and includes a 20 kWp PV array. (Image copy-
right agreements provided by William Craft)
Precinct profile
Precinct name: Narara Ecovillage
Location: Narara, New South Wales, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CSA—Mediterranean
Type: Precinct
Area: 64-hectare property (approximately 12 hectares for residential
development, another 12 hectares for agriculture and
community gardens and remaining 40 hectares of native forest
and bushland for conservation)
Development Three stages
stages:
Number of
150 anticipated when complete
dwellings: Stage 1: 60 homes (majority built or being built)
Stage 2: 43 lot development ongoing
Stage 3: Future planning
Year built: Stage 1: 2017 onwards
Stage 2: 2023 onwards
Certification: Stage 1: Minimum 7 Star NatHERS rating for each dwelling
Stage 2: Minimum 7.5 Star NatHERS rating under
consideration
Passive solar • Climate-responsive design
strategies: • Appropriate orientation, insulation, thermal mass and
shading strategies
• Vegetation for privacy and shading
• Environmentally responsible building materials
• Water efficiency strategies including water harvesting,
storage and reuse within homes and for irrigation
High- • Community Management Statement and Narara Ecovillage
performance Building Standards incorporate operational and embodied
strategies: performance requirements for each dwelling
• Demand reduction through mandating smaller dwelling
size (maximum limit of 180 m2; current average of 129 m2
in Stage 1)
• Highly efficient building envelopes through high level of
insulation and internal thermal mass
• High-performance glazing systems
• High indoor environmental quality (e.g. use of low or no
VOC paints)
• High-performance heat pump or solar thermal water
heating systems
(continued)
(continued)
• High-efficiency LED lighting throughout

• Full electrification (no piped gas supply)
• EV charging facilities
• Shared and communal facilities (e.g. common house)
• Innovative construction systems, including Earthship
construction, rammed earth, Hempcrete, SuperAdobe
and bamboo, strawbale, prefab (volumetric as well as
kit-of-parts), as well as relocation, reuse and retrofitting
of existing dwellings
Renewable • Each dwelling with at least 2 kW PV for first bedroom
systems: and 1 kW PV installed for each additional bedroom to
ensure each dwelling is at least net zero or positive
energy over a year
• 6.2 kW of PV on average per dwelling totalling over
300 kW of residential solar installed and commissioned
• Community scale Smart Grid system to balance the
energy generation, consumption and storage
• 1052 kW of solar PV generation and 825 kWh or batteries
for the precinct when complete. Stage 1 with 526 kW of
solar PV generation and 460 kWh of batteries
Performance profile
Thermal • Each dwelling to achieve at least 1 Star above minimum
performance NatHERS Star rating compliance of 6 Stars (50 homes
average of 7.7 Stars for Stage 1)
Water • 70% reduction in potable water usage measured by the
performance NSW BASIX tool
Total energy • 10,903 kWh over the last 6 months
import from
grid:
Total energy • 10,8427 kWh over the last 6 months
export to grid
(after on-site
consumption):
Energy status: • Net energy positive
Design Intentions
Narara Ecovillage is an intergenerational residential community being

developed and built with an aim to nurture a resilient and inclusive com-
munity that inspires collaboration, innovation and fun while drawing on
indigenous wisdom and fostering regenerative environmental, social and
economic practices. Each home in the village is unique and is owned by
a community member. The community encourages the design and con-
struction of small, affordable and comfortable houses. The village has
established design benchmarks to be met in the design process and moni-
tored through the building operation. These benchmarks include achiev-
ing a minimum performance rating of 7-star in NatHERS scheme,
efficient water usage measured by the BASIX scheme and sufficient on-
site renewable systems to exceed annual energy consumption. Other
benchmarks include reduced embodied carbon in construction and
building materials and sustainable building materials generally, using
highly energy-efficient appliances, managing waste through recycling and
composting, improving indoor environmental and air quality with cross-
ventilation and daylighting.
Narara Ecovillage has taken a holistic approach to performance that inte-

grates environmental with social and economic concerns of the commu-
nity. Its building standards incorporates requirements for demand
reduction, energy efficiency and on-site renewables to achieve operational
net positive carbon performance for each dwelling and thereby for the
entire precinct. Each house is required to install sufficient PV energy on
the roof to meet their own needs. These individual PV systems are con-
nected to a Smart Grid that manages excess power and integration with
the grid. The Smart Grid system has received a funding of $1.38 m from
the Australian Renewable Energy Agency with an aim to utilise first-in-
Australia technology to reduce infrastructure costs, balance and optimise
the use of solar PV and battery storage, and as a result create a net carbon
neutral village.
The continuous monitoring of the Smart Grid’s interaction with the

state’s energy grid has demonstrated that during the most recent 6 months
covering the summer of 2021–2022, the ecovillage exported almost 10
times the energy it imported for its use. Based on this data, the Narara
Ecovillage has been massively energy positive and likely to maintain its
energy-positive status over the entire year.
In addition to operational carbon goals, the ecovillage’s Community
Management Statement encourages all homeowners to first reduce
embodied carbon emissions, and then offset the dwelling’s remaining
embodied carbon over a period of thirty years. This can be achieved
through generating excess renewable energy and/or purchasing equiva-
lent offsets through eligible carbon offset schemes (Fig. 5.29).
Fig. 5.29 Narara Ecovillage energy balance over 6 months including summer
(October 2021 to March 2022) (by Authors; Source: Narara Ecovillage 2022)
Narara Ecovillage (2022), and personal communications with various

members of the Ecovillage during 2022.
5.3 Exemplars in Embodied

Carbon Reduction
5.3.1 New Buildings
Atlassian Central
Sydney, Australia
Atlassian Central is an under development $1-billion-plus tower building
in Sydney. The world’s tallest hybrid timber tower aims to go beyond star
rating systems and set a new global benchmark for a low carbon, high com-
fort building (Figs. 5.30 and 5.31).
Fig. 5.30 Atlassian Central. (Image copyright agreements provided by Jake

Mascarenhas)
Fig. 5.31 (a) Atlassian Central’s appearance from the street level. (b) Terraced
roof gardens to improve site ecology and heat island effect. (c) ‘Neighbourhood
gardens’ providing a connection to nature and natural ventilation. (Image copy-
right agreements provided by Jake Mascarenhas)

Building profile
Building name: Atlassian Central
Architect: SHoP Architects; BVN
Design
Consultants: LCI; Stantec; EOC; TTW
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: CFA—Humid subtropical
Building type: Mixed use (commercial, retail and accommodation)
GFA: Approx. 75,000 m2
Year built: 2026 (expected)
Storeys above
ground: 40
Building status: New building
Certifications: 6 Stars Green Star (targeted)
5.5 Stars NABERS Office Base Building Energy (targeted)
4.5 Stars NABERS Water
WELL Core rating for commercial base building
High- • Extensive external shading
performance • High-performance glazed façade
strategies: • Low static air handling
• High-temperature passive chilled beams to selected
thermal zones
• Mixed-mode and naturally ventilated spaces; outdoor
air provision to office occupants at a rate of 100%
greater than the minimum Australian standard
requirement
• Design to PMV thermal comfort performance
• Energy-efficient heat pump systems for heating and
domestic hot water
• Low water consuming tapware (6 Star WELS)
• Rainwater collection for roof planting
• Provision for a recycled water reticulation network
• Target of 50% reduction in embodied carbon compared
to a conventional building
Embodied carbon • Hybrid timber construction using a combination of mass
reduction timber and steel structure
strategies: • Cross-laminated timber floors within each habitat to
significantly reduce the use of concrete
• Concrete with reduced Portland cement content
• More than 90% of demolition and construction waste to
be recycled
• Operational waste reduction and recycling strategies
(continued)
(continued)
Environmental • Eight distributed ‘habitats’, each with outdoor

strategies: bioclimatic park spaces with green planting for
improved air quality and reduced stress
• Rooftop terraced gardens for heat island minimisation
and biodiversity improvement
• Negligible private carparking provision
Renewable • On-site renewable energy generation through 240 kW
systems: of façade integrated solar PV
• Off-site renewable power generation to achieve net
zero carbon in operation from day one
• Total annual building energy consumption target of
2500 MWh for Commercial Office only
Performance • Total annual on-site energy production target of
profile: 146 MWh from façade-integrated PV
• Carbon dioxide emissions target of 2300 kgCO2
commercial office only without green power
• Net zero in operation
D
esign Intentions
Atlassian Central in the Sydney’s upcoming Tech Central Precinct is an

iconic tower that has recently received regulatory approval for develop-
ment. The construction of the world’s tallest hybrid timber tower, which
will be the headquarters of the Australian technology giant Atlassian, is
expected to commence in the first half of 2022 and be completed by 2026.
The architectural design competition winning mixed-use tower is designed
by SHoP Architects and BVN. Its ground-breaking design of timber, with
a glass and steel façade includes a mix of outdoor and indoor spaces which
use an energy-efficient approach that features natural ventilation and large
planted terraces giving users of the building access to nature. Its lower levels
will include tourist and visitor accommodation and most of the upper lev-
els will house Atlassian’s new workspace for over 4000 tech workers. The
top five levels will include terraced garden areas with open air wellness
facilities as well as meeting, dining and lounge spaces.
The project will be constructed with a concrete core for stability and a
steel frame exoskeleton. The tower takes shape from the repetition of eight
independent timber habitats. The high-rise structure takes advantage of the
mild Sydney climate to deploy an energy-efficient system that balances

natural ventilated zones with low energy mechanical air-conditioning.
Each habitat encompasses a generous protected outdoor garden that pro-
vides a pleasant and attractive space for occupant comfort and well-being.
The building will offer different thermal zone typologies and users will have
the opportunity to choose different working environments, depending on
their individual and team needs. This flexibility is completely anchored by
the Atlassian way of working. Façade-mounted PV panels are proposed to
achieve on-site energy generation in the order of 146 MWh/yr.
The project aims to set a global sustainability benchmark through a series of

high-performance design and construction strategies. As part of the RE100
program, Atlassian is committed to carbon neutrality by 2025. In alignment
with this commitment, the project aims to operate with 50% less energy
consumption compared to a conventional building. The goal is to be net zero
operational carbon by using 100% renewable energy (both on-site generated
and off-site sourced) from day one. Additionally, the project employs a series
of innovative design strategies as well as construction materials and systems to
achieve a 50% reduction in embodied carbon compared to a conventionally
constructed similar building. This includes the use of a hybrid mass timber
and steel structure which includes cross-laminated timber.
The project has committed to achieve a 6-star Green Star rating (under
Green Star Design & As Built v1.3), which exceeds ‘Australian Best
Practice’ and exhibits ‘World Leadership’ design. Additionally, the com-
mercial office portion of the building has also targeted 5.5 stars under
NABERS Office Base Building Energy rating (without Green Power),
and 4.5 stars for NABERS Water. The 6-Star Green Star pathway also
includes 15 of the 17 WELL points available for indoor environmental
quality and transport categories; the project aims to achieve WELL Core
rating for the commercial base building. The project team has attempted
to design a unique building which is true to the holistic sustainability
aspirations that go beyond formal green building rating systems.
Atlassian and LCI Consultants.
5.3.2 New Precincts
Kambri at Australian National University

ACT, Australia
Kambri precinct is located in the centre of the Acton campus of Australian
National University (ANU). As a cultural precinct, it offers a rich diversity of
places for educational, physical, creative and social programs (Figs. 5.32
and 5.33).
Fig. 5.32 Kambri at ANU. (Image copyright agreements provided by BVN)

