The problem of assessing the sustainability of adapted historic buildings with BREEAM certification using examples in Poland and Great Britain

ABSTRACT

The aim of the article is to show the problematic issues of the BREEAM certification system, when assessing historic buildings from Poland and Great Britain. The research hypothesis is to analyse the disparities in the results of BREEAM for historic buildings, and to examine whether the criteria are adequate for a reliable assessment of the degree of sustainability in their adaptation. The first part of the article outlines the idea of sustainability and presents methods for assessing the degree of sustainability of buildings, and the main assumptions for BREEAM adaptation projects. Research methodology includes quantitative and qualitative research. The study involved statistical analysis. The scheme for adaptation projects was discussed. The second part of the study included a case study of four certified historic buildings from Poland and Great Britain. The results showed excessive generalisation and the favouring of individual categories of the BREEAM scheme. The authors pointed to disproportions and inconsistencies in the assessment of the degree of sustainability of objects, with regards to sustainability sectors. The possible exemplary solutions were presented, which include the modification of the BREEAM document, to assess in a more proper way the level of sustainable use of the architectural cultural heritage.

KEYWORDS:

• Design reuse
• Engineering design for sustainable development
• Environmental auditing
• Recovery

1. Introduction

1.1. Documents defining the direction of sustainable development

The construction and architecture sector accounts for 40% of the world’s total use of energy, which means that it is crucial for this sector to meet the requirements of sustainable development (The European Parliament and the Council of the European Union 2010). The postulates of sustainable design were outlined for the first time in the Athens Charter in 1933 by the organisation of architects and urban planners of CIAM (Gold 2019). The document introduced changes in the social aspect of designing, by including the health and comfort of users. The Our Common Future report, which was developed in 1987 by the World Commission on Environment and Development, also known as the Brundtland Commission, was the first to define sustainability – ‘Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs’ (Gerasimova 2017). The postulates to be met by sustainable development were included five years later in the Agenda 21 document, which was announced in 1992 at the United Nations Conference in Rio de Janeiro (later called the Earth Summit). This document was the first to emphasise the role of man in shaping the world with regards to sustainability (Doyle 1998). Agenda 21 was supported by 172 UN countries and was the first document to spread clearly defined postulates of sustainable development (Von Frantzius 2004). The most current document is Transformations to our world: Agenda for Sustainable Development − 2030, which was written at the Earth Summit in 2015 (Carpentier and Braun 2020). It describes 17 main goals and 169 actions to be implemented by 2030, in order to achieve the postulates of sustainable development.

1.2 Multi-criteria certificates specifying the degree of sustainability of facilities

Documents directly relating to the construction sector are multi-criteria certificates that determine the degree of sustainability of a building. The most common documents are the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method (BREEAM) (Lewis et al. 2018a), Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) (Lewis et al. 2018b), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Nachhaltiges Bauen e.V (DGNB) (Lewis et al. 2018c) and Haute Qualité Environmentale (HQE) (Ade and Rehm 2020; Bidou 2006). They contain categories concerning different sustainability sectors, which must be met in order to receive points. The points determine the final level of an object’s sustainability. The following are assessed: the method of project management; the implementation of the comfort and health of users; the proper management of energy, water, materials, and waste; and the use of innovations (the use of ecological solutions or emphasising the relationship of the facility with the environment). Each certificate assigns a different point weight to specific categories, which leads to different final results (Sánchez Cordero, Gómez Melgar, and Márquez 2019). Points are awarded by a certified assessor of a given document. There is a fee to apply for certification, starting from €1,000 (Mapp, Nobe, and Dunbar 2011; Reed et al. 2009).

2. Purpose of the study and research

The aim of the article is to show the lacks and deficiencies of the system for assessing the sustainability of historic buildings based on BREEAM multi-criteria certification. The research hypothesis is to analyse the disparities in the results of BREEAM certification for historic buildings, and to examine whether the criteria are adequate for a reliable assessment of the degree of sustainability in the adaptation of historic buildings. The term ‘historic buildings’ refers to buildings built before the 1960s. They are a part of the architectural cultural heritage and, in most cases, they are under conservation protection. In this study, BREEAM was chosen as the system for analysing selected examples of building adaptations, because it is the most widely used sustainability certification document in Poland, thus providing the most data. The work presents the general characteristics of the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certification scheme for adapted facilities. In order to demonstrate problems with the assessment of historic buildings, the authors conducted a statistical analysis of the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out scheme. On its basis, the differences and problems related to the certificate and its use in two countries, i.e. Poland and Great Britain, were presented. Great Britain was chosen as the reference country, because it is the parent country of the BREEAM certification. Research methodology includes quantitative and qualitative research. Within quantitative research, the analysis was carried out according to the following parameters: location, function of the building before and after adaptation, a final assessment of sustainability, year of construction, year of adaptation, and year of obtaining the BREEAM certificate. To better emphasise the inequalities in the assessment of the adapted Polish and British buildings, the research focused on a case study of four selected adapted ones from the two countries, as a part of qualitative research. The case study describes the characteristics and general data of the building, its history, and also the applied design solutions. Based on the conducted research, aspects and categories on which the BREEAM certificate puts special emphasis in the final assessment were indicated. The research aims to identify areas for improvement in the sustainability assessment of historic buildings, based on the conclusions drawn from the research. Additionally, it aims to present a preliminary idea for a new certification system for the adaptation of historic buildings.

3. General characteristics of the BREEAM certificate and the categories of the multi-criteria BREEAM certificate

3.1. Application of the BREEAM certificate in Poland

The British BREEAM building certification system, which has been operating in 77 countries since 1990, has gained the greatest popularity in Europe. In Poland, there were 1,100 certified facilities up to the year 2021, out of which 865 (i.e. 78% of the total) are marked with the BREEAM certificate (Kuczera 2021). It is the most commonly used certification system in Poland. In turn, there were 20,348 certified facilities in the UK up to the year 2022, of which 20,176 are BREEAM certified. This means that only 1% of all certified facilities are not BREEAM certified (BREEAM 2022).

