Environmental & Facilities Services Data Provider · Head-to-head
data.gov.uk - waste datasets vs DOE Building Performance Database (BPD)
Which environmental & facilities services data provider data fits your job: data.gov.uk - waste datasets, or DOE Building Performance Database. API, files, or your warehouse. Daily, weekly, or hourly.
data.gov.uk - waste datasets
DOE Building Performance Database (BPD)
Where the fields line up
No shared field names. These two answer different questions.
| Field | data.gov.uk - waste datasets | DOE Building Performance Database |
|---|---|---|
title | documented | not in this set |
publisher | documented | not in this set |
summary | documented | not in this set |
updated | documented | not in this set |
resources[].format | documented | not in this set |
extent_latitude / extent_longitude | documented | not in this set |
frequency-of-update | documented | not in this set |
harvest_guid | documented | not in this set |
zip_code | not in this set | 5-digit ZIP code in which the building is located. |
city | not in this set | City in which the building is located. |
state | not in this set | State in which the building is located. |
climate | not in this set | ASHRAE climate zone in which the building is located. |
Coverage, side by side
| data.gov.uk - waste datasets | DOE Building Performance Database | |
|---|---|---|
| Geographic | `extent_latitude / extent_longitude` - bounding box where spatial metadata exists (53.743 to 53.575 lat on a Wakefield record) | `zip_code`, `city`, `state`, `climate` - ASHRAE zone such as 3C Warm - Marine |
What each contains
Pick by fit, not by loyalty.
| data.gov.uk - waste datasets | DOE Building Performance Database | |
|---|---|---|
| Geography | `extent_latitude / extent_longitude` - bounding box where spatial metadata exists (53.743 to 53.575 lat on a Wakefield record) | `zip_code`, `city`, `state`, `climate` - ASHRAE zone such as 3C Warm - Marine |
| Timestamp | `updated` - when the catalogue record was last refreshed (2026-07-08 on a current entry) | `year` - the measurement year (2018), beside `year_built` (1974) |
| Provenance | `publisher` - issuing body, e.g. Wakefield Metropolitan District Council | `data_source` - origin label of the contributed record, reading 'Anonymous' |
| Name/descriptor | `title` and `summary` - 'Waste Sites', 'Confidential waste' with a plain-text abstract | `building_category` / `building_type` / `facility_type` - Office, K-12 School, Data Center |
| Identity key | `harvest_guid` - persistent identifier from the publisher feed | None - no building identifier survives anonymization |
| Measured quantities | None - tonnages and coordinates live downstream in the resources each row points to | `electric_eui` 12.4, `fuel_eui` 22.0, `site_eui` 34.5, `source_eui` 88.2 kBtu/ft2/year |
| Physical plant | Absent from the dictionary | `heating` (Boiler - Steam), `cooling` (Split AC System), `wall_type` (Brick), `window_glass_layers` (Double-pane), `wall_insulation_r_value` 19 |
| Resource shape | `resources[].format` - twelve declared formats including CSV, GeoJSON, WMS, XLS | One structured response schema carrying aggregates, histograms, cross-tabs and capped random samples |
What each does better
data.gov.uk - waste datasets
Breadth of provenance, and honesty about where waste actually gets recorded in the UK. The roughly 763 records span exemption registers and hazardous waste movements held by the Environment Agency, contract registers published by the Greater London Authority, confidential-waste tonnage series from councils such as Sunderland (weights recorded in kilograms by building and date), treatment and storage site lists from North Lincolnshire, and GIS layers served for waste sites. Four nations, ninety-plus publishers, twelve declared resource formats from CSV through GeoJSON and SHP.
It is also a living index rather than a frozen compilation: catalogue updates were still landing in July 2026. And the metadata is candid enough to be useful - one sampled record, the Environment Agency's Waste Exemptions, is explicitly flagged as retired and superseded by Public Registers Online. Knowing which registers have moved house is exactly what a catalogue is for.
The trade-off cuts the other way too. Because each row is metadata about a dataset rather than the waste itself, no tonnage, permit number or site coordinate lives in the catalogue record - those sit one click downstream in whatever the publisher shipped. Records harvested from publisher feeds also vary in completeness; validating what a record promises before relying on it is part of the job. Datadory handles that cut and validation so samples arrive pre-checked.
