005-098 LCA

UNEP Industry and Environment April – September 2003 ◆ 5

Sustainable building and construction

Industry and Environment first coveredthe construction industry in an issuepublished in 1996 with the title “Theconstruction industry and the environ-ment” (Vol. 19, No. 2). A shift in focusover the last seven years is reflected inthe title of the current issue, “Sustain-able building and construction.”

Sustainable building and construc-tion (SBC) is a holistic, multidiscipli-nary approach. This approach is increas-ingly being advocated for buildings andinfrastructure. Another way to expressthis shift is to think of SBC as repre-senting a “sustainable built environ-ment” encompassing the structures andinfrastructure we build, the processesused to build them, and the many stake-holders involved (also see the Glossary). Thus “con-struction” per se is only part of the sustainable build-ing process.

Estimates of the amount of time we spend inthe built environment – and on it, in vehicles –range from 80 to 90%. Besides the resource andpollution issues surrounding the construction sec-tor, ensuring that the built environment is health-ful and pleasant for humans is beginning to beperceived as a crucial productivity issue.

If current patterns do not change, expansion ofthe built environment will destroy or disturb nat-ural habitats and wildlife on over 70% of theEarth’s land surface by 2032, driven mainly byincreases in population, economic activity andurbanization.1

The world population has more than doubledsince 1950. Most of this growth has taken place inthe developing world. In the next two decades,around 98% of world population growth willoccur in developing countries.2 By 2007 aroundhalf of this mushrooming population will live inurban areas. Three-quarters of the people in devel-oped countries already live in urban settlements.In developing countries the share of the popula-tion living in cities is expected to reach 40% beforethe end of this decade, compared with less than20% in 1950. Some 60% of the world’s fastestgrowing larger cities (750,000-plus) are in low-income countries.3 In terms of farmlandalone, urbanization claims as much as40,000 km2 per year.4

These demographic trends translateinto increased demand for buildings andinfrastructure. The World Bank estimatesthat by 2015 more than half China’s urbanresidential and commercial building stockwill have been constructed during the pre-vious 15 years. World infrastructure needsare estimated at US$ 2 trillion over thenext decade and a half or so (Table 1).Developing countries are expected to ac-

count for only slightly more of this amount thandeveloped ones.5

The demand for shelter is so pressing in lessdeveloped countries that it can only be met by“informal” housing – often self-built, usually ille-gal, and almost always lacking basic infrastructure.Such housing is estimated to account for 20-30%of urban growth in the largest cities in developingcountries. About 54% of the population of Lima,Peru, lives in informal housing.5

Impacts of the building andconstruction sectorBoth the existing built environment and theprocess of adding to it have numerous environ-mental and social impacts (Table 2). While mostavailable statistics related to these impacts are fordeveloped countries, experts believe on the wholethat these impacts are worse in developing than indeveloped countries. The developing world’s shareof world construction activities was 10% in 1965,29% in 1998 and still growing.6

Compared with other industrial products, build-ings and infrastructure present an unusual case inthat they are long-lasting. Structures being builttoday in developed countries will have an averagelife of 80 years. In many countries there are build-ings, bridges and other structures hundreds of yearsold. This means the design of, say, an office build-

ing or viaduct will have long-termrepercussions on a structure’s perfor-mance and environmental impacts. Toend up with a high-performance, low-impact structure, it is vital to incorpo-rate sustainability principles beginningat a project’s earliest stages.

Of course, the impacts of buildingsand construction are not all negative.Well planned structures built with sus-tainable methods and materials can behighly beneficial to both communitiesand workers. The most notable socialbenefit is the provision of constructionjobs, especially for low-skilled and/orentry-level workers.

The overall economic contributionsof the construction sector are consid-

erable. Its worldwide market volume amounts toover US$ 3 trillion and accounts for as much as10% of world GDP, depending on how the sectoris defined. Construction is the largest industrialsector in Europe (10-11% of GDP) and in theUnited States (12%). In the developing world itrepresents 2-3% of GDP. Construction alsoaccounts for over 50% of national capital invest-ment in most countries. It provides around 7% ofworld employment (28% of industrial employ-ment) with a workforce of about 111 million, 74%of which is in low-income countries. Developingcountries account for 23% of global constructionactivity – in other words, the construction industryis more labour intensive in poorer countries.