3.2. The structure and schemes of the BREEAM document

The multi-criteria BREEAM certificate contains 4 pillars of assessment: social, economic, environmental, and procedural aspects, and is divided into 4 personalised assessment methods: New Construction for newly constructed buildings, In-use for facilities used for at least two years, Refurbishment & Fit-out for historic complexes and adaptations, and Communities for urban projects (Awadh 2017). The BREEAM document is one of the few certificates that covers such a wide range of ways to assess buildings. Assessment categories are included in each of these methods. These categories are Management, Health and Wellbeing, Energy, Transport, Water, Materials, Waste, Land Use and Ecology, Pollution and Innovation. A project can achieve a ‘Pass’ score for achieving 30% of all the possible points, ‘Good’ for 45%, ‘Very Good’ for 55%, ‘Excellent’ for 70%, and ‘Outstanding’ for 85% (Gu, Wennersten, and Assefa 2006).

3.3. Management category

The management category assesses the management of human resources, and compliance with the conditions related to the preparation and implementation of the project. Design and organisational decisions are analysed before, during and after the construction or adaptation. The monitoring of these activities results in an increased responsibility of the investor and designer, both for the course of the project and the well-being and safety of employees. The processes of recruitment, training or motivating employees are important for the often-overlooked social pillar of the idea of sustainability (Pabian 2015). An important aspect is also the implementation of sustainability requirements at an early stage of the project. The conducted research shows that projects carried out by teams without previous experience with the BREEAM certificate, but which comply with the postulates of the document, achieve the same results as projects carried out by experienced project teams (Schweber and Haroglu 2014).

3.4. Health and Wellbeing category

In the Health and wellbeing category, it is important to choose a microclimate inside the building, in order to ensure comfort for people on four levels. These include thermal, acoustic, good air quality, and visual comfort (Smith and Pitt 2011). In order to guarantee the above-mentioned standards, it is necessary to ensure satisfactory aesthetics of the interiors and surroundings, access to natural light and ventilation, and properly soundproofed rooms. Points are awarded for meeting, or failing to meet, the requirements. The fulfilment of the above-mentioned comforts requires a different approach for various types of BREEAM certification. In the case of adapted facilities, modifications are combined with the creation of new openings or insulation of the building. It is not only the ability to adapt the facility that is evaluated, but also the use of its existing advantages, such as good quality walls, windows and doors joinery, or its functional layout.

3.5. Energy category

Energy is the category with the largest percentage share when determining the sustainability of an object. The points gained in this category account for 19% of all the possible points (Gu, Wennersten, and Assefa 2006). The methods of obtaining the energy that is needed throughout the life cycle of a building, i.e. methods of managing the energy that is needed for heating, ventilation, domestic hot water, cooling and lighting, are analysed and assessed. Points are awarded according to the percentage reduction in demand for generating standard power. The ranges in which the number of the awarded points changes, correspond to the reduction of energy demand by 20%, 40% and 60%, in relation to the assumed standards. The results of the standard demand should be calculated in accordance with applicable standards or regulations. Points can also be earned for the use of alternative solutions, such as renewable sources, or energy-saving equipment.

3.6. Transport category

In the Transport category, points are awarded for access to public transport, as well as for supporting near- or zero-emission forms of transport. Research shows that facilitating access to a building can significantly reduce the carbon footprint and other negative impacts associated with the use of such a facility. Moreover, it can improve the well-being and health of users (Badland and Duncan 2009). The issue of transport has a big impact on the social aspects of the idea of sustainability, and therefore it was included in the BREEAM document.

3.7. Water category

The water category analyses limiting of the consumption of water resources. The efficiency of the installed water management systems is assessed. Additional points are awarded for designing systems that improve water management, such as retention gardens or grey water filtration systems.

3.8. Materials category

The Materials category is mainly covered by the LCA¹ system (Ding 2014). The materials and raw materials used throughout the entire life cycle of the facility are assessed. The analysis includes factors such as the availability of materials, the carbon footprint as a result of the extraction and delivery of material to the construction site, the possible costs and side effects of the material’s maintenance, and also its final disposal or recovery. Points are awarded with regards to the percentage reduction of consumption in relation to standards, as is the case with the Energy category. Not only the type of the used material is assessed, but also its percentage share among all the materials used on the construction site.

3.9. Waste category

The previously mentioned LCA life cycle assessment system implies the reasonable disposal or reuse of waste. This involves proper waste management during the construction of the facility, as well as providing future users with appropriate conditions for waste sorting.

3.10. Land use and ecology category

The Land use and ecology category evaluates a sustainable approach to the use of both natural resources and the plot area, for promoting biodiversity and land reclamation. An ill-considered design approach may lead to soil and air pollution, or to the deprivation of valuable natural values of the plot and its surroundings. For this category, as is the case with the Health and Wellbeing category, points are awarded by meeting a given requirement. Failure to include the postulate regarding this matter in the project results in zero points.

3.11. Pollution category

The scope of the Pollution category is to analyse measures aimed at preventing and managing pollution, as well as surface water run-off, that may arise from the building’s positioning and purpose. The concerns addressed in this section seek to minimise the negative effects of the building on the nearby communities and ecosystems, including issues such as light pollution, noise disturbance, flooding risk, as well as emissions into air, land, and water.

3.12. Innovation category

Innovation can be seen as an interesting category, because it allows designers to show their ingenuity. Technological solutions, such as adjustable covers and movable partitions, or facilities for users e.g. showers for cyclists, winter gardens, apiaries, or usable roofs, result in awarded points. Points can also be given for designing while considering culture and local goods.

4. Inequality in the final assessment of sustainability according to the schemes of the BREEAM certificate

4.1. Disproportions in the assessment of new construction and refurbishment & fit-out schemes

BREEAM assessors have shown that historical adaptations of Refurbishment & Fit-out are much less likely to achieve such high results as New Construction facilities (Balson, Summerson, and Thorne 2014). In their opinion, this may be due to insufficiently developed criteria. In some cases, the points awarded in the nine BREEAM categories are impossible to obtain for adapted facilities. Categories such as Materials or Land use and ecology in most cases do not cover the important aspects of adaptation, especially for projects under strict conservation supervision. Elementary design procedures, such as designing the form or orientation of an object, are not possible for adaptation, which means that the final result of the sustainability of the entire project may be underestimated.

4.2. Disproportions in the assessment of objects with regards to the refurbishment & fit-out scheme – facilities under different degrees of conservation protection

Adaptations of historic complexes showed better results than adaptations of buildings that are not under conservation protection. BREEAM assessors indicate that inequalities may result from a too general assessment method, and an insufficient distinction between BREEAM schemes for historic buildings and ordinary buildings (Schwartz and Raslan 2013). The causes and possible solutions for the inequalities in the assessment of facilities under different degrees of conservation protection will be indicated in the following part of this article.