Fig. 5.33 (a) Fenner Hall with student accommodation: Approximately 48%
reduction in embodied carbon emissions (equal to 15 years of operational carbon)
compared to a reference building. (b) Cultural Centre: a multi-purpose teaching
and events facility. (c) Student Hub with collaboration and learning spaces. (Image
copyright agreements provided by BVN)
D
esign Intentions
Kambri at Australian National University, in the Acton campus of ANU,

is a new precinct hub providing a welcoming space for the community to
come together for educational and cultural activities. The precinct has
seven buildings including a cultural centre, teaching centre, art gallery,
student accommodation, retail spaces, car parking, an outdoor amphi-
theatre and the public realm with landscaped gardens and the university
avenue. Its development cost was estimated to be A$295 m and the con-
struction cost A$195 m. The precinct’s design set a target of 40% embod-
ied carbon emissions reduction. By employing a range of low carbon
design and construction strategies, on average the buildings (excluding
the public realm) were able to achieve 39% reduction, while the entire
precinct was able to achieve 22% reduction in embodied carbon emis-
sions. This amounted to absolute avoided emissions of approximately
34,000 tCO2e, which equates to 56 years of operational carbon emis-
sions, and resulted in approximately A$1.3 m in cost savings and six
weeks in project time.
Building profile
Precinct name: Kambri at ANU
Architect: BVN
Location: Canberra, ACT, Australia
Koppen climate
classification: Cfb—Oceanic climate
Building types: Mixed use (Seven buildings including educational,
cultural, retail, accommodation, etc.)
GFA: 95,000 m2
Year built: 2019
Carbon footprint: 22% reduction compared to reference precinct
39% reduction compared to reference buildings
excluding public realm
Absolute carbon
emissions avoided: ~34,000 tCO2e (equivalent to 56 years of operational
carbon)
(continued)
(continued)

Embodied carbon • Mass timber super-structure of cross-laminated
reduction timber (CLT) to reduce the use of conventional
strategies: concrete achieving ~30% embodied carbon
reduction
• Modern methods of construction including prefab
brick-slip façade, prefab column formwork, precast
concrete elements, permanent polymer formwork
based structural walling systems and post-tension
concrete slabs collectively achieving ~20–30%
embodied carbon reduction
• 50% cement replacement
• 85% recycled content steel
• Lightweight envelope materials
• Prefinished insulated roofing systems with ~15% less
embodied carbon compared to metal deck roofing
• Lightweight internal walls
• ‘Fabric’ ductwork
• Skylights with ~25% less embodied carbon
compared to glazed skylights
• Screed flooring with ~80% less embodied carbon
compared to vitrified tiling
• Dematerialised and low carbon finishes selection
• Optimised and centralised services
• Modular furniture with low carbon materials
Net Zero Carbon Exemplars—Challenges and Opportunities
The ideas around net zero energy and carbon buildings have been devel-
oping for a long time. However, with the increasing awareness of a cli-
mate emergency, and as a result of the greater sense of urgency, as well as
technological advances, improving affordability and fast evolving rating
frameworks, during the last 15 years there has been a profound emer-
gence of exemplar buildings, precincts and communities in most regions
of the world. The 11 projects presented in this chapter are only a small
selection of case studies, but nevertheless, capture a good diversity of
building types, climatic and geographical contexts, as well as design
approaches and performance outcomes, and articulate the technical and
theoretical content presented in the preceding chapters. These projects
are not intended to facilitate, nor are they appropriate for, direct com-
parison or quantitative comparative analysis. They demonstrate a broad-
brush sketch of the type of approaches taken and the challenges
encountered by the projects. They have incomparable programmatic pro-
files, and were built at different times, or are at different stages of comple-
tion. However, each case study reflects a unique journey towards the same
goal—net zero carbon.
Most projects included in this chapter focussed primarily on opera-
tional energy and carbon, although embodied carbon reduction strategies
were also incorporated in all projects. Asquith PassivHaus, Narara
Ecovillage and White Gum Valley are on track for being a net zero opera-
tional carbon over a year. ZEB Pilot House, Nightingale 2.0 Apartments,
Gillies Hall Student Accommodation, CIC Zero Carbon Park, Kingspan
Lighthouse and The Bullitt Centre are operationally net zero carbon.
A few projects have targeted embodied carbon with the same quantita-
tive rigour as operational carbon. This is specifically reflected in the car-
bon emission reduction approach taken by Atlassian Central and Gillies
Hall Student Accommodation, which include a 50% reduction in
embodied carbon, and by Kambri at ANU, which achieved 39% reduc-
tion in embodied carbon (excluding public realm). Both CIC Zero
Carbon Park and Narara Ecovillage also demonstrate a whole-life carbon
approach to net zero carbon that sets a target for offsetting their respec-
tive projects’ embodied carbon emissions with negative operational car-
bon, through excess renewables energy, over defined timeframes of
50 years and 30 years, respectively.
Long-term monitoring and reporting of whole-life carbon perfor-
mance in projects (both operational and embodied carbon) remains a key
limitation, which is reflected in the lack of availability of quantitative
data across case studies. With more projects capturing such data and with
increasing methodological consensus, especially on embodied carbon
assessment, it is expected that there will be a greater number and variety
of exemplars available for study and inclusion in the future. As the built
environment sector progresses further on the path to, and beyond, net
zero carbon, we expect to see many more exciting projects pushing the
boundary of what is achievable.
References
ARUP, 2022. Hong Kong’s first zero carbon building. Projects, CIC ZCB, Hong
Kong. Available at: https://www.arup.com/projects/cic-zcb. Accessed on
02/05/2022.
Bioregional, 2022. One Plant Living: making it easier to live happily and sus-
tainably. Available online at: https://www.bioregional.com/one-planet-living.
Bryne, J., Hosking, R., Breadsell, J., Syed, M., Babaeff, T., Morrison, G.,
Newman, P. 2019. ‘Mainstreaming Low Carbon Residential Precincts—The
WGV Living Laboratory’, Final Report RP3033, CRC for Low Carbon
Living: September. Available at: www.lowcarbonlivingcrc.com.au/sites/all/
files/publications_file_attachments/rp3033_final_report.pdf.
Clean Energy Council 2021. ‘Electricity from the sun: Solar PV systems
explained’, Clean Energy Council, 4. Available at: www.cleanenergy-
council.org.au
Holden, K. & Twinn, C. 2011. ‘Achieving zero carbon code level 6 for the
Kinspan Lighthouse building’, in Proceedings of the Institution of Civil
Engineers, Energy, 164, 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1680/ener.900015.
JCBA, 2022. Gillies Hall. Projects, Monash Peninsula Student Accommodation.
Available at: https://jcba.com.au/projects/monash-peninsula-student-
accommodation-452. Accessed on 02/05/2022.
ILFI, 2022. Bullitt Center. International Living Future Institute, Living Building
Challenge, Case Studies. Available at: https://living-future.org/lbc/case-
studies/bullitt-center/. Accessed on 02/05/2022.
Narara Ecovillage 2022. Narara Ecovillage: Inspired by life. Retrieved 1 May
2022 from https://nararaecovillage.com/.
Nunn, C. 2021. ‘Asquith PassivHaus Site Tour’, [Presentation Slides]. Presented
at the Asquith PassivHaus Site Tour; 30 April 2021, Asquith, New South
Wales, Australia.
Moore, T. Doyon, A. ‘The uncommon Nightingale: Sustainable Housing
Innovation in Australia’, Sustainability 2018, 10(10), 3469. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su10103469.
Six Degrees Architects 2022. Nightingale 2.0. Projects. Available at: https://
www.sixdegrees.com.au/projects/nightingale. Accessed on 02/05/2022.
Sheppard, Robson, n.d. A first in sustainable housing design. Architecture:

Lighthouse. Available at: https://www.sheppardrobson.com/architecture/
view/lighthouse. Accessed on 02/05/2022.
Snohetta, 2022. ZEB Pilot House. Available at https://snohetta.com/
project/188-zeb-pilot-house. Accessed on 02/05/2022.
6
Policy Pathways to a Net Zero
Carbon-Built Environment
6.1 Australia’s Zero Carbon Policy

6.1.1 Australia’s National Targets, Policies
and Programs
The Australian Government pledged to achieve net zero carbon emissions

by 2050 ahead of the COP26 Summit (Australian Government 2021b)
and released Australia’s Long-Term Emissions Reduction Plan for deliver-
ing net zero carbon emissions. The Plan has a focus on low emissions
technologies and continues existing policies, programs and initiatives. It
aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 26–28% below 2005 levels by
2030, namely, achieving a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to
441–453 million MtCO2-e by 2030 (Australian Government 2015). The
recent forecast shows it is on track for up to 35% emissions reduction by
2030 which is above the defined target. The Australian Government’s
implementation plan has four focus areas (Australian Government
2021b): (1) driving down technology costs to promote growth of low
emissions technologies, for example, ultra-low-cost solar and low emis-
sions steel and aluminium which can reduce operational and embodied
emissions in the built environment; (2) enabling deployment at scale
through voluntary approaches, incentive and educational programs, and
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_6
alignment of efforts across the Federal, State and Territory governments;

(3) seizing opportunities in new and traditional markets for low emis-
sions such as exploring lower emissions fuels and opportunities for low
emissions manufacturing and clean energy equipment and services; and
(4) fostering global collaboration to accelerate innovation (Fig. 6.1). The
implementation plan defines actions to facilitate policies and standards
across the building, energy and infrastructure sectors and requires inter-
sectoral collective efforts to achieve net zero carbon emissions by 2050.
However, the current plan relies heavily on innovative and emerging
technologies, many of which do not exist or are yet to be proven at scale.
Fig. 6.1 Illustration of the Australian Government’s Plan to achieve net zero
emissions by 2050 (Australian Government 2021b)
6 Policy Pathways to a Net Zero Carbon-Built Environment 203
The existing policies and programs that the Australian Government

will continue comprise a suite of initiatives with the support of state and
local governments, industry and the community including:
• Emissions Reduction Fund: incentivising Australian businesses to adopt

new technologies and practices to cut greenhouse gas emissions and
store carbon.
• National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme: reporting informa-
tion regarding the greenhouse gas emissions, energy production and
energy consumption of companies.
• Safeguard Mechanism: requiring Australia’s largest greenhouse gas
emitters to keep their net emissions below a baseline, which builds on
the reporting requirements of the National Greenhouse and Energy
Reporting Scheme.
• Climate Active: a partnership between the Australian Government and
Australian businesses that encourages climate leadership by providing
buildings, events, organisations, precincts, products and services with
Climate Active Carbon Neutral Standard certification based on their
carbon neutral status. The National Australian Built Environment
Rating System (NABERS) or the Green Building Council of Australia
(GBCA) will provide the certification for buildings.
• Renewable Energy Target Scheme: reducing greenhouse gas emissions
through encouraging the use of renewable sources in the electricity
sector, including incentivising investment in solar farms and hydro-
electric power stations.
• National Energy Productivity Plan 2015–2030: providing a framework
and an economy-wide work plan targeting a 40% improvement in
Australia’s energy productivity (Australian Government and COAG
Energy Council 2015).
• Australia’s Domestic Hydrofluorocarbon (HFC) Phase-down Strategy:
encouraging industry, particularly in refrigeration and air-conditioning,
to shift to alternative technologies using lower or zero global warming
potential gases, seeking to reach 15% of the baseline level on 1 January
2036 (Australian Government 2021a).
• Minimum Energy Performance Standards for Buildings and Appliances:
specifying the minimum level of energy performance that buildings
and products, including appliances, lighting and electrical equipment,

must meet or exceed.
The National Climate Resilience and Adaptation Strategy was updated