DOE Building Performance Database
Depth per asset, and numbers you can benchmark against. Every one of the 33 fields earns its place on a building: sector and use type down to facility_type (Data Center) and building_type (K-12 School), system-level detail (air_flow_control distinguishing Variable Volume from constant volume, lighting LED, heating_fuel natural gas), envelope attributes (wall_insulation_r_value 19, double-pane glazing, built-up roof), operations (operating_hours 60 per week, occupant_density 12.5 people per 1,000 ft2) and certification outcomes (energy_star_rating 75 of 100, leed_score Gold).
Then the measurement layer: annual electric, fuel, site and source energy use intensity in kBtu/ft2/year - 12.4, 22.0, 34.5 and 88.2 respectively on one illustrative record. Those four columns are why the BPD anchors peer-group benchmarking: contributed records are converted to a standard format, cleansed and published as aggregates, histograms, cross-tabs, actuarial and regression-based peer comparisons.
Scale backs it up: more than 1.1 million buildings and roughly 1.56 million building-years, with measured years running from 1990 through the previous year. Two caveats travel with the asset. LBNL states plainly that the collection is not a statistically representative sample of the stock - unlike CBECS and RECS - and that no individual-building records are released: groups under ten buildings suppress to zero and random samples cap at 1,000 buildings. You get the distribution, never the address.
The verdict
Verdict: sample both - the object of your question decides, and the two objects do not compete. If your question concerns the UK waste estate - which councils hold which contracts, where treatment and storage sites sit, how exemption registers have migrated between services, what waste composition studies exist for a region - data.gov.uk - waste datasets is the instrument shaped for it, and its 8/10 score comes with ninety-plus publishers of breadth.
If your question concerns building physics and energy economics in the United States - how a 48,200 ft2 office of a given vintage and climate zone performs against its peers, what separates a labelled building from an unlabelled one, how operating hours move intensity - the DOE Building Performance Database answers it with measured distributions, not directory listings.
They also fail in opposite directions, which is the strongest argument for sampling both. The catalogue is exhaustive about what exists and silent about what any of it contains until you go downstream; the BPD is rich about contents and deliberately silent about identity. Cut each sample to your geographies and questions, and let returned rows make the call rather than brand familiarity.
Sample both, pick by fit. See data.gov.uk - waste datasets · See DOE Building Performance Database
Fair questions
Is data.gov.uk - waste datasets better than the DOE Building Performance Database (BPD)?
Different instruments, tied on craft - both score 8 out of 10. The UK catalogue wins whenever the object is a publication: roughly 763 records from more than 90 publishers spanning exemption registers, council contracts, site layers and composition studies. The BPD wins whenever the object is a building: 33 fields of measured systems, envelope, operations and energy intensity across 1.1 million-plus anonymized properties.
Which dataset is bigger?
It depends what you count. Records: the BPD, over 1.1 million buildings and roughly 1.56 million building-years against the catalogue's roughly 763. Reach: the catalogue, four UK nations and more than 90 publishers against one country. Depth per row: again the BPD, 33 documented fields against 10 - and it is the only side carrying measured values.
Do the two datasets overlap anywhere?
Thinly and conceptually. Both describe geography - a bounding box per catalogue record versus ZIP, city, state and climate zone per building - and both carry timestamps and provenance fields. But one row describes a dataset about waste and the other describes a building, the maps share no territory, and no key joins a harvest GUID to an anonymized property.
Which should an environmental-services team sample first?
Sample both - the split usually follows the asset base. Teams managing UK disposal contracts, site due diligence or council relationships start with [data.gov.uk - waste datasets](/datasets/environmental-facilities-services/data-gov-uk-waste-datasets). Teams benchmarking US portfolios on energy intensity, retrofit potential or certification targets start with [the DOE Building Performance Database](/datasets/environmental-facilities-services/doe-building-performance-database-bpd). Cross-border operators typically keep both feeds running.
Can Datadory deliver both datasets together?
Yes. Either record arrives alone or both ride one delivery calendar, delivered daily, weekly, or hourly - your call. There is no shared key and no shared country, so the practical pattern is parallel feeds aligned on your own entity lists rather than a forced join. Name the regions, registers and peer groups when you request the sample and it lands pre-cut, with field definitions and coverage profiles attached.