5. Research

5.1. Comparison of the awarded certifications according to the BREEAM schemes, and the results of the degree of sustainability of facilities around the world

Figure 1 shows BREEAM certifications depending on the applied scheme of the document. According to GreenBookLive, there are 32,253 BREEAM-certified buildings worldwide, including 20,115 of New Construction; 10328 of In-use; 1,715 of Refurbishment & Fit-out, and 96 of Development Planning (GreenBook Live: Certified BREEAM Assessments 2020).

Figure 1. Sustainability certifications carried out according to BREEAM schemes.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of each BREEAM schemes.

The Refurbishment & Fit-out certification scheme is used about 80 times less often than the most popular New Construction scheme, and 16 times less often than the In-Use scheme. The Refurbishment & Fit-out scheme concerns only 5.3% of certified facilities.

Differences in the results of the assessment of the degree of sustainability of the facilities are presented in Figures 2 and 3. New Construction facilities receive the highest ‘Excellent’ and ‘Outstanding’ scores 5.7% more often than Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities. The latter achieves the lowest ‘Pass’ score more than twice as often as New Construction facilities.

Figure 2. The final result of the New Construction BREEAM certification.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of the final result of the New Construction BREEAM certification.

Figure 3. The final result of the Refurbishment & Fit-Out BREEAM certification.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of the final results of the Refurbishment & Fit-Out BREEAM certification.

5.2. Worldwide schemes for assessing the sustainability of adaptations according to the BREEAM certificate

The certification scheme for architectural adaptations was first published in 2014. Previously, adaptation projects were assessed in categories that corresponded with the newly created functions, such as the Bespoke 2008, Offices 2008 or Industrial 2008 schemes. The most up-to-date documents that assess the degree of sustainability of adapted facilities are the BREEAM International Non-Domestic Refurbishment 2015 Scheme, the BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment 2014 Scheme for facilities built outside Great Britain, and the BREEAM UK Refurbishment & Fit-out 2014 Scheme for facilities under construction in Great Britain (BRE Global 2016, 2017, 2020). These schemes are successively updated by certified assessors.

5.3. Analysis of polish refurbishment & fit-out adaptation projects certified with the BREEAM document

In Poland, there are 8 adaptations certified by the BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015 scheme. The list of these facilities is shown in Table 1. All the certified facilities are located in large cities such as Warsaw, Łódź and Kalisz, which have an area of at least 69.42 km² and a population of 101,307 (Poland in Numbers 2022). The presented Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities were designed by medium or large design studios. The earliest built facility was constructed in the mid-18th century, but most of them come from the 19^th century. The first certifications of the degree of sustainability of the Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities in Poland were awarded in 2017. Half of the certified Refurbishment & Fit-out buildings are post-industrial facilities. All the objects were adapted in order to have functions from the Other Buildings/mixed-use category. The results of the certification of the degree of sustainability of Polish facilities under the BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015 scheme are presented in Figure 4. This figure shows that the most frequent certification results are ‘Pass’ (42.9%) and ‘Very Good’ (42.9%). None of the facilities received a ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’ rating.

Figure 4. The final result of the Refurbishment & Fit-Out BREEAM certification for Polish facilities.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of the final results of the Refurbishment & Fit-Out for Polish facilities.

Table 1. Characteristics of Polish Refurbishment & Fit-out certified facilities.

Name of facility	Certification scheme	City	Year of construction	Year of adaptation	Year of certification	Function before adaptation	Function after adaptation	Certification result (%)	Certification grade	Conservation protection
Calisia One	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015: Refurbishment	Kalisz	Second half of the 19th century	2019	2019	Calisia piano factory	Offices (Other buildings/Mixed use)	34,4	Pass	Register of monuments
PZO Factory	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015	Warsaw	Pre-war period	2021	2020	Optical plant	Offices (Other buildings/Mixed use)	63,1	Very good	No
C1.2 MLP Hall	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015	Wrocław	21st century	2018	2020	Production hall	Production hall (Other buildings/Mixed use)	31,4	Pass	No
JTI GBS Poland sp. z o.o.	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015	Warsaw	1851	2021	2022	Factory, metal industry	Offices (Other buildings/Mixed use)	88	Outstanding	Register of monuments*
Monopolis B3/B4	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015: Refurbishment	Łódź	1902	2018	2020	Building of the former Monopol Wódczany	Offices (Other buildings/Mixed use)	62	Very good	Register of monuments
Novotel Gadansk Marina	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015: Refurbishment	Gdańsk	1985	2010	2021	PP ORBIS hotel	Hotel (Other buildings/Mixed use)	30,9	Pass	No
The Marshall Office: a thermomodernized building	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015: Refurbishment	Szczecin	1911	2022	2019	Marshal’s office	Marshal’s office (Other buildings/Mixed use)	57,2	Very good	No
Warsaw Spire – building A, L37	BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015: Refurbishment	Warsaw	1949	2016	2017	Bellona publishing house	Offices (Other buildings/Mixed use)	64,5	Very good	Register of monuments

Note: *This case will not be included in the analysis of sustainability assessment of the adaptation of historic objects, because the BREEAM International 2015 Refurbishment & Fit-Out certificate was obtained by the company renting the office space, which is a new construction building, and not part of the adaptation of the historic object, which is the Norbin factory.

5.4. Polish historic buildings certified with the BREEAM refurbishment & fit-out document

Three of the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certified facilities are monuments i.e. objects of material cultural heritage. In Poland, an object may be entered in either the register of monuments or the record of monuments (Legalis Administration 2022). Before adaptation, all the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certified historic objects were industrial buildings: the Calisia One piano factory, the building of the former Monopolis Wódczany monopoly, and the Bellona publishing house of the Warsaw Spire buildings. The Monopolis and Warsaw Spire buildings received a ‘Very Good’ final rating, whereas the Calisia One received the lowest ‘Pass’ score. They were all built in the 19th century and certified in the first decade of the 20th century. They have been adapted for office spaces, with additional service functions. The listed historic buildings account for 37.5% of all the certified Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities in Poland.