in 2021 to provide a pathway for a climate resilient Australia (Australian
Government 2021). It sets out three objectives for the next five years: (1)
enhancing leadership and collaboration to drive investment and action;
(2) delivering improved climate information and services built upon
world-class science; and (3) assessing and monitoring climate impacts
and the adaptation process over time. It is crucial to establish a national
assessment, monitoring and reporting system that provides consistent
metrics and methods. However, necessary legislation, detailed action
plans and funding support for implementation are yet to be outlined by
the strategy.
The Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings (COAG Energy Council
2018) is a national plan which has been reviewed for updates in 2022. It
was developed by the COAG Energy Council in collaboration with fed-
eral, state and territory governments and consulted over 250 stakeholders
from the built environment industry, aimed at achieving zero carbon
commercial and residential buildings in Australia. It has focussed on
achieving the 40% improvement in energy productivity by 2030 under
the Australian National Energy Productivity Plan and identifying cost-
effective opportunities for energy-efficient building systems covering
thermal performance, appliance energy consumption and renewable
energy generation.
The 2022 updates of the Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings fall into
the three core areas: (1) Targeted Building Policies, (2) Enabling Mechanisms
and (3) Supporting Measures, comprising fourteen workstreams applied to
commercial and residential buildings (Fig. 6.2) (The Commonwealth of
Australia, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources 2022).
Targeted Building Policies aims to address key barriers at the different
stages of a building’s lifecycle. Enabling Mechanisms underpins policies by
providing guidance, supply chain development and energy ratings and
tools. Supporting Measures compliments the targeted building policies by
providing financial incentives, greenhouse energy minimum standards
(GEMS) under the legislation of that name and so on.
Fig. 6.2 Illustration of the three core areas of the Trajectory for Low Energy
Buildings (The Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Industry, Science,
Energy and Resources 2022)
Stream 4 under Targeted Building Policies (Fig. 6.2) will update the
National Construction Code (NCC) for residential and commercial
buildings, which includes (1) implementing cost-effective increases to
NCC energy efficiency provisions for residential buildings from 2022,
and (2) increasing NCC energy performance requirements for commer-
cial buildings from 2025. Stream 5 under Targeted Building Policies
(Fig. 6.2) will develop a national framework for disclosure of residential
energy efficiency information which enables buyers to make informed
choices. Stream 3 (Fig. 6.2) is part of Enabling Mechanisms to underpin
policies, which will expand the National Australian Built Environment
Rating System (NABERS) to new categories involving warehouses, cold
stores, schools and retail. Stream 3 will also develop the National
Scorecard Initiative for the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme
(NatHERS) to enable a diverse range of residential buildings and appli-
ances to be rated. Stream 10 (Fig. 6.2) is part of Supporting Measures to
compliment the targeted building policies, which includes the improve-
ment of GEMS to increase appliance energy efficiency to reduce green-
house gas emissions and so on. The 2022 updates of the Trajectory for
Low Energy Buildings support Australia’s national targets and facilitate
the transition towards zero energy and carbon ready residential and com-
mercial buildings in Australia.
6.1.2 State and Territory Governments’ Objectives

and Action Plans
In alignment with Australia’s national targets and strategies, State and

Territory Governments have also established clear objectives and action
plans for achieving net zero emissions by 2050 with associated interim
targets (Fig. 6.3). This section introduces the initiatives developed by the
Fig. 6.3 Australian state and territory objectives (Adapted from ClimateWorks
Australia 2021)
New South Wales (NSW), Victorian (VIC) and South Australia (SA)
State Governments as examples.
The NSW State Government has announced a target to achieve the
State’s objective to deliver a 50% cut in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030
compared to 2005 levels (NSW Government 2020) and reach net zero
emissions by 2050. Their action plan sets three stages for each decade up
to 2050 and encourages collective efforts across the State and
Commonwealth Governments, local governments, businesses, commu-
nities and individuals. The action plan for 2020–2030 (NSW Government
2020) focuses on the following four aspects:
1. Being a national leader in capturing the jobs and investment generated by

the transition to a net zero economy, such as the growing demand for
low emissions technologies, products, services and innovation.
2. Aiming to stabilise NSW emissions to 2030 through the NSW Climate
Change Policy Framework (NSW Office of Environment and Heritage
2016), which includes the Home Energy Action Program to reduce
household energy consumption, the Emerging Energy Program to
diversify the NSW sustainable energy supply mix, and the Energy
Efficiency Action Plan to upgrade building equipment for energy effi-
ciency. The implementation of these programs will lead to 29 mega-
tonnes of CO2e emission reductions by 2030.
3. Setting the net zero priorities, including: (a) deploying emissions reduc-
tion technologies such as renewable generation to reduce energy con-
sumption and costs; (b) empowering consumers with sustainable
choices in energy-efficient products and services; (c) investing in emis-
sions reduction innovation; and (d) introducing sustainable practices
and services into the market.
4. Keeping track of progress through carbon accounting based on the National
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Scheme and governance, including
Australia State of the Environment (SoE) reports, measuring and
monitoring annual improvements, new and emerging low carbon
technologies, and the implementation of NSW net zero carbon plan
and programs.
In addition to the above action plan, the NSW Planning Minister

announced a major climate policy in November 2021, which requires
large commercial buildings such as shopping centres, hotels and office
skyscrapers designed for 2022 to operate as net zero energy buildings.
This will be supported by a suite of measures including the increased use
of renewable energy in the built environment and improved standards for
buildings, products and materials as well as sustainable urban design. In
addition, the potential policy direction on discontinuing dark roofs on all
new homes built across Sydney has the potential to reduce summer ambi-
ent temperatures by up to 2.4 °C (Santamouris et al. 2022) and thereby
reduce building cooling loads and carbon emissions (Fig. 6.4). This
potential policy direction is one example that will help accelerate the
transition towards net zero emissions by 2050.
The VIC State Government has established 5-yearly interim emissions
reduction targets to keep track of the progress towards net zero emissions
by 2050. The interim target for 2021–2025 is to achieve a 28–33% cut
in greenhouse gas emissions compared to 2005 levels, while the interim
target for 2026–2030 is to achieve a 45–50% cut compared to 2005 lev-
els (Independent Expert Panel on Interim Emissions Reduction Targets
for Victoria 2019).
Victoria’s Climate Change Strategy developed by the VIC State
Government Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning in
Fig. 6.4 The NSW Government planned to ban dark roofs to reduce urban heat
island effects and energy consumption to achieve the net zero target for build-
ings (by authors)
2021 sets out actions plans to reduce carbon emissions towards a net zero
target by 2050 (The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land,
Water and Planning 2021). The action plans support the implementation
of renewable energy in the built environment, regulate all new homes to
meet ‘7-Star’ energy efficiency standards under National Construction
Code from 2022, and provide economically vulnerable households with
funding support to reduce energy bills and overcome barriers to adapta-
tion. The five aspects of the action plans are summarised as follows:
(1) A clean energy economy to promote the transition from fossil fuels to
renewable energy and the implementation of greener homes and
buildings.
(2) Innovation for the future to capture emerging zero emissions tech-
nologies and practices including next-generation energy, the develop-
ment of the renewable hydrogen industry and promotion of zero
emissions vehicles.
(3) Resilient farms and forests to protect the natural environment includ-
ing Victoria’s lands and forests and to develop new technologies and
practices for agriculture to reduce emissions.
(4) Climate smart business and communities to encourage a circular econ-
omy, community investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency
for businesses and sustainable transportation.
(5) A climate resilient Victoria to address the climate change impacts and
protect ecosystems, landscapes and communities.
The SA State Government has legislated the target to achieve a 50%

emissions reduction by 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. Other lead-
ing emissions reduction initiatives by the SA Government include: (1)
increasing the take-up of low emission vehicles aimed at achieving 50%
of new car sales as electric by 2030; (2) greening city streets and land-
scapes to mitigate the climate change impacts; (3) promoting circular
economy; and (4) setting a goal to achieve averaging 100% solar and
wind by 2030. In October 2021, South Australia reached 100% renew-
ables through solar and wind which is a remarkable achievement around
the world. However, it is worth mentioning that lower prices and
improved reliability of renewable energy sources are necessary to support
and sustain this shift, especially at larger scales.
6.1.3 Local Government Initiatives
Australian local governments play a crucial role in supporting and imple-

menting the policies of state and territory governments. They are more
intimately connected to homes and local communities and can influence,
legislate and deliver climate positive outcomes for households and local
infrastructure, services and facilities through establishing and imple-
menting robust local environmental plans (LEP) and development con-
trol plans (DCP) (Monash University and ClimateWorks Australia 2020).
Most Australian local governments have now established policies, reg-
ulations and voluntary measures to reducing operational and embodied
carbon in the built environment. For example, the City of Sydney
Council, along with other local governments across Greater Sydney, has
initiated optimal performance targets for operational energy demand in
buildings above mandated standards to accelerate the decarbonisation of
the built environment (The City of Sydney 2021). These new optimal
performance targets are set for office buildings, shopping centres, hotels
and multi-unit residential buildings. They are built upon existing volun-
tary rating systems in Australia such as NABERS and the Green Star
rating system as well as the Building Sustainability Index (BASIX), the
mandatory environmental planning policy in NSW, to encourage build-
ing projects to exceed minimum standards and achieve optimal perfor-
mance outcomes (Table 6.1).
Specific clauses on the optimal performance targets are expected to be
defined in the City of Sydney Council’s LEP or DCP and supported by
incentive clauses for residential development beyond the BASIX mini-
mum requirements. The LEP and DCP will also define appropriate
clauses on the embodied carbon in buildings and on-site renewable
energy generation or off-site renewable energy procurement, as they are
crucial to reducing the whole-life carbon emissions of buildings.
Another example is the City of Melbourne Council’s action plans,
‘Zero Carbon for Buildings’ and ‘Measuring and Minimising Embodied
Carbon in Design and Construction’ (The City of Melbourne 2021).
They are part of key priorities of the City of Melbourne and are outlined
as follows:
Table 6.1 Optimal operational energy performance targets set by the City of
Sydney Council for implementation through their LEP or DCP. (Source: The City of
Sydney 2021)
Zero Carbon for Buildings
• Transitioning council buildings to electric and carbon-free operations

by installing renewable energy.
• Improving energy efficiency through the Building Management
Systems Strategy.
• Guiding sustainable consumption behaviour through providing
proper infrastructure and information.
• Setting a minimum performance standard across major building assets.
Measuring and Minimising Embodied Carbon in Design and

Construction
• Defining criteria for low embodied carbon emissions in new buildings

and assessing alternative materials to reduce embodied carbon
emissions.
• Reducing embodied carbon emissions by maximising circular design

principles in building design and construction.
• Requiring contractors and sub-contractors who provide building
products and services to ensure the delivery of low carbon outcomes.
6.1.4 Mandatory and Voluntary Approaches

to Reducing Operational and Embodied Energy
Demand and Increasing the Use
of Renewable Energy
In alignment with these national targets, policies and strategies, the fed-
eral, state and territory, and local governments in Australia have estab-
lished mandatory and voluntary standards to reduce carbon emissions
and increase the use of renewable energy in the built environment. This
section provides a snapshot of mandatory and voluntary approaches
adopted in Australia to support the transition towards net zero carbon
emissions by 2050.
Mandatory Approaches
The mandatory approaches at the national level in Australia include the

energy efficiency provisions in the National Construction Code (NCC),
which sets mandatory energy star rating requirements for all states and
territories based on the Nationwide House Energy Rating Scheme
(NatHERS), except NSW. NatHERS measures residential building
energy efficiency including heating and cooling energy demand based on
building design, structure and materials and generates a star rating out of
10 and a certificate (Table 6.2). Currently, 6 Stars or above is required in
most states and territories for detached homes. However, the National
Construction Code (NCC) 2022 provisions will strengthen the energy
measures for new homes by requiring a 7 Star NatHERS energy rating for
all new buildings.
NSW employs a different scheme named BASIX to regulate all new
residential buildings against energy, water and thermal comfort
Table 6.2 Comparison between NatHERS, BASIX, NABERS and Green Star. (Source:
By authors)
requirements (Table 6.2). It measures a percentage of savings against an