In most countries the building and constructionsector is the largest single employer. It is probablythe world’s largest industrial employer.8 Its activi-ties involve a very high multiplier effect: the Inter-national Council for Research and Innovation inBuilding and Construction (CIB) estimates that adollar spent on construction may generate up tothree dollars of economic activity in other sectors.

EmploymentPotential for growth in the sector’s labour forceremains considerable in both developing anddeveloped countries. In China the constructionworkforce tripled between 1980 and 1993, while

its share in total employment rose from2.3% to 5%.9 In Europe reducing GHGemissions from buildings by 20% wouldlead to the creation of 300,000 permanentjobs in this sector over a 10-year period(taking into account renovation, retro-fitting and maintenance), according toCICA estimates.

One important characteristic of theconstruction industry is the dominantrole of small and medium-sized enter-prises (those employing fewer than 250people, using the EU definition). Some

Sustainable building and construction: facts and figures

Note: Building sector data represent building operations only; energy use in manufacture and transport of building materials, etc., excluded.

European Union (1999)

United States(2000)

Japan(1999)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Figure 1Final energy consumption by sectors

Source: European Commission, US Department of Energy, Japanese Resource and Energy Agency, in Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies, OECD, 2003.

%

Building Transport Industry, etc.

Table 1Infrastructure availability and needs

Type of % of total Unpaved Population without GDP percountry by world roads (%) sanitation (% of capitaincome level population urban population) (US$)

high non-OECD 0.5 15.6 1.1 16,664

high OECD 14.9 18.7 2.4 27,305

upper middle 8.2 44.8 7.5 4,670

lower middle 35.5 52.8 9.5 1,195

low 40.9 71.0 25.4 408Source: World Bank

6 ◆ UNEP Industry and Environment April – September 2003


90% of construction workers worldwide areemployed by micro firms consisting of fewer than10 people.10 SMEs are also heavily involved inmaking building materials, especially in develop-ing countries, as well as in associated fields such asarchitecture and engineering. The EU construc-tion sector includes around 2.5 million construc-tion SMEs representing over 90% of all EUconstruction enterprises, 16% of all manufactur-ing, construction and service enterprises, and80% of construction turnover. Roughly 25% ofEU construction workers are self-employed, whileabout 50% work for micro firms.

In general, the construction industry is over-whelmingly male. However, in South Asia up to30% of construction workers are women, whoperform the least skilled, worst paid jobs.11 Jobsin construction are often unregistered and haz-ardous. In the UK, for example, 600 workers dieannually from asbestos-related ailments; 40% suf-fer muscular-skeletal problems and 30% have der-matitis from working with cement. Constructionaccidents kill at least 55,000 workers a year world-wide, mostly in developing countries.

Job security is a concern, especially in view ofthe use of casual labour and the growing trend tosubcontract. Some 19% of construction workersin the EU are on temporary contracts at any giventime (see the article by Alex Wharton and DavidPayne in this issue). Trade union density, i.e. thepercentage of workers who are union membersand are not self-employed, is less than 1% in con-struction in some countries (see the article by JillWells). All in all, construction has a poor image. Itis seen as providing mainly low-status, low-paidand often hazardous employment.12

Environmental effectsAmong the direct environmental consequences ofconstruction, the most significant is its consump-tion of energy and other resources. Constructionis believed to consume around half of all theresources humans take from nature (including25% of the wood harvest, according to a UnitedStates Department of Energy estimate). Construc-tion material dominates overall material flows inmost countries. Mining and quarrying of materialsused in construction generate large amounts of

pollution and waste and account for considerableland use. In the case of some metals widely used inconstruction, such as copper and zinc, shortagesare possible by the middle of this century.

In OECD countries, the building and con-struction sector as broadly defined (including pro-duction and transport of building materials)consumes 25-40% of all energy used (as much as50% in some countries) The International Ener-gy Agency estimates that, on average, one-third ofenergy end-use in the developed world goes forheating, cooling, lighting, appliances and generalservices in non-industrial (i.e. residential, com-mercial and public) buildings.

These estimates do not take into account the“embodied energy” that can be calculated forbuilding products and (with difficulty) for build-ings themselves (not all definitions of embodiedenergy count material transport). This concept,which dates to the 1970s, is essential to the life-cycle approach discussed below. It attempts to cal-culate how much energy is used in producing aparticular item. Transformation of many of theraw materials consumed in construction has par-ticularly high energy demands.