5.5. Conservation protection of British historic buildings

The degree of conservation protection in Great Britain is determined by the ‘Listed Buildings’ and ‘Conservation Areas’ documents (Evert et al. 2010). ‘Listed Buildings’ define the degree of conservation protection of buildings with the use of GRADE I, GRADE II and GRADE II* categories. The objects included in the ‘Listed Buildings’ document are not protected by law, but their conservation protection is recommended. A separate ‘Conservation Area’ category not only includes buildings, but also larger built-up areas or natural objects. ‘Conservation Area’ facilities are protected by law against demolition, extension, and similar activities. Table 2 shows the division and general characteristics of ‘Listed Buildings’ and ‘Conservation Areas’. The table shows that the conservation protection system in Great Britain is similar to the system used in Poland.

Table 2. Grades of conservation protection in the UK.

Grade I	Grade II	Grade II*	Conservation Area
Highest level of conservation interest in buildings. This category mainly includes historic residences or important historic buildings. The category contains 2.5% of all listed buildings.	Buildings of special conservation interest. The majority of residential properties are in this category. 91.5% of all listed buildings are in this category.	Sites of greater conservation interest than the GRADE II category. 6% of all listed sites are in this category.	Sites and areas of significant historic or architectural character. This category can include a variety of elements (areas or buildings). Demolitions, extensions and similar treatments are regulated by law.

5.6. Analysis of the selected British adaptations of BREEAM-certified historic buildings

In Great Britain, the list of certified Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities includes 1,308 buildings (GreenBook Live: Certified BREEAM Assessments 2020). The facilities presented in Table 3 have been highlighted in the information document issued by BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-Out (Balson, Summerson, and Thorne 2014). The authors decided to analyse objects from the aforementioned document, because it is recommended by BREEAM, contains objects with different degrees of conservation protection, and the certification dates of the objects fall between the first and second decade of the 21st century, which allows for a fair comparison with Polish historical adaptations from the second decade of the 21st century.All the objects differed in terms of their conservation protection and received a score of ‘Good’ or higher.

Table 3. Characteristics of British Refurbishment & Fit-out certified facilities.

Name of facility	Certification scheme	City	Year of construction	Year of adaptation	Year of certification	Function before adaptation	Function after adaptation	Certification result (%)	Certification grade	Conservation protection
Wellington House	Offices 2008	London	1930	2012	2013	Office	Office (Other buildings/Mixed use)	56,55	Very good	Conservation Area
The Stable Block, Morden Hall Park	Bespoke 2008	London	1770	2010	2013	Stable yard	Cultural centre (Other buildings/Mixed use)	71,39	Excellent	Conservation Area
Bombay Sapphire Distillery Process Buildings	Industrial 2008	Whitchurch	1086	2008–2013	2013	Paper mill	Gin distillery (Industrial)	86,81	Outstanding	Conservation Area
Craven Hill Gardens	BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment 2012	London	XIX century	2012	2017	Hotel	Residential area (Residential)	82,5	Excellent	Conservation Area
Somerset House East Wing	Bespoke 2008	London	1801	2008–2012	2012	King’s College London’s strand campus	University (Other buildings/Mixed use)	73,43	Excellent	Grade I
64 Sloane Street	Offices 2008	London	1897	2008–2015	2015	Residential area	Office (Other buildings/Mixed use)	70,6	Excellent	Grade II
Royal Arsenal Office	BREEAM UK Refurbishment and Fit Out 2014: Refurbishment	London	XVII century	2014–2019	2019	Ordnance institution	Office (Other buildings/Mixed use)	49,3	Good	Grade II
Edinburgh Centre for Carbon Innovation	Higher Education 2008: Higher Education	Edinburg	XVIII century	2008–2015	2015	Royal High School	Research centre (Education)	87,5	Outstanding	Grade II
The Witham, Barnard Castle	Bespoke 2008	Barnard Castle	1846	2008–2014	2014	Culture centre	Cultural centre (Other buildings/Mixed use)	58,8	Very good	Grade II
City of York Council West Offices	Offices 2008	York	1841	2012	2013	Railway station	Office (Other buildings/Mixed use)	71,19	Excellent	Grade II*
Olympia Theatre	Bespoke 2008	Glasgow	1911	2011	2013	Theater	Cultural centre (Other buildings/Mixed use)	71,15	Excellent	Grade II*

The analysis of 14 buildings shows that 80% of all the adaptations were carried out in cities of medium or large size. The rest of the facilities are located in towns with no more than 5,495 inhabitants (Office for National Statistics 2022). Most of them are extensive investments carried out by well-known design studios.

The examined historic buildings come from different eras, with the oldest one being built in the 11th century. As mentioned before, all the analysed British adaptations, similar to Polish Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities, were certified in the first and second decade of the 21st century.

The historic buildings before the adaptation had different functions: office, industrial or residential. Figure 5 shows that they were adapted for the ‘Other buildings/Mixed Use’ function in 71.43% of cases. Other facilities were in the ‘Residential’ (14.3%), ‘Education’ (7.1%), and ‘Industrial’ (7.1%) categories. Figure 6 presents the results of the certification of the discussed buildings. Half of the conducted certifications received an ‘Excellent’ result. The highest ‘Outstanding’ score was awarded to 3 analysed objects, i.e. 21.4% of all the objects from the table.

Figure 5. Designed functions of selected British certified historic buildings according to the categories of the BREEAM scheme.

Figure 6. The final result of the BREEAM certification of selected British adaptations of historic buildings.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of the final results of British adaptations of historic buildings according to BREEAM scheme.

Grading and list of functions of the designed adaptations in Poland and Great Britain

There is a large disproportion in the final results between the Polish and British adaptations of BREEAM-certified historic buildings. Figure 7 shows the final certification results for all the BREEAM facilities in Great Britain. The prevailing final grade is ‘Very Good’ (59%). British facilities more often achieve higher scores, such as ‘Excellent’ (25.6%), than Polish ones. For comparison, none of the Polish BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities received the ‘Excellent’ rating. In the case of the British projects, a final grade of ‘Pass’ was awarded much less frequently. In the Polish adaptations, the final ‘Pass’ score was awarded in 42.9% of cases.

Figure 7. The final result of the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-Out final certification for British facilities.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of final result of British certified historic buildings.

In Great Britain, the analysed buildings are most often adapted to the ‘Other Buildings/Mixed Used’ function, which can be seen in Figure 8. Buildings are less often adapted to the ‘Residential’ (14.3%), ‘Industrial’ (7.1%) and ‘Education’ (7.1%) categories.