NSW average benchmark, which is 3292 kilograms of carbon dioxide per
person per year and generates a certificate. It requires a 50% saving in
energy and 40% saving in water against the benchmark, while the ther-
mal comfort assessment methods can employ the do-it-yourself mode
and the computational simulation using a NatHERS software tool.
The NatHERS and BASIX regulations potentially lead to inconsis-
tent measures, benchmarks and processes to reduce carbon emissions
for residential buildings. Therefore, there is a strong need for a single
national rating scheme for residential buildings across all states and
territories in Australia. This has been raised and is being planned to
improve the efficiency provisions in the National Construction Code
(NCC) to enable delivery of a single national rating scheme for resi-
dential buildings.
The mandatory disclosure of the energy efficiency of commercial
buildings has also been established in Australia. It requires commercial
office spaces over 1000 m2 to provide buyers and tenants with energy
efficiency information, thereby encouraging high-performance commer-
cial buildings. Similarly, the mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency in
residential buildings is currently under development by the Australian
government, which will drive the zero carbon transformation of the hous-
ing market.
The NSW State Government has announced its Green Plan including
mandatory solar panels and battery systems for all new homes, which is a
key part of the strategy to achieve 100% renewable energy by 2030. The
Green Plan includes the following important measures:
• Mandatory solar battery installations for all new homes

• Solar panels on all government and public housing buildings
• Rebate for rooftop solar panels and batteries
• Community solar offset scheme for apartment buildings including
owners and tenants
• Fair price for solar
Non-mandatory or Voluntary Approaches
Non-mandatory or voluntary approaches can provide more ambitious

alternatives to mandatory standards and regulations in reducing the life-
cycle carbon emissions of buildings. These can range from government
programs to voluntary rating systems, financial incentives and training
and research innovation agendas. Financial incentives, for example, are a
common and widely adopted approach to addressing various barriers and
promoting energy-efficient buildings, products and technologies. They
are typically used to encourage and deliver high-performance new build-
ings, energy efficiency retrofits of existing buildings, low-carbon targets
of products in construction contracts, and the installation of solar PV
and battery storage systems in buildings.
Voluntary Rating Systems
NABERS and Green Star are two major voluntary rating systems operat-
ing in Australia (Table 6.2). NABERS is a performance-based rating sys-
tem that assesses the actual environmental impact of the building after it
has been built and is operational. Although NABERS is managed by the
NSW State Government, it is effectively used across Australia and inter-
nationally. It uses real measurement rather than computational simula-
tions. Therefore, NABERS results can provide feedback to design-based
ratings such as Green Star, and also inform future design decisions to
achieve improved environmental outcomes. NABERS indicators com-
prise energy, water, indoor environment, waste and carbon neutral cate-
gories to generate a star rating out of 6.
Green Star is a design-based rating system for buildings and communi-
ties (Table 6.2), which is issued by the Green Building Council of
Australia (GBCA). It comprises four rating tools: (1) Design & As Built
consisting of nine impact categories to assess the design and construction
of new buildings or major refurbishments against sustainability out-
comes; (2) Interior to assess the interior fitouts in a building; (3)
Communities to assess precinct scale developments; and (4) Performance
to assess the operational performance of an existing building. The Green
Star’s Performance rating tool generates a star rating from 1–6 Stars, while
the other three rating tools generate a star rating from 4–6 Stars. Both
NABERS and Green Star rating systems have been encouraged to be
adopted in government projects in Australia to achieve a specified bench-
mark in carbon reduction.
Voluntary Government Programmes
In addition to NABERS and Green Star, other voluntary programmes

have been developed at the federal, state and territory, and local govern-
ment levels. At the federal government level, for example, the Climate
Active Carbon Neutral Standard for Organisations is a voluntary standard
that requires Australian businesses to manage carbon emissions and
achieve carbon neutrality. At the state and territory level, further
voluntary programmes are developed in collaboration with local govern-

ments, such as fast-tracking sustainable development approvals, and other
programmes in support of the voluntary schemes by the federal govern-
ment. At the local government level, municipal zero emission plans are
established to deliver carbon reductions across local communities together
with education programmes to increase community awareness of energy
efficiency to promote sustainable behaviour in day-to-day life.
Incentive Schemes
The Renewable Energy Target Scheme in Australia provides an incentive

scheme comprising the Large-Scale Renewable Energy Target (LRET)
and the Small-Scale Renewable Energy Target (SRET). The LRET
encourages investment in renewable energy such as solar farms and
hydro-electric power stations, while the SRET encourages households,
businesses and the community to install solar water heaters, rooftop solar
panels, small-scale wind or hydro systems.
Industry-Led Initiatives
Industry-led initiatives and plans are also part of non-mandatory

approaches which play an important role in the transition towards net
zero carbon emissions in the built environment. The Growing Market for
Sustainable Homes was an industry-led initiative developed by the CRC
for Low Carbon Living (CRCLCL) and Australian Sustainable Built
Environment Council (ASBEC) aimed at growing a thriving market for
low carbon, sustainable and liveable homes (CRC for Low Carbon Living
and ASBEC 2019). It provides a Sustainable Homes Transition Roadmap
which will support the Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings. The
Roadmap consists of four steps illustrated in Fig. 6.5. The implementa-
tion of the Roadmap requires the following actions:
1. A voluntary pathway for sustainable homes, committed by the federal,

state and territory governments
Fig. 6.5 Illustration of the four steps of the Sustainable Homes Transition
Roadmap (CRC for Low Carbon Living and ASBEC 2019)
2. Establishing benchmarks for best practice sustainable homes beyond

minimum standards, providing certification and training for the home
building sector and establishing an energy efficiency disclosure scheme
for existing homes
3. A pilot incentive program to encourage volume builders and trades-
people to deliver sustainable and low carbon homes for the market’s
transformation
4. A consumer engagement campaign to promote the adoption of sus-
tainable and low carbon homes at the market
5. Encouraging cost-effective high-performing homes
In alignment with the COP26 global agenda, ASBEC further pro-

posed five practical policies to help the federal government implement
the drive to carbon emissions’ reduction in the building sector covering
residential, commercial and public buildings. The five practical policies
include:
1. Providing households with the energy performance information of

their dwellings so as to help reduce their energy bills
2. Delivering high-performance government buildings to demonstrate
government leadership
3. Establishing Australia as a global leader in high-performance building
products and technologies
4. Providing financial incentives for building upgrades
5. Developing pathways and a zero carbon ready building energy code to
decarbonise building operations
As introduced in the sections above, the three levels of government in

Australia have established a comprehensive set of policies and mandatory
and voluntary approaches to effectively reduce carbon emissions as a col-
lective effort across the built environment industry. The next section will
present the Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus (by Authors), which
provides a summary of the mandatory and voluntary approaches devel-
oped by government and industry in Australia to reduce the whole-life
carbon in buildings and also increase the uptake of renewable energy
generation.
6.1.5 Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus
The GBCA, Property Council of Australia, ASBEC, the CRCLCL,

Energy Efficiency Council and Curtin University have jointly produced
a report called Every Building Counts to provide an overview of Australia’s
policy pathways to net zero emissions (Green Building Council Australia
et al. 2019). It categorises the policies, strategies and standards for a net
zero carbon-built environment in Australia into the following
seven themes:
1. A net zero buildings plan—establishing a long-term plan, with staged

science-based targets, for the transition to net zero carbon build-
ings by 2050
2. Incentivising high-performance buildings—providing financial and

planning incentives to accelerate the uptake of new and retrofitted
high-performance and energy-efficient buildings
3. Minimum standards—delivering a zero carbon ready building code
that sets a pathway for upgrading and ensuring compliance with the
minimum energy performance standards of the National Construction
Code in line with achieving a zero carbon-built environment by 2050
4. Energy market reform—unlocking the potential of renewable energy
generation, reducing the barriers for emerging energy structures and
harmonising demand-side and supply-side strategies
5. Government leadership—coordinating and supporting all levels of
government to facilitate investment, education and innovation
towards a zero carbon-built environment, and demonstrating zero car-
bon leadership through government projects and assets
6. Robust rating tools for different building types—expanding existing
benchmarks for the energy performance of commercial buildings,
developing a unified national rating scheme to evaluate the energy
efficiency and sustainability of homes and supporting mandatory
energy disclosures of residential buildings
7. Transform markets for materials and products—positioning Australia
as a world leader in high-performing and affordable building products
and materials and developing a coordinated national strategy to
achieving net zero embodied carbon in buildings
Built upon this best practice policy evidence in Australia (Green

Building Council Australia et al. 2019; Harrington and Toller 2017), the
Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus is developed (by authors) to pro-
vide a snapshot of Australian policy pathways to net zero emissions
(Fig. 6.6), covering mandatory and voluntary approaches, policies and
standards for operational and embodied carbon as well renewable energy,
which are conducted by the three levels of government and the built
environment industry.
The Nexus shows a coordinated way of achieving net zero emissions in
the built environment across the three levels of government and the built
environment industry. As it contributes to a significant portion of carbon
emissions in buildings, reducing operational carbon is the primary focus
Fig. 6.6 The Australian Zero Carbon Policy Nexus (by authors)
of many of Australia’s mandatory and voluntary policy measures.

However, the contribution of embodied carbon emissions in the building
lifecycle process and renewable energy generation are also critical in the
transition to a zero carbon-built environment and therefore cannot be
excluded in mandatory or voluntary policy measures.
The Australian government is planning to embed low and zero emis-

sions material building standards into the future National Construction
Code (NCC) to reduce embodied carbon. It will be supported by the
mandatory GEMS for equipment and appliances and the voluntary low-
carbon targets of products in building construction contracts. These pol-
icy plans will help reduce embodied carbon emissions in the building
lifecycle process, but there will be significant challenges in its
implementation.
6.2 International Policies, Standards

and Initiatives
This section introduces best practice policies, standards and initiatives
worldwide by various countries and regions in responding to the global
climate emergency. They include mandatory standards and voluntary
measures designed to reduce operational and embodied carbon in build-
ings and increase the uptake of renewable resources.
6.2.1 International Mandatory and Voluntary

Standards and Policies
The European Commission (EC) has introduced the Energy Performance

of Buildings Directive (EPBD), the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED)
and the Construction Products Regulation (Global Alliance for Buildings
and Construction and United Nations Environment Program 2021) to
reduce carbon emissions in residential and commercial buildings in the
countries across the European Union (EU). Building energy performance
disclosure is a key part of the comprehensive policy measures it has estab-
lished. The disclosure certificate requires providing the energy perfor-
mance information for buildings over 250 m2 occupied by a public
authority, the reference values (such as the minimum standards of energy
performance) and recommendations for improving building energy effi-
ciency. The EC has also established the mandatory energy efficiency cer-
tificates for buildings for sale or rent which provides informed choices for
property investment and energy use by businesses, building owners and
tenants.
While many policy measures are established to improve energy effi-
ciency on the demand-side, such as promoting high-performance new
buildings, upgrading existing buildings and improving technical systems
to reduce energy use for heating, cooling, lighting and ventilation, the
Renewable Energy Directive (RED) represents a key policy measure
implemented by the EC to demonstrate its global leadership in renew-
ables. This involves policies for transitioning from fossil fuels to cleaner
energy and the new target of 40% for renewable energy sources in the
energy mix by 2030 in the EU. Building regulations and codes in the EU
have been linked to renewable energy policies to encourage wider appli-
cation of energy from renewable sources for buildings, such as increasing
the use of renewable energy for building heating and cooling, and utilis-
ing on-site or off-site renewable energy sources and battery storage for
building construction.
Voluntary approaches play an increasingly important role in reducing
carbon emissions and increasing the uptake of clean energy in the build-
ing sector, and, as a result, have been adopted widely in many countries
around the world. For example, voluntary approaches are used to provide
tax incentives and loan guarantees to drive the energy efficiency of com-
mercial and residential buildings in the United States. The City of
Chicago provides Green and Solar Permit Incentives, which includes the
Solar Express Program, the Green Permit Program and the Green Permit
Benefit Tier Program to encourage the use of green elements and renew-
ables in the building design and construction processes, such as photo-
voltaic systems, geothermal systems, solar thermal panels, wind turbines,
green roofs and rainwater harvesting systems.
A range of voluntary rating systems have also been adopted around the
world to decarbonise the built environment and improve the environ-
mental impacts of buildings and cities, for example, the Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system developed by
the US Green Building Council, the Building Research Establishment’s
Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) in the UK to reduce the
environmental impacts across the built environment lifecycle and the
Living Building Challenge (LBC) that incorporates the assessment of net
zero carbon buildings and social impacts. The benchmarks in the volun-
tary rating systems can be used effectively to set specific optimal perfor-
mance targets above the mandatory standards to accelerate the
decarbonisation of the built environment.
Figure 6.7 shows the current coverage of mandatory and voluntary
building energy codes worldwide (Global Alliance for Buildings and
Construction and United Nations Environment Program 2021). Forty-
three countries have mandatory building energy codes at the national
level, while 80 countries have mandatory or voluntary building energy
codes at national or sub-national level.
Fig. 6.7 Illustration of building energy codes coverage worldwide (Global

