‘This is a wonderful book that should be on the desk of every architect and planner. It shows how

Wouldn’t this process be just as onerous to apply as rating tools?
It should be less onerous. As is the case in existing impact assessment processes, the amount of 
detail that is appropriate in an eco-design report would depend on the scale and complexity of the 
project. In either case, for example, if the project was likely to be resource intensive, a consideration 
of ecological waste could be required. In the end, the degree of scientific analysis required for the 
eco-design report would be a matter for the local community and government. However, we would be 
saving 
human
resources, time and energy by not measuring the wrong things. For example, as we saw 
earlier, the focus of current tools is on ‘operating energy’ (the energy used to operate a building after 
construction). This has devalued passive solar design. We invest heavily in tools to predict operating 
energy – which the electricity meter would read anyway. Operating energy is currently about four 
to ten times greater than embodied energy over the life of a typical building.
23
However, this is only 

---

94
Positive Development
because most buildings are not designed for passive solar heating, cooling and ventilating. In sunny 
Australia, for example, only about 3 per cent of homes are reported to employ passive solar design.
If buildings took advantage of passive/active solar technology, operating costs would be negligible.
In other words, there would be little need for rating tools which emphasize ‘operating’ energy if we 
used passive solar design. With full cost pricing of energy and materials, embodied energy would 
become even more significant.
Figure 8 Diagram of the sustainability standard
The new assessment system 
would require designers and/
or developers to explain why 
they could not improve social 
and ecological conditions.
Currently, developers 
prepare complicated EIAs 
or LCAs that estimate 
downstream damage. This 
retrospective orientation 
militates against (future-
oriented) design thinking.
100% positive 
impacts
Net contributions to 
the Ecological Base
Net resource
autonomy 
‘Best practice’
Typical buildings 
Current minimum
100% adverse 
impacts
The new minimum 
standard