Since the amount of sustainably produced ener-gy used in buildings and construction (as in mostother areas) is relatively small, the bulk of energyuse in this sector entails emissions of greenhousegases. Most notably, cement production is a majorsource of GHG emissions, both through burningof fossil fuels and breakdown of raw materials. Vir-tually all the cement industry’s output is used inthe construction sector, especially for concrete.Twice as much concrete is used worldwide than thetotal of all other building materials put together.

Based on current trends, CO2 emissions fromthe cement industry will quadruple by 2050.13

Estimates of the industry’s contribution of globalanthropogenic CO2 emissions range from 5% toover 7%. The built environment overall is thelargest source of GHGs in Europe (in the US, onthe other hand, the largest source is transport).The built environment accounts for some 40% ofworld GHG emissions.14

Land use implications of construction are manyand varied. Much of the deforestation in develop-ing countries is due to clearing for local buildingand harvesting of timber for export. Compactionof land by buildings and infrastructure is oftenirreversible. Land use policies related to land’s per-ceived value for construction frequently result insocial inequities, especially where it is in competi-tion with energy biomass production, commercialfood crops and other uses.

In terms of reducing transport energy use anddemand for land, higher density building ispreferable to lower density. However, human liv-ing conditions can suffer unless density is com-pensated for by design. Where land is particularlyscarce, the option chosen is increasingly not tobuild but to renovate. Renovation and mainte-nance account for one-third of construction activ-ity in Europe (up to 50% in some countries). Thisshare is growing.

Pollution related to buildings and constructionis not always obvious. In addition to immediateemissions of air and water pollutants, dust andnoise during construction, pollutant concentra-tions within buildings (stemming from finishes,paints, backing materials and other components)can be over twice as high – in some cases as muchas 100 times as high – as concentrations outside.Cement production releases not only CO2 butalso NOx. Raw material processing and productmanufacturing are estimated to be responsible for20% of dioxin and furan emissions.

The impacts of buildings and construction onwater resources are not always straightforwardlyquantifiable. They range from discharges to fresh-water and coastal waters during mining and rawmaterial processing, to siltation of watercoursesfrom desforestation, on-site spillage during con-struction and run-off from surface sealing, tofreshwater consumption and wastewater genera-tion during building use.

Regarding construction and demolition waste,some OECD countries achieve a reuse and recy-cling rate of over 80%, though it should be notedthat much of the material is used in a low-value-added form, e.g. in road foundations. Overall, thissector accounts for 30-50% of total waste generat-

Figure 2Projected energy consumption applying model Danish regulation in EU countries

(climate corrected; KWh/m3/year)

Source: European Commission, in Environmentally Sustainable Buildings: Challenges and Policies, OECD, 2003.

KWh/m3/a

B DK DEU EL E F IRL I L NL A P FIN S UK

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

KWh/m3/a35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Consumption if Danish regulation applied

Consumption according to member states regulation

Table 2Main environmental and social impacts

of buildings and construction

◆ raw material extraction and consumption; relatedresource depletion

◆ land use change, including clearing of existing flora

◆ noise pollution

◆ energy use and associated emissions of greenhouse gasesa

◆ other indoor and outdoor emissions

◆ aesthetic degradation

◆ water use and wastewater generation

◆ increased transport needs (depending on siting)

◆ various effects of transport of building materials, locally and globally

◆ waste generation

◆ opportunities for corruption

◆ disruption of communities, including through inappropriate design and materials

◆ health risks on worksites and for building occupants

a. Particularly the “Kyoto gases”: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,PFCs and SF6


ed in higher-income countries. That includeswaste from renovations, which buildings generallyundergo roughly every 20 years in a typical designlife of 50 to 100 years.

The controversial question of corruption in theconstruction sector is both a social issue and anenvironmental one. In 2000 the anti-corruptionNGO, Transparency International, ranked theconstruction industry as the most willing to paybribes to government officials in emerging mar-ket economies (the arms industry was No. 2).Bribed officials may turn a blind eye to illegal dis-charges of pollution and waste. Moreover, wherecorruption involves substandard buildings orbuilding products it can lead to high death tolls inbuilding collapses and natural disasters.