Alliance for Buildings and Construction and United Nations Environment Program
2021) (Source: International Energy Agency 2021b. All rights reserved). This map
is without prejudice to the status of or the sovereignty over any territory, to the
delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries, and to the name of any
territory, city or area. Note: Recent updates are highlighted with a red border.
Building energy codes relating to specific cities only are not shown
6.2.2 Mandatory Standards for the Embodied Carbon

of Buildings
While mandatory standards for operational energy performance and car-

bon emissions of buildings are well established in many countries, man-
datory standards for embodied energy performance and carbon emissions
of buildings are rare. The Netherlands was the first country to establish a
regulation on lifecycle assessments and embodied carbon in buildings,
followed by other European countries, Canada and some individual US
states. The following provides a snapshot of mandatory measures world-
wide driven by the governments to tackling embodied carbon in buildings.
The Netherlands: Since 2018, building regulations have capped whole-life

carbon emissions including operational and embodied emissions in
new construction projects, which is required for building permits. The
cap is measured using a method called Euros-per-square-metre which
converts carbon emissions into currency value for easy understanding.
Denmark: Building regulations on embodied carbon have been planned

as part of the National Strategy for Sustainable Construction to reduce
carbon emissions. It requires lifecycle assessments for small buildings
(below 1000 m2) and to meet embodied CO2e limits for large build-
ings (over 1000 m2). A staged phasing on embodied CO2e limits has
been set for 2023–2030.
France: French Environmental Regulation RE2020 has introduced new
indicators to assess the environmental impacts of the entire lifecycle of
buildings as an objective in conjunction with other objectives to
improve the energy efficiency performance of new buildings and adapt
them to future climatic conditions. The lifecycle impact assessment
sets out the maximum embodied carbon emissions within the regula-
tion and is supported by the national database of environmental and
health reference data for construction products and equipment
(INIES). INIES provides environmental and health data for around
640,000 commercial construction products and equipment. The life-
cycle impact assessment takes a dynamic lifecycle approach, that is, it
takes account of the time factor of carbon emissions, which means
reducing emissions now has a higher impact than acting in 60 years.
The lifecycle impact assessment including embodied carbon emission
maxima is expected to become mandatory in future.
Sweden: Regulatory climate declarations set out the minimum require-
ments for climate impacts of the building construction process from a
lifecycle perspective, including the embodied environmental impact.
Finland: Mandatory limits for lifecycle carbon impacts are expected for
most building types in 2024, including the embodied carbon impact.
A database will be developed to cover the main types of products,
materials and processes to support the regulatory requirements.
Switzerland, Zurich: The City of Zurich has set out the mandatory
municipal policy to require all new government buildings to conduct
a lifecycle assessment including embodied energy.
Canada, Vancouver: The City of Vancouver has introduced a Green
Buildings Policy for Rezoning in 2017 to require the disclosure of
embodied emissions as part of a project’s rezoning permit process
(Teshnizi 2019).
US, Colorado: A new law, Buy Clean Colorado, was signed in 2021 to
require public construction projects to meet requirements to limit
global warming potential for construction materials applied to public

buildings, roads and bridge projects. The limits are expected to become
mandatory in 2024 and will be reviewed every four years.
Amongst the above mandatory measures, the carbon cap method is

commonly adopted in many countries to tackle the embodied carbon in
buildings. It calculates the embodied carbon emissions of building proj-
ects and assesses whether it exceeds defined limits of CO2e. Besides the
carbon cap method, environmental product declarations and the disclo-
sure of embodied carbon are also being developed for implementation in
the near future, which will be supported by a broad range of databases on
building products, materials and equipment.
6.2.3 Leading Groups and Initiatives Worldwide
The COP26 United Nations climate change conference was held in

Glasgow in November 2021 which aimed to reaffirm the urgency of
reducing carbon emissions and accelerate the global agenda towards net
zero emissions by 2050 to limit global temperature increases to 1.5°C. This
section introduces examples of action plans proposed by various leading
groups worldwide, including the World Green Building Council
(WorldGBC), the Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction
(GlobalABC), the European Union (EU), International Energy Agency
(IEA) and the Global Building Performance Network (GBPN), that align
with the global commitment to decarbonisation by 2050.
WorldGBC: It initiated a call to action on reducing the rate of climate
change carbon emissions and asking all levels of government to imple-
ment policies to achieve the following targets by 2030 and 2050 (World
Green Building Council 2021), which have been endorsed by 125 organ-
isations around the world:
• By 2030, all new buildings will achieve net zero operational carbon,
while all new buildings, renovations and infrastructure will achieve at
least 40% less embodied carbon with significant upfront carbon
reduction.
• By 2050, in addition to net zero operational carbon by all new and

existing buildings, new buildings, infrastructure and renovations will
need to achieve net zero embodied carbon.
GlobalABC: The 2021 Global Status Report for Buildings and

Construction produced by GlobalABC demonstrates possible pathways
towards net zero carbon emissions by 2050 for the building sector (Global
Alliance for Buildings and Construction and United Nations Environment
Program 2021). It indicates that energy efficiency and low carbon tech-
nologies will overcome the barriers such as increased demand for build-
ing floor area, energy services and higher living standards in future. It also
highlights the need for building energy codes to address the embodied
carbon in buildings to support use of low carbon materials and systems
when constructing new buildings or retrofitting existing buildings.
IEA: It has set out a global pathway to net zero emissions by 2050
across multiple sectors, which requires all governments to strengthen and
implement energy and climate policies (International Energy Agency
2021a). It highlights priority actions including building energy efficiency,
retrofit and behaviour change in the building sector, scaling up renewable
generation in the energy sector and promoting electric vehicle deploy-
ment in the transportation sector. The IEA recommends introducing
mandatory zero carbon ready building energy codes for all new buildings
in all regions by 2030 and carry out retrofits in most existing buildings by
2050 to facilitate the transition to net zero emissions in the built environ-
ment by 2050.
GBPN: It has established a global knowledge base to provide an inter-
national collaboration platform to assist in identifying best practice
building energy policies for achieving net zero energy or positive energy
buildings. GPBN also provides tools and a comparative analysis of best
practice policies including building energy efficiency codes, renovation
policies for residential buildings, building ratings and disclosure policies
around the world to promote positive change in the building sector.
6.3 Opportunities and Challenges of Existing

Zero Carbon Policies
A number of countries have set out policies and mandatory and volun-
tary standards to reduce energy consumption, promote low carbon tech-
nologies and maximise the use of renewable resources. These measures
worldwide represent significant efforts to mitigate and adapt to the
impacts of climate change and build resilience globally. However, achiev-
ing net zero carbon emissions will be challenging, and we are still a long
way from implementing zero carbon policies and standards worldwide.
The following discussion highlights key opportunities and challenges
learned from existing policies and standards that some countries have
implemented to decarbonise the built environment.
Market Incentives for Exceeding Mandated Standards
Existing mandated standards and policy measures are effective for com-
pliance checks rather than incentivising exceeding minimum perfor-
mance (Ding et al. 2019a). Future policy measures could expand and add
to existing market incentives for the built environment industry to go
beyond minimum standards and accelerate the transition to a net zero
carbon-built environment.
olicy Measures for Embodied Carbon Emissions Reductions

P
in Buildings
As operational carbon emissions are continually reduced through updated

building regulations and improvements in energy efficiency, embodied
carbon emissions represent a critical and growing portion of the whole-
life carbon emissions of buildings. However, there is a significant lack of
policy measures to reduce embodied carbon emissions of buildings, for
example, low- and zero emissions materials standards and standardised
approaches for measuring embodied carbon emissions in the building
sector. It is therefore an urgent task to develop policy measures for

embodied carbon reduction, mandate the disclosure of embodied carbon
emissions for building projects and develop standardised criteria for pro-
curement and the value chain in building construction.
Increasing Renewable Energy Use in the Built Environment
A key opportunity to decarbonise the built environment is to advance

renewable energy systems and increase the use of renewable energy in the
built environment. The use of renewable energy sources has been encour-
aged in many developed countries, but mandating the use of renewable
energy sources in existing policies is not yet widely adopted. Promoting
the mandatory use of renewable energy for both new homes and public
buildings is expected to be implemented in future policy measures.
oordinated Policy Pathways for Net Zero Carbon Buildings

C
Across Multiple Levels of Government and the Built
Environment Industry
Nationally consistent policy approaches to delivering the zero carbon-

built environment should be developed across all levels of government.
This could include medium- to long-term plans; recognition of innova-
tive building projects, products and technologies; collectively managing
benchmarks for buildings; incentives and educational programs to pro-
mote energy efficiency and use of renewable energy; supporting vulnera-
ble consumers; and actions to eliminate energy poverty. Furthermore,
working collaboratively beyond government boundaries with the built
environment industry could help deliver the urgent collective action need
to achieve a net zero carbon-built environment by 2050.
6.4 The Evolution of Zero Carbon Policies