Figure 8. Designed functions of selected British certified historic buildings according to the categories of BREEAM.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of designed functions of British certified historic buildings.

A comparison of the results obtained by the facilities from Great Britain and the certified Refurbishment & Fit-out facilities from Poland showed that most of the projects are assigned to the ‘Other Building/Mixed-use’ category. In this category, the functions adopted by the Polish and British facilities differ from each other. Figure 9 shows the function from the Other Building/Mixed-use category that the Polish buildings receive after their adaptation. It shows that 75% of the Polish ones are adapted for office functions, 12.5% for hotels, and 12.5% for industrial facilities. In turn, Figure 10 shows that 35.71% of the historic buildings in Great Britain that are in the Other Building/Mixed-use category are adapted for offices, 35.71% for residential facilities, 14.29% for recreational and cultural facilities, and 14.29% for academic purposes.

Figure 9. Designed functions of selected British BREEAM-certified historic buildings.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of designed functions of selected British BREEAM-certified historic buildings: offices, production hall, hotels.

Figure 10. Designed functions of Polish Refurbishment & Fit-Out facilities.

Read the detailed description of this figure

A pie chart showing the percentage of designed functions of Polish Refurbishment & Fit-Out facilities: offices, cultural/recreations centers, academic, residential.

6. Case study of selected polish and British adaptations of historic buildings

6.1. Characteristics of the polish Monopolis adaptation project

Building B3/B4 of the Monopolis facility in Łódź was awarded with the BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015 certificate in 2020. The project received a final score of 62% and a ‘Very Good’ rating. The entire structure of Monopolis is in the register of monuments and is under conservation protection. The project was carried out by the design studio Grupa 5 Architekci.

In 1897, the area where today’s Monopolis is located was bought by the state from a private owner. In 1902, a bottling plant and production plant for vodkas and spirits were opened. The Monopol Wódczany plant operated with few interruptions until 2008, when the facility was put into liquidation. In 2014, the building was bought by Virako, which a year later presented the project ‘Monopolis’ - a cultural and social centre (MONOPOLIS 2022a). The revitalisation of the historic building of the former Monopol Wódczany began in 2017, and two office buildings were added on the premises of the plant. The new building in the southern part of the plot gained the Refurbishment & Fit-out certificate (MONOPOLIS 2022b). The facility is not an adaptation of the existing structure, but due to its location on the premises of the Monopol Wódczany plant, it has been categorised as an adaptation of the area that is included in the register of monuments.

The aim of the project was to act within the idea of sustainability by creating a comfortable and user-friendly environment, by maintaining low operating costs, and by ensuring the facility’s adaptability to current needs. Intimate squares and green roof terraces were created (Wrzosek 2020). The innovations that were used inside the building involves the flexible division of the surface with walls and raised floors. Great emphasis in the project was placed on the social aspect: the well-being of the users.

6.2. Characteristics of the polish calisia one adaptation project

The Calisia One facility in Kalisz received in 2019 the BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015 certification at the ‘Pass’ level. The building used to be a piano factory of the Calisia Company, and is currently listed in the register of monuments (National Heritage Institute 2022). The adaptation project was developed by the architectural studio MODOarchitektura.

The factory was launched in the mid-nineteenth century. For over 170 years, it had been producing pianos and grand pianos, and at the same time was a trademark of the city of Kalisz. The factory closed in 2007 and soon fell into disrepair. In 2015, the new owner of the complex, Antczak Investments, presented a project to adapt the factory into a hotel, business and cultural building (Kalisz Nasze Miasto 2020a). The adaptation project was completed in 2018. A year later, it obtained the Refurbishment & Fit-out certification.

The project of adaptation of the Calisia building was developed under the constant supervision of the Voivodeship Conservator of Monuments. The vice-president of FB Antczak, Marcin Antczak, emphasised the historic significance and context of the facility: ‘The scope of revitalisation activities includes, i.a. works on the renovation of the façades, and also meticulous restoration of many architectural details’ (Kalisz Nasze Miasto 2020b).

The principle of a circular economy i.e. the reusing of the foundation structure and recovering some of the building materials, was applied in the facility. A small amount of greenery was designed next to the building, which was meant to emphasise the character of the place. The project was carried out with detailed consultations with the inhabitants of Kalisz. This allowed for the achievement of the highest results in the Man 01 category, which refers to social contribution of the project (PLGBC 2020).

6.3. Characteristics of the British Bombay sapphire distillery adaptation project

The Bombay Sapphire Distillery Process Buildings and Bombay Sapphire Visitors Center Buildings, which are located in the same Bombay Sapphire Distillery complex in Whitchurch, obtained the Industrial 2008 certificate at an ‘Outstanding’ level with a score of 86.81%, and the Bespoke 2008 certificate at a ‘Very Good’ level with a score of 58.93% (GreenBook Live: Certified BREEAM Assessments 2020). Both projects obtained the BREEAM certificate in 2013. The Distillery Process building is on the Conservation Area list, while the Visitors Center building is on the GRADE II list (BRE Group 2022a). The project was developed by Heatherwick Studio (2022).

The Laverstoke Mill paper mill operated from 1719 to 2005. Until 1963, the facility served as a manufacturer of banknote papers for the Bank of England (Franklin 2010). Throughout its period of operation, the structure of the mill grew, and more than 40 new buildings were constructed on the factory site. The complex was put under conservation protection in 1984 (Historic England 2022). The site currently houses the Bombay Sapphire gin distillery, which is open to the public for educational and recreational purposes (Heatherwick Studio 2022). New elements were also built within the complex, e.g. the greenhouses of the botanical garden.

The idea of cradle to grave sustainability, by recovering building materials from demolished facilities at the Laverstoke Mill site, was applied in the project. The energy released by the gin distilling machines was used to heat the greenhouse installations and to produce hot water for the entire complex (ArchDaily 2014). The project received the maximum number of points in the Energy category due to the use of renewable energy sources, such as photovoltaic panels, hydroelectric turbines and biomass (BRE Group 2022a).

6.4. Characteristics of the British craven hill gardens adaptation project

Craven Hill Gardens achieved BREEAM Domestic Refurbishment 2012 certification with a rating of ‘Excellent’ and a score of 82.5%. The building is located in the northern part of Hyde Park, which is included in the Conservation Area document. The adaptation project was developed by TF Architecture Ltd.

