# Life Cycle Analysis Challenges through Building Rating Schemes within the European Framework
## 3 Results
### Expert Interviews  
Finding relevant quantitative data to support the described research has been met with several barriers:  
* The private character of LCA within rating schemes;
* The untraceable variety (free choice) of tools and databases used;
* The variation of approaches, scope, and inclusion criteria of LCA in the last 10 years;
* The scarcity of fully assessed buildings under comparable typologies. Early in the research process, it was seen as necessary to gain knowledge from direct sources. The conversation with the managers of each BRS was friendly and insightful for all. Summing up the feedback, we could not find data about the real performance of the certified buildings. This was also asked of another key agent, [PERSON] from DG Env, but data from the buildings tested by Level(s) from 2019 to 2020 could not be accessed due to the fact that the relationship with the testers was finished or for privacy reasons. Anyway, some initial figures are provided with the following limitations: while NF HQE numbers are very high (over 60,000 homes certified), no aggregated figures were available; BREEAM provided reference benchmarks of their \"excellent\"-rated buildings; and HPI provided average rating qualifications, which have been transformed into their own suggested comparable units. VERDE was able to provide real figures from the 2008 to 2015 period, while DGNB facilitated figures from the 2015 to 2017 period. In both cases, averages have been drawn from the data provided. Some figures for offices were \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Green Cells are “Compliant” with Level(s)** & **NF HQE** & **VERDE** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**DGNB**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**BREEAM-NL**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**HPI**} \\ \hline
**Entry Levels Indicators (1 st Version)** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** & **L1** & **L2** & **L3** \\ \hline
**1. Use-stage energy performance** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**2. Life cycle GWP** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**3. LCA for: bill of materials** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**4. LCA for: building and elemental service** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} life planning** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**5. LCA for: design for adaptability and** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} refurbishment** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**6. LCA for: design for deconstruction,** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**7. Construction and demolition waste and** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1} materials usage** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**8. LCA for: cradle-to-cradle life cycle assessment** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**9. Use-stage water consumption prediction** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**10. Time out of thermal comfort range** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \cline{1-1}
**11. LCA for: Scenarios for projected future** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ climate condition & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline
**12. Life cycle costs analysis** & & & & & & & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Gap analysis results of BRSs for all Level(s) indicators. Colour code: red (X), disconnected from Level(s) framework; yellow (empty), deviated; green(V), harmonised. also provided but have been left aside in this study. Two significant data sets have been harmonised as much as possible in Table 8 and averaged for new homes: primary energy demand (PED) and global warming potential (GWP), and both were limited to the surface area of the building (yearly, in the case of energy demand). This is in line with a recent critical literature review on environmental benchmarks for buildings found at the closing of this paper [79]. It proves that rated buildings from the BRS perform better than average buildings.