Zero carbon policies are expected to continually evolve as emerging oppor-
tunities to decarbonise the built environment arise in science and technol-
ogy and result in, for example, improved legislative frameworks, innovative
building materials, advanced renewable energy systems and battery stor-
age, and economic and social development. The future evolution of zero
carbon policies in the built environment is also expected to be aligned
with the global GHG emissions reduction strategies and updated carbon
emissions benchmarks for buildings, be integrated with future planning
systems, and employ improved assessment methods and tools. Additionally,
the transformation of standards and codes towards performance-based
measures for net zero carbon buildings could be developed in the future to
encourage building performance that exceeds minimum requirements.
The mandatory disclosure of energy efficiency for both commercial and
residential buildings and mandating solar for both homes and public
buildings are also crucial to the evolution of zero carbon policies.
Future building codes should support cost-effective and market-viable
solutions to enable whole-life carbon reduction of buildings. They should
also be linked to intersectoral policies across building, energy and infrastruc-
ture to support the development of new technologies and the delivery of low
emissions products and affordable and clean energy systems. Furthermore,
human behaviour plays an important role in building energy consumption,
but occupant behaviour-related assumptions in existing building codes and
regulations is of great concern due to a gap between the predicted and actual
occupant energy use behaviour (Abdeen et al. 2020; Ding et al. 2019b).
Occupant behaviour datasets and related benchmarks should therefore be
continually updated to support accurate and reliable energy consumption
predictions that can be used in building codes and regulations.
While zero carbon policies, standards and action plans have been
established in many developed countries, greater attention is needed in
developing countries, particularly those without zero carbon policies and
standards or where there is rapid growth in new buildings and infrastruc-
ture. Finally, it is strongly recommended to establish international col-
laboration and knowledge sharing of zero carbon policies and standards
between countries, and also develop consistent global performance met-
rics, assessment methods and reporting systems.
References
Abdeen, A, O’Brien, W, Gunay, B, Newsham, G, Knudsen, H. 2020.
Comparative review of occupant-related energy aspects of the National
Building Code of Canada. Building and Environment, Vol 183, pp. 1–19.
Australian Government. 2015. Australia’s 2030 Emission Reduction Target.
Australian Government. 2021. National Climate Resilience and Adaptation
Strategy 2021–2025—Positioning Australia to Better Anticipate, Manage
and Adapt to Our Changing Climate.
Australian Government. 2021a. Australia’s HFC Phase-Down.
Australian Government. 2021b. The Plan to Deliver Net Zero: The Australian
Way. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of the Prime Minister
and Cabinet.
Australian Government and COAG Energy Council. 2015. National Energy
Production Plan 2015–2030.
ClimateWorks Australia. 2021. State and territory climate action: Leading poli-
cies and programs in Australia.
COAG Energy Council. 2018. Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings.
CRC for Low Carbon Living and ASBEC. 2019. Growing the Market for
Sustainable Homes.
Ding, L, Aminpour, F, Craft, W, Liu, E, Yenneti, K, Lim, B, Samaratunga, GK,
Paolini, R and Prasad, D. 2019a. Understanding Decision-Making Processes
to Meet or Exceed BASIX Requirements. Research report.
Ding, L, Upadhyay, A, Craft, W, Yenneti, K, Samaratunga, M, Munsami K,
Prasad, Deo. 2019b. Validating and Improving the BASIX Energy Assessment
Tool for Low-Carbon Dwellings. The CRC for Low Carbon Living.
Energy Efficiency Directive n.d. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/topics/energy-
efficiency/targets-directive-and-rules/energy-efficiency-directive_en.
Energy Performance of Buildings Directive. n.d. https://ec.europa.eu/energy/
topics/energy-efficiency/energy-efficient-buildings/energy-performance-
buildings-directive_en.
Global Alliance for Buildings and Construction and United Nations
Environment Program. 2021. 2021 Global Status Report for Building and
Construction—Towards a Zero-Emissions, Efficient and Resilient Buildings
and Construction Sector.
Green Building Council Australia, Property Council of Australia, Low Carbon
Living CRC, Curtin University, ASBEC and Energy Efficiency Council.
2019. Every Building Accounts. Research Report.
Harrington, P, Toller, V. 2017. Best Practice Policy and Regulation for Low
Carbon Outcomes in the Built Environment. The CRC for Low
Carbon Living.
Independent Expert Panel on Interim Emissions Reduction Targets for Victoria.
2019. Interim Emissions Reduction Targets for Victoria (2021–2030).
Final Report.
International Energy Agency. 2021a. Net Zero by 2050—A Roadmap for the
Global Energy Sector.
International Energy Agency. 2021b. Energy Efficiency 2021.
Low Carbon Living CRC. 2017. Best Practice Policy and Regulation for Low
Carbon Outcomes in the Built Environment. Research Report.
Monash University and ClimateWorks Australia. 2020. Net Zero Momentum
Tracker—Local Government Sector.
NSW Government. 2020. Net Zero Plan Stage 1: 2020–2030. Department of
Planning, Industry and Environment.
NSW Office of Environment and Heritage. 2016. NSW Climate Policy
Framework.
Santamouris, M, Papadopoulos, AM, Paolini, R, Khan, A, Bartesaghi Koc, C,
Haddad, S, Garshasbi, S, Arasteh, S, Feng, J. 2022. Cool Roofs Cost Benefit
Analysis. Executive final report. The University of New South Wales, Sydney.
Australia.
Teshnizi, Z. 2019. Policy Research on Reducing the Embodied Emissions of
New Buildings in Vancouver. Research Report.
The City of Melbourne. 2021. Emissions Reduction Plan for Council Operations
2021–2026.
The City of Sydney. 2021. Planning for Net Zero Energy Buildings—
Performance Standards to Achieve High-Performing Net Zero Energy
Buildings in Greater Sydney. Planning Report.
The Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Industry, Science, Energy and
Resources. 2022. Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings Stakeholder Reference
Group Update.
The State of Victoria Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning.
2021. Victoria’s Climate Change Strategy.
World Green Building Council. 2021. Annual Report 2021.
7
Conclusions and Recommendations:
Envisioning a Net Zero Carbon Future
in the Built Environment
7.1 Concluding Remarks

Climate emergency is a newly coined term to raise the alarm on the
increasing impacts of global warming. The latest IPCC Report (AR6) has
provided scientific evidence from all around the world to articulate these
impacts. COP#26 in Glasgow has shown the growing political interest in
taking measures to reverse these impacts. The building sector is a major
contributor to the growing implications of the climate emergency. It is
urgent that significant targets to reduce the building sector’s contribution
to greenhouse gas emissions are set globally to deliver a net zero whole life
carbon-built environment that follows a meaningful, measurable and
unified pathway (WGBC, 2020).
This book emphasises the importance of envisioning and delivering a
net zero whole life carbon-built environment. It synthesises multiple
approaches ranging from best practice and exemplar case studies to policy
implications. It establishes a whole-of-economy and whole-life carbon
pathway for the built environment sector for existing and new build con-
structions to achieve net zero carbon in operational and embodied emis-
sions by 2030 and 2040, respectively. Ambitious whole-life carbon
climate emergency targets for the Australian building sector have been set
in this book using multiple science-based pathways drawn from
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1_7
comprehensive national and governmental datasets, and internationally

recognised methodologies from a whole-of-economy perspective. The
following paragraphs summarise and synthesise the contents of this book
chapter by chapter.
Chapter 1 discussed the most recently available science-based evidence
on the climate emergency in the built environment from a global per-
spective. The implications of the climate emergency on economic and
social conditions and public health have been discussed. The significance
of envisioning, and delivering, a net zero whole life carbon-built environ-
ment has been presented through developing a rapid and unified path-
way aligned with UN SDGs (UN Sustainable Development Goals,
2021). A rapid pathway will help achieve the climate emergency targets
quickly because of the urgency of the situation. A unified pathway will
make sure that the targets are set consistently with the other national
ambitions in the area of delivering a net zero whole life carbon-built
environment.
Chapter 2 provided the methods to measure operational carbon emis-
sions in the built environment. It also presented the pathways to reduce
operational emissions to net zero for existing and new builds through
energy-efficient building design strategies and involvement of on-site and
off-site renewable energy systems. Most importantly, Chap. 2 sum-
marised the building rating schemes, performance assessment tools and
strategies to deliver net zero operational carbon in the built environment.
Chapter 3 provided a summary of the challenges associated with
embodied carbon emissions in the built environment. It discussed mea-
surement methodologies, performance indicators and contributing fac-
tors to embodied carbon. Most importantly, Chap. 3 outlined the
significance of consistency to allow meaningful comparisons to deliver a
net zero embodied carbon-built environment.
Chapter 4 synthesised the preceding chapters on operational and
embodied carbon from a combined and unified whole-of-life perspective.
It presented a new pathway with strict timeframes to deliver net zero
carbon buildings with varying building typologies, climate zones, build-
ing conditions, designs, systems and services. Significant in Chap. 4 is the
7 Conclusions and Recommendations: Envisioning a Net Zero… 237
presentation of climate emergency targets—with the Australian case as an

example—that correspond with the whole-life carbon pathway. The
pathway to net zero whole life carbon is accompanied with an implemen-
tation checklist and reporting template to enhance data disclosure. Most
importantly, this chapter discussed the role and significance of the client-
architect conversation that enables and drives the change and accom-
plishment of envisioning a net zero carbon future in the built environment.
Chapter 5 presented several best practice exemplars to learn from that
have delivered net zero whole-life, operational or embodied carbon in
new builds, retrofits, precincts, settlements and communities. These case
studies showcase our ability to deliver a net zero built environment with
clear design intentions, measured performance outputs, reported
stakeholder-user engagements and gaining certification from ambitious
green rating schemes throughout the world.
Chapter 6 outlined current mandatory policy and regulations as well
as voluntary approaches and initiatives being taken to deliver a net zero
whole-life carbon-built environment worldwide. This chapter also dis-
cussed future directions and enablers for governmental climate action
through the lens of the climate emergency. The continuous evolution of
regulatory decisions that address the challenges with global warming and
make the switch towards enabling opportunities for change is presented
with key recommendations for a net zero carbon future.
In conclusion, it is significant that this book is one of the first to envi-
sion a net zero whole-life carbon-built environment for the building
sector—a vision which takes into consideration various building types,
conditions and climate zones when calculating operational and embod-
ied emissions. Moreover, this book provides a comprehensive approach
that synthesises science-based climate emergency targets and provides
insight into carbon emissions worldwide, and those specifically in
Australia as an example. The book discusses measuring, reducing and
designing for net zero operational and embodied carbon, delivers a uni-
fied pathway for net zero whole life carbon by 2030, and draws attention
to the current and upcoming policy needs necessary to drive change. This
book presents a comprehensive analysis of the various drivers and enablers
to envision a net zero carbon future in the built environment.
7.2 Recommendations for Future Directions

Envisioning a net zero carbon future is a goal that must be achieved
urgently to reverse the effects of global warming. The building sector has
the demonstrated technological and potential to be at the forefront of the
change required to achieve this goal. Building industry professionals,
institutions and organisations are embedding this goal into projects,
work, programs and accreditation processes. Incorporating a more uni-
fied, top-down approach, driven by policy right through to businesses
and institutions, is the way forward to achieve a net zero carbon-built
environment in the near future.
This book has identified several significant contributors to achieving a
net zero carbon future in the built environment. These contributors may
start with the following actions to improve the future uptake of a net zero
whole-life carbon vision:
1. Integrated thinking and strategy—innovation in building prod-

ucts, materials, technologies, design and processes:
Good, performative building design must be measured through a
unified rating system that is recognised internationally for consistency
and to enable comparison. Front-end building design can be driven by
tools such as Green Star or Passive House, and future directions must
use rating schemes such as NABERS, to navigate to net zero to estab-
lish a unified and meaningful approach amongst building sector pro-
fessionals (GBCA, 2021; PassivHaus Institute, 2021; NABERS,
2020). Reducing embodied and operational carbon emissions are cur-
rently feasible through the use of an extensive range of building mate-
rials and technologies. High-performance building systems and design
help decrease the need for on-site renewable generation. The remain-
der of energy use and carbon emissions can be offset with off-site
renewables.
Renewable energy generating and energy-efficient system costs are
coming down rapidly, especially in Australia (ARENA, 2020; AEMO,
2021, Clean Energy Council, 2021). In addition, renewable energy
supply is increasing exponentially. The building sector has great
7 Conclusions and Recommendations: Envisioning a Net Zero… 239
otential to transition towards carbon neutrality compared to other

p
sectors. The greening of the grid is taking on its own growth, and in
many countries, the rate is increasing. For example, in Australia, over
the last ten years, the share of renewables in the grid has nearly dou-
bled. The balance between carbon emissions and offset is becoming
readily achievable with technological developments which are driving
a rapid accomplishment of net zero status. A similar approach with
embodied emissions must be taken through increasing the awareness
in the industry about procurement decisions for low embodied carbon
and technologies for offsetting. This approach addresses reducing
upfront carbon emissions associated with embodied carbon and dur-
ing the lifecycle, offsetting the remainder of the emissions. The grow-
ing interest in whole-life-thinking through sustainable, regenerative
and circular approaches is facilitating a whole-of-economy switch
towards the vision of a net zero carbon-built environment.
2. Multi-sector and Multi-disciplinary Collaboration:
A multi-sector collaboration focusing on the client-architect con-
versation is imperative for the delivery of a net zero carbon-built envi-
ronment. Its importance lies in the process a designer follows in
guiding their client and relevant stakeholders over the duration of a
project. This journey must involve a conversation around measurable,
meaningful, verified and benchmarked assessments combined with
appropriate and accredited carbon offset techniques. This conversa-
tion is the key contributor to a cleaner and more sustainable future,
one that this book envisions to be achievable by, at the latest, 2030 for
operational, and 2040 for embodied carbon emissions for the built
environment sector worldwide.
3. Consistent and Regulatory Policy Initiatives:
There is an urgent need for mandatory standards besides voluntary
initiatives that incorporate whole-life carbon thinking—embodied
energy performance and carbon emissions in addition to operational
carbon. Consistent and meaningful international and national policy
approaches to deliver a net zero carbon-built environment are crucial.
It is time to move forward from best practice projects to exemplars that

showcase verified net zero whole-life carbon performance and improved
user comfort. Design knowledge, technology and systems are already in