The plot was purchased in 1733 by William Craven. The property served as a private residential area, with a main house and auxiliary structures. The following owners transformed the building into a residential garden housing estate for rent, by designing new facilities. In the 19th century, five stucco tenement houses, i.e. Craven Hill Gardens 31–35, were built to serve as a hotel. The adaptation project assumed changing the function from a hotel to a residential one. In 2012, the adaptation of the facility was completed and put into use. In the same year, the buildings achieved the BREEAM certificate (Baker, Bolton, and Croot 1989).

In the project, great attention was paid to the quality of the used materials. Additional thermal insulation of the external walls was designed, and the window and door joinery, as well as installations, were replaced with more efficient ones. In addition to the use of active energy solutions, such as photovoltaic panels, the facility uses passive methods of heating, cooling and ventilation. The facility’s carbon footprint has been reduced by 77.9% when compared to before the adaptation. In addition, the project received a high score in the Management category. During the adaptation, special attention was paid to noise and pollution that could disturb the neighbours. The project assumed the demolition of some parts of the building; however, the front façade was preserved in its entirety, in order to maintain historical continuity (BRE Group 2022b).

6.5. Comparison of the main design solutions and final results of certification by the polish and British historic buildings that were selected for the case study

The case study of the four selected objects showed that the British adaptations of historic buildings obtained higher certification results than the Polish adaptations. Among the Polish ones, the highest final rating of the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certification was obtained by the Monopolis facility – ‘Very Good’ with a score of 62%. The rating is much lower than the results of the analysed British projects – Craven Hill Gardens and Bombay Sapphire Distillery, which received a score of over 80%. The solutions adopted in the Polish projects focused on social aspects, such as choosing the right microclimate of the interior, creating new resting spaces, or conducting social talks before the implementation of the project. In the British adaptation projects, the greatest attention was focused on the Energy category, which is the highest scoring criterion in the entire certificate. The document also assumes high scores for Materials, which means that this category has a large impact on the final score of the degree of sustainability. Meeting these two key categories grants 31.5% of all the possible points to be obtained (Kamionka 2012). In the British adaptation projects, the main design solutions are based on the use of heat recovery, rational waste management, and also effective passive and active energy solutions. The summary of the final results of the certification, and the main design assumptions for the facilities presented in the case study, are shown in Table 4. It can be concluded that the final result of the certification differed depending on which sustainability sector (ecological, economic or social) gained the greatest attention in the project. The Polish adaptations mostly focus on social aspects, while the British adaptations apply solutions concerning ecological aspects.

Table 4. Comparison of Polish and British final BREEAM grades and main design solutions.

Name of facility	Grade of conservation protection	Final BREEAM grade	Main design solutions
Calisia One	Monuments register	34,4% (Pass)	Public consultation, material recovery
Monopolis	Monuments register	62% (Very Good)	Moveable walls, indoor and outdoor greenery
Craven Hill Gardens	Conservation Area	82,4% (Excellent)	Active and passive heat systems
Bombay Sapphire Distillery	Conservation Area	86,81% (Outstanding)	Heat recovery system

7. Discussion

7.1. Statistical data and application of the BREEAM refurbishment & fit-out certificate

The certification scheme for adaptation projects was introduced almost 20 years after the establishment of the general BREEAM certificate. It was not until 2014 that the Refurbishment & Fit-out scheme was created. Previously, adaptation projects were assessed with regards to BREEAM schemes that corresponded with the function of the facility after adaptation (secondary), e.g. BREEAM Offices in the case of offices, or BREEAM Healthcare in the case of hospitals. For this reason, obtaining data for research and further optimisation of the method of assessing the adaptation of historic buildings according to the BREEAM certificate may be difficult. The inequalities resulting from the number of the conducted New Construction, In-Use and Refurbishment & Fit-out certifications may be due to the short period of application of the Refurbishment & Fit-out scheme. Similar conclusions can be drawn regarding the final assessment of the degree of Refurbishment & Fit-out sustainability. The lower results in the certification of this scheme may result from the fact that the document was created recently, and that an effective assessment method has not yet been developed. It is necessary to conduct deeper researches concerning the adaptation of historic buildings with regards to not only the Refurbishment & Fit-out scheme, but also to other BREEAM certification schemes. This article enhances our understanding of the topic, by delving deeper into the subject matter and presenting novel insights, that expand upon the current state of knowledge.

7.2. The refinement of the refurbishment & fit-out scheme for the purpose of a more accurate final assessment

The static analysis of the BREEAM certificate showed that about 75% of the Polish and British buildings are adapted for Other Buildings/mixed-used functions – mostly for office functions. The Other Buildings/mixed-used category includes a number of different functions, such as offices, education, culture, and entertainment. This category is very general, and may lead to inaccuracies in testing or certification. The different functions that are currently included in the Other building/mixed-use category require a specific design approach, and should therefore be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For example, adaptations for a cultural function require the creation of many public large spaces. In turn, adaptations for an office or service function should focus on creating smaller public or semi-public spaces. Evaluating these two examples of adaptation in the same way may lead to unreliable final results on materials, energy or healthcare and wellbeing. Adjusting the assessment category in the certificate to the function of the building after its adaptation will allow more detailed results to be obtained.

7.3. Disproportion of applications for the certification of large and small projects in the BREEAM document

All the Polish facilities that obtained the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certification are large investments in medium or large cities, which were designed by well-known design studios. A similar situation applies to the British certifications for the adaptation of historic buildings. This means that smaller companies and investors do not submit their adaptation projects for BREEAM certification. A similar observation emerged from surveys conducted within research concerning inequality in granting BREEAM certification due to company size (Goode and Xiao 2012). Owners of companies were asked about what motivated their reluctance towards the BREEAM system. A common response was that ‘BREEAM is rarely considered for adaptation projects because it is too complex and expensive to implement’. The BREEAM document, by narrowing the recipient segment to large and medium-sized companies, becomes an exclusive certificate. Such an approach to granting certification does not meet the social demands of accessibility and equality, that the document itself promotes. Changes in this area should aim to make small-sized companies and design studios submit their projects for BREEAM certification. A solution to this problem may be the presentation of the main assumptions and the method of assessing the certificate in a more understandable and accessible way, for example by elaborating a short brochure. Additionally, a different price for applying for the certification (depending on the size of the company) should also be considered.