place to move towards this goal. What needs implementation is future-
thinking initiatives from government to drive holistic change. The future
ability of the built environment sector, derived from a top-down approach
to deliver exemplar net zero carbon whole-life buildings, communities
and settlements, must be incentivised from now on.
References
AEMO (2021). ‘NEM Generation information’, Australian Energy Market
Operator. https://aemo.com.au/en/energy-systems/electricity/national-
electricity-market-nem/nem-f orecasting-and-planning/forecasting-and-
planning-data/generation-information
ARENA 2020. How can renewable energy be used in the built environment?,
https://arena.gov.au/renewable-energy/renewables-in-buildings/.
Clean Energy Council 2021. Clean Energy Australia report. 193–207. https://
assets.cleanenergycouncil.org.au/documents/resources/reports/clean-energy-
australia/clean-energy-australia-report-2021.pdf.
GBCA (2021). ‘Green Star certification process’, in An overview of the certifica-
tion process, Accessed on 20/10/2021. Available at: https://new.gbca.org.au/
green-star/certification-process/
NABERS 2020. NABERS ANNUAL REPORT 2018/19. https://nabers.info/
annual-report/2018-2019/office-energy/.
PassivHaus Institute (2021). ‘Passive House requirements’, in About Passive
house, Accessed on 20/10/20121. Available at: https://passiv.de/en/02_infor-
m a t i o n s / 0 2 _ p a s s i v e -h o u s e -r e q u i r e m e n t s / 0 2 _ p a s s i v e -h o u s e -
requirements.htm
UN SDG 2021. The 17 Goals. Department of Economic and Social Affairs:
Sustainable Development, United Nations, https://sdgs.un.org/goals
WGBC 2020. Whole Life Carbon Vision. World Green Building Council.
https://www.worldgbc.org/advancing-net-zero/whole-life-carbon-vision
Index
A Architecture 2030 Challenge, 13

AccuRate, 33, 35 Asquith PassivHaus, 143, 149,
Active system, 19, 63 151–153, 197
Adaptive reuse, 9, 14, 20–23, 30, Assessment tools, 29, 34–37, 236
60–70, 105–107, 214, Atlassian Central, 144, 187–189,
228, 237 192, 197
See also Refurbishment Australian Architects Declare, 58
Air-conditioning, 6, 19, 20, Australian Building Codes,
64–66, 156, 166, 179, 30, 41
192, 203 Australian Capital Territory (ACT),
Airtightness 40, 54, 57, 135, 144, 193
air leakage, 63 Australian Sustainable Built
infiltration, 63, 152 Environment Council
American Institute of Architects (ASBEC), 123, 216–218
(AIA), 57, 58 Australian Zero Carbon Policy
Appliances, 6, 7, 29, 54, 62, 65, 66, Nexus, 218–220
83, 170, 171, 179, 185, 204, Australia’s Long Term Emissions
206, 222 Reduction Plan, 201
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-6371-1
242 Index
B Building Sustainability Index

Battery storage system, 179, 214 (BASIX), 46, 129, 185, 210,
Benchmark, vi, viii, x, 8, 13, 22, 23, 212, 213
29–72, 79–113, 119, Bullitt Center, 143, 173, 175–177
124–126, 131, 135, 136, 179, Business as usual, 14, 17
185, 187, 192, 213, 215, 217, Buy Clean Colorado, 226
219, 224, 230, 231
Best practice, x, 32, 34, 45, 51–53,
63, 93, 179, 217, 219, 223, C
228, 235, 237, 239 Canberra, 42, 54, 55, 57, 196
Beyond Zero Emissions (BZE), Carbon capture and storage
58, 60, 72 (CCS), 109
Bio-based material, 110 Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (CO2e),
Biodiversity, 5, 169, 191 7, 135, 207, 226, 227
Bio-filtration, 169 Carbon neutral, 112, 186, 203, 215
Bottom-up method, 120, Carbon offset, 10, 69, 72, 131, 137,
123–124 186, 239
Boundaries Cement, 6, 16, 17, 67, 83, 91, 109,
cradle to construction 191, 196
completion, 7 Certification, 145, 150, 152, 154,
cradle to cradle, 7 159, 164, 169, 174, 178, 182,
cradle to gate, 7 190, 203, 217, 237
cradle to grave, 7 C40 Challenge, 15
cradle to site, 7 Checklists and guidelines, 34
Brisbane, 42, 55 Chicago, 107
Building automation and controls Client-architect conversation, 239
(BAC), 66, 68 Climate Action, 8–12
Building classification, 42, 82–85, Climate Active Carbon Neutral
93, 120, 122, 125, 126 Standard, 10, 203
Building energy intensity, 45 Climate Council, 58
Building energy simulation, 34 Climate emergency
Building fabric, 20, 60, 61, climate catastrophe, 5
63, 64, 66 climate change, 1, 3, 5
building form and layout, 60 Climate policies, 3, 208, 228
Building Management System, 65 Climate resilient Victoria, 209
Building meta-data, 126 Climate-responsiveness, 61
Building Research Establishment’s Climate smart business, 209
Environmental Assessment Climate smart community, 209
Method (BREEAM), 224 ClimateWorks, 46, 122
Index 243
Climate zone (Australian) D

climate zone 2–warm humid Dematerialisation, 107
summer, 42 DesignBuilder, 35, 36
climate zone 5–warm temperature Detached house, 105, 143, 145,
(e.g. Sydney, Adelaide, Perth), 42 150, 179
climate zone 6–mild temperate Development control plans (DCP),
(e.g. Melbourne), 42 210, 211
and climate zone 7–cool Direct emission (scope 1), 6
temperate (e.g. Canberra, Distributed energy storage
Hobart), 42 system, 70, 71
mild winter (e.g. Brisbane), 42 Dutch Green Building Council
Comfort index (DGBC), 57, 120
heat stress, 35
PMV and PPD, 35
pollutant concentration, 35 E
relative humidity, 35 Economics
thermal comfort, 19, 36, 46, 62, circular economy, 8, 108, 112,
64, 160, 161, 191, 212, 213 129, 209
visual comfort, 62, 160, 161 clean energy economy, 209
Commercial office, 14, 49–51, 64, linear economy, 107
173, 174, 191, 193, 213–214 net zero economy, 207
Concrete, 18, 64, 68, 83, 85, 95, Education centre, educational
107–109, 111, 131, 155, 156, building, 122, 143
161, 179, 191, 192, 196 Electric car, 147
Construction Industry Council Electricity grid, 42, 71, 166
(CIC) Zero Carbon Park, 143, Embodied carbon
163, 165–167, 197 benchmarks for, 81–102, 129
Construction Products definition of, 7–16
Regulation, 223 scope of, 7, 126
Cooling garden, 63 Emissions Reduction Fund, 203
Cool roof (reflective and novel Emissivity factor, 67
coatings), 19, 62, 67 Empirical benchmark, 82, 83
Cooperative Research Centre for EN: 15978, 8, 87
Low Carbon Living End of life, see Stage C
(CRCLCL), vi, 122, Energy efficiency
123, 216–218 Energy Efficiency Action
COP26 Summit, 201 Plan, 207
Council of Australian Governments Energy Efficiency Directive
(COAG), 58, 122 (EED), 223
244 Index
Energy efficiency (cont.) Global Building Performance

Energy Performance of Buildings Network (GBPN), 227, 228
Directive (EPBD), 223 Green Building Council of Australia
EnergyPlus, 35, 36 (GBCA), 12, 13, 32, 45, 46,
Energy Star, 83 58, 63, 98, 99, 203, 215,
Energy storage, 70, 71 218, 238
Energy use intensity (EUI), 31, 119, Green Buildings Policy for
120, 122–125, 127–129, 137 Rezoning, 226
Environmental impact cap, 19 Green envelope
Environmental product green roof, 62, 66, 67, 150, 224
declaration, 227 rooftop garden, 156
External wall, 39, 88 Green grid, 71, 72
green power, 46, 70, 71, 191, 193
Greenhouse and energy minimum
F standard (GEMS), 204,
Façade (external wall), 64 206, 222
Fairfield, Australia, 143, 153 Greenhouse gases (GHG), 1, 3–7, 9,
Fast-tracking sustainable 12, 18, 19, 22, 31, 33, 36, 99,
development approvals, 216 103, 107, 109, 110, 201, 203,
FirstRate5, 35 206–208, 231, 235
Floor area, 7, 15, 18–21, 32, 39, 52, Green Star, 12, 13, 32, 45, 51, 63,
84, 93, 98, 101, 103, 105, 193, 210, 213, 215, 238
119, 135, 228 Gross building area, 84, 98
The Footprint Calculator, Gross dwelling area (GDA), 95
89–91, 126 Gross floor area (GFA), 32, 39, 84,
Frankston, Australia, 143, 157 91, 92, 98, 100, 101, 119,
Front-end building design, 238 126, 128, 129, 135, 136, 145,
Functional unit, 80, 82–84, 91, 98, 154, 169, 174, 190, 196
125, 135 Gross internal area (GIA), 39
Growing Market for Sustainable
Homes, 216
G
Gillies Hall Student
Accommodation, 143, 157, H
159, 197 Heat exchanger, 60, 146, 160, 161
Global Alliance for Buildings and Heating and cooling, 6, 17, 29, 35,
Construction (GABC), 55, 57, 46, 48, 54, 62, 63, 67, 68,
223–225, 227, 228 129, 147, 175, 212, 224
Index 245
Heat pumps, 20, 22, 42, 65, 69, 155, Lifecycle Inventory (LCIs),
160, 161, 175, 179, 184, 191 83, 86, 125
Heat recovery air system, 174 Lifecycle stage
Home Energy Action Program, 207 stage A (product stage and
Hybrid analysis (HA), 79, 85–87, construction), 8
89, 90, 98, 102 stage B (use stage), 8
Hydro-electric power station, stage C (end-of-life), 8,
203, 216 111, 125
stage D (beyond the building
lifecycle), 8
I Lighting
IES-VE, 35, 37 artificial lighting, 62, 64, 65,
Input-output (EIO), 79, 85–87, 67, 68, 171
89–91, 98, 102 daylight, 35, 146, 147, 170,
Insulation, 16, 60, 61, 63, 65–67, 172, 174
171, 184 high-efficiency lighting, 66, 68
Intelligent home technologies, 65 natural lighting, 66, 67
International Cost Management smart lighting control
Standard, 81, 126 system, 68
International Energy Agency (IEA), Living Building Challenge (LBC),
6, 10–12, 16, 19, 20, 22, 23, 174, 175, 224
57, 80, 227, 228 Local environmental plans (LEP),
International Property Measurement 210, 211
Standards (IPMS), 82, 84 London Energy Transformation
ISO 14040, 79 Initiative (LETI), 8, 14, 55,
57, 80, 102, 120, 129
Low carbon supply chain,
K 108–111, 127
Kambri at ANU, 144, 194, 196, 197 Low emissivity (low-e) glazing, 67
Kingspan Lighthouse, 143,
167–171, 197
M
Melbourne, 42, 54, 55, 153
L Microclimate, 60, 62
Larvik, Norway, 143–145, 147 Minimum Energy Performance
Leadership in Energy and Standards for Buildings and
Environmental Design Appliances, 203
(LEED), 224 Multi-unit residential, 210
246 Index
N net zero carbon-ready