7.4. The use of BREEAM certification to build a company’s image

Based on the conducted analyses, it can be seen that the Polish adaptations of historic buildings obtain lower certification results than the British ones. When collecting data for the case study of two selected Polish and British adaptations of historic buildings, the authors pointed out that Polish companies and design studios boast about obtaining the BREEAM certificate and emphasise the idea of sustainability in their projects more often than British companies. In the case of Polish projects, information about obtaining certification is available on a facility’s website, and there are many articles that promote this information. British design offices tend to present their project as a whole, rather than through the prism of certification. British projects are mostly described on the official BREEAM website. It can therefore be concluded that the BREEAM certificate in Poland is not treated as a tool for assessing the sustainability of a facility, but instead as a way of building an image based on the obtained certification. While building a company’s image through obtaining a BREEAM certificate is not necessarily a bad thing, omitting dissemination of the final assessment can raise concerns. It is important to consider the significance of the results of the BREEAM certification final assessment: Pass, Good, Very Good, Excellent, and Outstanding ratings indicate the level of actions taken towards sustainability. As qualitative research has shown, ignoring the final assessment can lead to public misconceptions about the sustainability of the project. The solution to this problem may be the regulation of the manner of presenting the BREEAM certificate. For example, stating the final certification result when presenting the BREEAM certificate could be introduced in such regulations. In this way, the recipient is informed about the real assessment of the degree of sustainability of the building, and not only that it was included in the BREEAM list. It is imperative to point up that this subject necessitates further investigation and advancement.

7.5. Conservation activities in polish and British BREEAM adapted buildings

The analysis of the Polish and British objects shows that, in Poland, adaptations are mostly carried out with 20th-century industrial objects, while the buildings in Great Britain come from different historical periods. In addition, the Polish adaptation projects mostly applied design procedures in the form of adding a new structure to the existing building. Such action causes a completely different perception of the object. The cultural heritage value of the historic building ceases to be significant. In contrast, the British adaptations assume the integrity of the adapted building. The designs in Great Britain in most cases preserved the entire façades and took particular care of the architectural detail or the characteristic features of the building. The external appearance of the building rarely changed. The Polish and British adaptations of historic buildings adopted a different design strategy, with regards to historical integrity, but these actions did not determine the final assessment of sustainability. The actions taken with regards to conservation protection are not highly rated in the BREEAM certificate. This means that the Refurbishment & Fit-out document allows for low conservation sensitivity in the case of adaptations of historic buildings. Conservation aspects should be of great importance in the context of the adaptation of historic buildings. For this purpose, the weight of the scores in the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certificate for activities within the area of historic buildings conservation aspects should be increased, in order for it to have an impact on the final result. In addition, the following guidelines could be implemented, as supplementary criteria for the BREEAM International Refurbishment & Fit-out 2015 certification: evaluating the status of both the building envelope and technical building systems, examining user behaviour, documenting the cultural, economic, and social significance of the heritage, identifying opportunities and limitations for conservation, deciding whether improvements to energy efficiency are required, or assessing the potential risks associated with any architectural, aesthetic, or historical impacts (European Standard 2017). In this way, designers who apply for adaptation certification will be encouraged to include the aspect of the cultural heritage value of the building in the design process.

7.6. Correlation of the categories and the final BREEAM rating

The BREEAM document, with regards to similar certifications for assessing the degree of sustainability of facilities, mostly emphasises the importance of energy efficiency in the project (Harisankar and Rakesh 2021). The qualitative research carried out on four selected adapted historic buildings from Poland and Great Britain also showed such a relationship. The British projects that focused on the Energy category received higher scores than the Polish projects focusing on other aspects. Favouring certain categories, such as Energy, Materials or Waste, may result in projects being focused only on the ecological categories, in turn undermining the importance of the social and economic factors of the projects. Work on this issue should include redesigning the BREEAM certification categories, in order to include more social and economic aspects. The aim of optimising the criteria should be to strive for the lack of dominance of any of the categories: ecological, social or economic. The inequality of final certification, due to the scores of individual categories, can also be observed in the assessment of facilities under different degrees of conservation protection. Conservatively protected objects obtain higher scores than those not covered by such protection. Facilities with the highest conservation protection are usually older, and even date back to the 11th century, compared to those without such protection. This means that the changes that can be made to improve energy efficiency in buildings with the highest conservation protection are more numerous than in newer adaptation buildings, for example, from 20 years ago. This results in statistically higher final certification scores for facilities with the highest conservation protection. One possible solution may be to adjust the scoring and categories to the period when the original facility was built, and to take into account its degree of conservation protection. The authors propose a new points allocation system. It would be necessary to estimate the potential values or actions to be achieved within the chosen category. Then, the actual design solutions implemented should be noted. This points allocation technique aims to reduce inequality in the evaluation of adaptations of historic buildings, and those not covered by any or a lower form of conservation protection. The system can be applied in all categories. Renewable energy use in the building’s life cycle is presented as an example: after reviewing the project, it is necessary to estimate to what extent renewable solutions, such as solar panels or wind turbines, can be implemented. The evaluation should take into account various limitations dictated by conservation protection. After the first analysis, the actual design actions taken to implement the previously mentioned solutions should be noted. In this way, the ratio of implemented solutions to possible solutions can be obtained, rather than the actual changes applied. This will allow for a fair assessment, for example, of both the adaptation of a 1970s concrete block and a castle from the 13th century with the highest degree of conservation protection.

7.7. Clarification of requirements for awarding the BREEAM international refurbishment and fit-out 2015 certification

In the course of qualitative research on four selected historic buildings that had undergone adaptation with the BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015 certification, it was revealed that the Monopolis adaptation project, while situated within a historical complex, did not actually entail the adaptation of a historic building. Consequently, the question arises as to the appropriateness of certifying this project with the BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015 certification, as it concerns an object that is built from scratch, rather than an adaptation of a historic building. Further research is necessary to investigate the validity of this assertion, and to examine the criteria used in awarding the Refurbishment and Fit-out certification scheme to such projects. To address this issue, it may be advisable to provide clearer guidance in the BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015 document, regarding the types of buildings that are eligible for certification. Specifically, it may be necessary to specify that only projects that primarily involve the adaptation of historic objects are eligible for certification as BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015.