Narara, Australia, 144, 181, building, 124
182, 184 net zero economy, 207
Narara Ecovillage, 144, 181, 182, net zero embodied carbon, x, 10,
185–187, 197 16, 108–113, 129, 131,
National Australian Built 219, 228
Environment Rating System net zero emissions, 8–12, 15, 57,
(NABERS), 20, 21, 32, 45, 46, 58, 124, 144, 202, 206–209,
48, 49, 51–53, 83, 84, 102, 218, 219, 227, 228
122, 129, 203, 205, 210, 213, net zero operational carbon, x,
215, 238 10–14, 16, 46, 49, 50, 55, 57,
National Climate Resilience and 60, 71, 72, 119, 123, 124,
Adaptation Strategy, 204 127, 193, 197, 227, 228, 236
National Construction Code (NCC), net zero whole life carbon, 9, 10,
30, 35, 40, 42, 46, 51, 63, 12, 57, 133–140,
120, 128, 156, 205, 209, 212, 166, 237–239
213, 219, 222 pathway of, 13, 165, 171
National Greenhouse and Nightingale 2 Apartments, 143
Energy Reporting Scheme, Not-to-exceed (NTE), 57, 129, 131
203, 207
Nationwide House Energy Rating
Scheme (NatHERS), 32, 40, O
46, 54, 58, 122, 129, 153, Objective evaluation criteria, 37
154, 156, 178, 182, 183, 185, Office building (commercial
206, 212, 213 building), 32, 46–49, 52, 129
Net habitable area (NHA), 91, 92, Off-site construction, see
95, 98–101 Prefabrication
Net internal area (NIA), 39 Off-site renewable, v, vi, ix, 69–72,
Net occupied area, 84 124, 137, 160, 161, 191, 210,
Net zero carbon 224, 236, 238
carbon operations, 12 One Click, 89
definition of, 9 On-site renewable, v, 11, 30, 57,
net zero carbon building, viii, 9, 69–72, 137, 151, 156, 161,
10, 14, 19, 20, 133, 165, 218, 166, 171, 185, 186, 191, 210,
224, 230, 236 236, 238
net zero carbon-built Operational carbon
environment, 166, 201–231, definition of, 7–16
238, 239 metrics for, 135
Index 247
P Refurbishment, x, 18, 87, 103–107,

Paris Proof method, 119–123, 129 125, 215
Passive design Regulated loads, 7
passive design strategies, 63 Renewable electricity, 120
passive heating and Renewable Energy Directive
cooling, 62, 63 (RED), 223
passive house, 238 Residential building, 29, 35, 46, 54,
passive solar design, 151 55, 64, 65, 69–73, 95,
passive system, 19 119–120, 122, 143, 204–206,
Permeable paving, 63 210, 212–214, 219, 224,
Phase-change material, 169 228, 231
Plug loads, 6, 7, 35, 54, 68, Retail building, 52–54, 122
102, 129 RetroFirst, 106
Post-occupancy evaluation (POE), Retrofit, see Adaptive reuse
37–38, 175 RIBA 2030 Challenge, 13–14
Power purchase agreement (PPA), 70 Royal Institute of British Architects
Prefabrication, 107, 108 (RIBA), v, 12, 14, 22,
Process analysis (PA), 79, 80, 85–89, 23, 37, 57
95, 98, 100–102 R-value, 63
Property Council of Australia (PCA),
85, 127, 218
Public building, viii, 42, 122, 217, S
227, 230, 231 Safeguard Mechanism, 203
Scope
scope 1, 5–7, 9, 10, 85
Q scope 2, 5–7, 9, 10, 85, 136
Queensland (QLD), 39, 49, 54, 58 scope 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 85
Seattle, USA, 143, 173–175, 177
Service life rule, 113
R Shading device, 60, 67, 146,
Radiant heat and cooling, 174 164, 175
Rammed earth, 184 Shopping centre, 52–54, 208, 210
Rating scheme Single dwelling, 46, 72, 143
building energy rating scheme Small-scale Renewable Energy Target
(BERS), 35, 36 (SRET), 216
Energy Rating Label, 83 Smart design
green building rating scheme, 34 smart Grid, 184, 186
rating tools, 34, 215, 219 smart home, 65
248 Index
Solar access, 60, 70 Tenancy building/tenanted

Solar energy building, 48–50
building integrated PV Thermal properties
systems, 70 thermal bridge, 61, 64
photovoltaic panel, 69 thermal conductivity, 67
PV farm, 42 thermal energy, 64
rooftop PV system, 152, 161 thermal mass, 61, 64,
solar battery, 214 66, 68, 146, 155,
solar collector, 147 156, 179, 184
solar farm, 69, 203, 216 thermal performance, 35, 46, 64,
solar generated thermal heat 65, 185, 204
surplus, 147 Timber, 67, 83, 85, 95, 108–111,
solar panel, 11, 147, 214, 216 131, 146, 147, 150, 153, 171,
solar PV, 112, 184, 186, 172, 187, 191–193, 196
191, 214 Top-down method, 85, 120–123
South Australia (SA), 39, 53, 58, Total floor area, 15, 39
207, 209 Traditional benchmarking
Space heating/cooling, 29, 35 approach, 32
Stage B6, see Use stage Trajectory for Low Energy Buildings,
Stage C, 8, 110, 111, 125 204–206, 216
Steel, 5, 6, 16, 17, 88, 95, 107–109, TRNSYS, 35, 36
191–193, 196, 201
Straw, 110
Student accommodation, 143, U
194, 195 United Kingdom Green Building
Surface colour, 60–63 Council (UKGBC), 9, 120
Suspended ceiling, 107 United Nations Environment
Sustainable homes, 214, 215 program (UNEP), 1, 3, 5, 6, 9,
Sydney, vi, 15, 42, 46, 51, 54, 55, 12, 17, 19–21, 29, 103,
100, 111, 136, 144, 187, 223–225, 228
192, 208 United Nations Headquarters, 105
UN Sustainable Development Goals
(UN SDGs), 236
T Urban heat island (UHI),
Tasmania (TAS), 40, 49, 53, 18, 62, 208
54, 58, 135 Urban morphology, 60, 166
Technical Building Management Use stage, 7, 8, 33
(TBM), 68 U-value, 63, 146
Index 249
V White Gum Valley (WGV),

Vancouver, 15, 226 Australia, 144, 180,
Ventilation 181, 197
air changes per hour White Gum Valley (WGV) Energy
(ACH), 63, 150 Village, 144, 176, 178,
air flow, 65, 166 179, 181
cross ventilated apartment, 155 Whole lifecycle carbon, 7, 8,
cross-ventilated layout, 164 20, 21, 106
mechanical ventilation with heat Wind
recovery (MVHR), 150, 152, building-integrated wind
169, 170 turbines, 70
mixed-mode ventilation, 65 wind-catcher, 169
natural ventilation, 61, 64–66, wind farms, 42
68, 107, 164, 189, 192 Window
urban ventilation, 19, 20 double-glazed window, 152,
155, 156
triple glazing window, 174
W window glazing, 60, 67, 146
Warming scenarios, 4 window-to-wall ratio
Water (WWR), 64, 170
greywater, 146, 150, 169, World Green Building Council
171, 179 (WGBC, WorldGBC), v, 55,
potable water, 13, 14, 185 227, 235
rainwater harvesting, 160, 161,
169, 171, 224
water harvesting, 156, 184 Z
water heating, 35, 62, 65, ZEB Pilot House, 143–147, 197
169, 184 Zero Carbon for Buildings, 210, 211
water-sensitive urban design, Zero carbon ready building, 11, 57,
160, 161 124, 218, 219, 228
Watford, UK, 143, 167, 170 Zero emission vehicle, 209
Western Australia (WA), 40, 53, 58 Zurich, 226

Climate Emergency

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Climate Emergency

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Delivering on the

“Delivering on the Climate Emergency’ provides a breadth of information,

ISBN 978-981-19-6370-4 ISBN 978-981-19-6371-1 (eBook)

There is considerable global attention focussed on the pathways to net

Hon Robert Hill AC

There has been a history of built environment sector awareness of sus-

lifecycle carbon. This book takes a whole-of-life and all-of-carbon

1. Good design and best performance through energy efficiency and

These actions work best with an all-electric building as other fuel

and cost factors. Overall, what is most important is the CLIENT–

UNSW Sydney, Australia Deo Prasad

1.3.4 Upgrading and Retrofitting Existing Buildings 20

3.2.3 Methodology for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

4.3 Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Pathway 133

6.3 Opportunities and Challenges of Existing Zero

Fig. 1.1 Climate-influenced disasters and extreme weather events,

schemes. Various refers to various types of new and existing

Fig. 2.13 Operational carbon emissions of commercial office base

Fig. 3.5 Comparison of published embodied carbon benchmarks for

and delivered in collaboration between HIP V. HYPE and

Fig. 5.21 The Bullitt Centre’s open plan office environment

teaching and events facility. (c) Student Hub with collabora-

Table 1.1 Remaining carbon budgets for estimated global warming

Table 4.1 Australian climate emergency targets for operational carbon

Box 1.1 Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Buildings 6

1.1 The Climate Emergency

and health consequences. A heatwave, for instance, can be defined as a

Source: data from IPCC (2021)

emissions to 25 GTCO2e by 2030—that is greater than a 50% reduction

What this emphasises is that emissions reductions need to be both radical

1.2 Carbon Emissions

Fig. 1.3 Building and construction’s share of global energy-related greenhouse

Box 1.1 Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Buildings

Scope 2: Indirect emissions from building energy consumption

Scope 3: Indirect emissions from other sources

powered by electricity for the occupants to be able to function. At the

Box 1.2 Defining Operational and Embodied Carbon

• Regulated loads, for example, heating, cooling, ventilation and lighting

Embodied Carbon Emissions

(ISO 1997). EN:15978 (sustainability assessment of construction) goes

• Stage A (product stage and construction).

These different stages are outlined in Figure 1.4. Considering the

1.2.1 Climate Action in the Built Environment:

We have established that there is a climate emergency, that we need to

absolute amount of energy we use, and ensure energy is available more

Table 1.2 Summary of selected operational and embodied carbon reduction

In some cases, operational energy reduction percentages are used instead of

1.2.2 Green Building Council of Australia

The Green Building Council of Australia (GBCA) Climate Positive Roadmap

1.2.3 Architecture 2030 Challenge

The Architecture 2030 Challenge seeks to achieve the elimination of fos-

1.2.4 RIBA 2030 Challenge

environment by 2050. Targets are compared to ‘business as usual’ and

The London Energy Transformation Initiative (LETI) is an organisation

1.2.6 C40 Challenge

1.2.7 GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings

databases for materials in Africa by 2030, with mandatory disclosure of

1.2.8 IEA Roadmap for Energy-Efficient Buildings

This Roadmap sets targets for a net zero carbon-built environment in

1.3 Challenges and Gaps in Achieving Net

1.3.1 Increasing Global Construction

Buildings and construction play an incredible role in the economic devel-

1.3.2 Urban Heating and the Growing Demand

As the world warms, temperature increases and associated natural disasters

UNSW Sydney, Australia Deo Prasad

1.3.4 Upgrading and Retrofitting Existing Buildings 20

3.2.3 Methodology for Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

4.3 Net Zero Whole Life Carbon Pathway 133

6.3 Opportunities and Challenges of Existing Zero

Box 1.1 Scope of Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Buildings 6

1.1 The Climate Emergency

1.2 Carbon Emissions

1.2.1 Climate Action in the Built Environment:

1.2.2 Green Building Council of Australia

1.2.3 Architecture 2030 Challenge

1.2.4 RIBA 2030 Challenge

1.2.6 C40 Challenge

1.2.7 GlobalABC Regional Roadmap for Buildings

1.2.8 IEA Roadmap for Energy-Efficient Buildings

1.3 Challenges and Gaps in Achieving Net

1.3.1 Increasing Global Construction

1.3.2 Urban Heating and the Growing Demand

1.3.3 Lack of Building Codes, Policy and Regulation

1.3.4 Upgrading and Retrofitting Existing Buildings

1.3.5 Education and Training

1.4 Summary and Upcoming Chapters

2.1 Measuring Operational Energy

2.1.1 Benchmarking and Normalisation Factors

2.1.2 Building Performance Ratings

2.1.3 Building Performance Assessment Tools

2.1.4 Post-occupancy Evaluation

2.2 Factors Impacting Operational

2.2.2 Overview of Factors: Australian Context

Derivatives—4.0 International Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ © Commonwealth of Australia and

2.3 Comparison of Published Benchmarks

2.3.1 The Current State of Operational Energy

2.3.2 Global Targets

2.3.3 Australian Targets