8. Conclusions

The conducted research proved the difficulties and marginalisation of the problem of assessing the sustainability of historic buildings on the basis of BREEAM multi-criteria certification. Based on the conducted analyses, disproportions in granting Refurbishment & Fit-out certification in comparison to the New Construction and In-use schemes were indicated. The small use and the recent implementation of the Refurbishment & Fit-out certificate are factors that may hinder research in the historic buildings adaptation sector. Based on the analysis of all the Refurbishment & Fit-out adaptations in Poland and the selected adaptations in Great Britain, a number of areas for improvement were identified. The study showed that both the Polish and British buildings are mainly adapted for the Other Buildings/mixed-used function – especially offices. The Other Buildings/mixed-used category is very general and may lead to inaccuracies in testing or certification. More detailed specification of the assessment category in terms of the designed function may result in a more reliable certification of historic buildings. Furthermore, when assessing the sustainability of adaptation of historic buildings, it is important to consider the disparities in point allocation. Historic buildings with varying degrees of conservation protection will require different design actions, depending on the opinion of the conservation officer. This means that a historic building adaptation may receive fewer points in categories such as energy or materials, due to the inability to use renewable energy sources on roofs and exterior walls, or redesign the interior to be more functional, because of conservation restrictions. In this case, an alternative points allocation system could be considered, which compares possible sustainability actions with the conservation officer’s opinion and the design actions taken. Another problem indicated in the study is the advantage of large-scale projects carried out by large companies over smaller adaptation projects – both in Poland and in Great Britain. This is due to the complicated presentation of the certification method, and also to the high price of BREEAM membership, which discourages smaller design offices from participating in the certification. It may be necessary to develop a better system for presenting criteria, and to adapt payments to the size of the company running the project. The qualitative research of the four selected objects from Poland and Great Britain showed several potential problems in assessing the adaptation of historic buildings. The first of the indicated problems is building the company’s image based on the received BREEAM certification. It was shown that Polish companies use BREEAM certification as a marketing trademark of the project much more often than British companies, even if the certification result was low. In order to reduce these situations, certain requirements regarding the presentation of the obtained certification should be introduced. It should be emphasised that this is a topic that requires further research and development. Going further, the case study showed a significant difference in the design approach of the objects from Poland and Great Britain, in terms of conservation protection. The adapted historic buildings in Poland are mostly industrial objects from the 20th century, while the British projects come from different eras and served various functions. The Polish adaptations focus on the extension of the building, while the British adaptations mostly maintain the integrity of the building. This means that British designs introduce smaller visual changes and preserve the historical and cultural essence of the building. The described approach is important for the protection of local or national heritage. Despite this, the approach does not significantly affect the final result of certification, and therefore can be omitted in the design. In order to solve this problem, it would be necessary to consider increasing the impact of the criteria related to conservation protection in the BREEAM Refurbishment & Fit-out certificate. To this end, additional criteria should be included in the certificate, or additional points should be awarded for consultations with the conservator of monuments before, during, and after the project is completed. Such actions encourage designers to take bolder actions to adapt historic buildings, while also considering their cultural heritage aspects. When developing precise criteria, one could rely on the existing state of knowledge, such as the Faro Convention report from 2005. The postulates from Article 9 could provide a basis on which to build precise criteria (some examples for new criteria were mentioned before). For example, postulates include “promote respect for the integrity of the cultural heritage by ensuring that decisions about change include an understanding of the cultural values involved” or “ensure that all general technical regulations take account of the specific conservation requirements of cultural heritage” (The member States of the Council of Europe 2005). Developing precise criteria for inclusion in the BREEAM document would require further research, but outlining the problem, identifying assumptions, providing an initial proposal for the content of the scheme, and proposing a few previously mentioned exemplary criteria could be a significant contribution to the current state of knowledge. The presented case study also showed another problem in the case of awarding points for the categories. The Polish adaptations, which mostly focused on social aspects, had a lower final score than the British adaptations, which placed more emphasis on ecological aspects. This disproportion results from the importance of individual certificate categories. Categories such as Energy and Materials, which are related to ecological aspects, receive higher scores than categories related to social or economic aspects. All three aspects: ecological, social and economic, should be equally evaluated with regards to sustainable development. For this purpose, the criteria should be changed, in order to not exclude any of the aspects of sustainability. Returning to the qualitative research of the four selected adaptation projects, using the example of Monopolis, there is a need to clarify the criteria for projects to qualify for BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015 certification. One potential solution could be to determine the percentage of the building’s adaptation in relation to the overall project activities, which may not necessarily be related to the adaptation of historic buildings, such as the design of a new building. In this way, the certificate will become a more reliable system for assessing the sustainability of historic buildings. The indicated areas for improvement with regards to the assessment of the sustainability of historic buildings according to the BREEAM multi-criteria certification, as well as the proposed solutions, may contribute to a change in the design approach when adapting historic buildings to be more sustainable. The author’s proposal for the future is to reinterpret the BREEAM International Refurbishment and Fit-out 2015 document, to authenticate the sustainability assessment of historic building adaptations with BREEAM certification. A possible further course of action is to create a separate document that, in addition to the basic pillars of sustainability – ecological, economic, and social aspects – will also include a conservation aspect. The criteria included in the conservation aspect should be consistent with the conclusions drawn from quantitative research conducted on adapted buildings in Poland and Great Britain, as well as qualitative research on four selected buildings in Poland and Great Britain. More specifically, the new document devoted solely to historic building adaptation projects should critically evaluate the design actions taken, in relation to the conservation opinion, appreciate the cooperation with the conservation officer at every stage of the project, and introduce a new evaluation system that would take into account design possibilities due to conservation constraints, comparing them with the introduced design solutions. The presented work has addressed the issue of BREEAM certification of historic building adaptation projects and proposed possible solutions to address the inequalities in evaluation. However, the authors wish to emphasise the need for further research on this topic.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Elzbieta M. Grodzka

Elzbieta M. Grodzka is an Assistant Professor at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology. The main field of research is a reconstruction and conservation of historic buildings after World War II and adaptation of historic buildings for modern use. She also participates in architectural studies of valuable historical buildings.

Chiara Solbiati

Chiara Solbiati is a bachelor’s student at Wroclaw University of Science and Technology at the faculty of Architecture and her research interest lies in sustainable development in architecture, with a particular focus on adapting buildings to meet social, economic, and ecological standards.

Notes

1. Life Cycle Assessment.