Moving towards solutionsThose in the building and construction sectorwho are working to make it more sustainable rec-ommend a variety of immediate steps that can betaken to address the environmental impacts ofbuildings and construction. These include: ◆ reducing material wastage in construction,including through economic incentives such ashigher landfill fees (which also promote the fol-lowing item);

◆ increasing use of recycled waste as buildingmaterials, not only reuse of construction anddemolition waste but also incorporation of othertypes of waste in building products – as a recentstudy funded by the California Integrated WasteManagement Board confirms, recycled-contentbuilding materials generally perform as well as theequivalent standard products;◆ improving energy efficiency in buildings (e.g.see Figure 2);◆ making wiser use of water in buildings and onconstruction sites;◆ increasing structures’ service life, includingthrough built-in flexibility of use.

Longer-term approaches to reducing impactsinclude:◆ rethinking policies affecting the sector, includ-ing financial ones, and strengthening standards;◆ promoting corporate environmental and socialresponsibility in the sector, with industry-specificreporting mechanisms;◆ building public and enterprise awareness andknowledge sharing;◆ upgrading skills and worksite health and safety;◆ innovating in regard to materials, technologiesand methods, with site-appropriateness in mindand focusing on integrated, holistic research;

◆ improving data collection and indicator devel-opment.

Measures being taken to make buildings and con-struction more sustainable rely increasingly on life-cycle approaches. Life-cycle thinking in the con-struction sector takes account of every stage – from astructure’s conception to the end of its service life,and from raw material extraction to a building’sdemolition or dismantling. It also takes account ofall actors, from land-use planners and property devel-opers through building owners and users to salvagefirms and landfill operators (Table 3).

While Table 3 shows a linear, “cradle-to-grave”life cycle, the material loop can be closed to a greatextent through repeated building renovation andmaterial salvage and reuse. A variety of measuresand mechanisms exist to promote such movestowards “dematerialization” and other practicesthat make building and construction more sus-tainable (Table 4).

Clients and financingBecause designers, architects and contractors can-not always influence design decisions, sustainabil-ity criteria need to be integrated into procurement,contracts, tenders and commissioning. However,clients are not always aware of the environmental,

Model of a business case for SBCBelow are the assumptions used in comparing astandard building project to a green (“high per-formance”) project by Seattle City Light, theelectric company of Seattle, Washington, in theUnited States. It should be noted that the casewould not necessarily hold in every type of cli-mate, economic system, etc.◆ Each building is mixed use, with 20,000square feet of retail space and 80,000 square feetof office space.◆ Standard building construction cost, exclud-ing land, is US$ 100.36/square foot.◆ The green building optimizes daylighting toreduce electric lighting requirements. This alsoreduces heating, ventilation and air condition-ing requirements. Increased cost for daylightingand controls will be offset by reduced HVACcosts.◆ A raised floor for air distribution will be used inthe green building at an added core and shell costof US$ 2.00 per square foot.◆ Individual office workstation control of venti-lation, heat and lighting will be provided at a costof US$ 1500 per workstation, increasing tenantimprovement costs from US$ 10.00 to US$14.40 per square foot.◆ The resulting construction cost for the greenbuilding, excluding land, is US$ 112.58/squarefoot. (The utility adds that case studies existshowing no increase in construction cost.)

Among the results of choosing the greenbuilding:◆ Rents are 14% higher than in the standardbuilding.◆ Operation and maintenance (O&M) andenergy costs are about 30% lower.

◆ Vacancy and credit losses are down 25%.In addition, net operating income (NOI) is

27.6% higher (nearly US$ 400,000 a year),while the loan amount reflects the increased con-struction cost so that net cash flow (NOI minusloan payments) increases by somewhat less than$300,000; still, this is 63.75% more than in thestandard project. The increase in NOI raises pro-ject value by just over US$ 4 million, or 27.7%.

The rent can be increased because of advan-tages such as high-benefit lighting techniques,access to natural daylight, superior indoor airquality, the need for lower liability insurance,and fewer worker compensation cases.

Seattle City Light suggests that, depending onproject details, the comparative market valuemay be as much as twice as high, energy costs upto 90% less, O&M costs down as much as 73%,and the overall payback period less than a year.

Seattle City Light case studies (office buildings in US)Case study 1◆ 50% energy savings◆ absenteeism dropped 40% ◆ productivity increased 5%, reducing paybacktime to under one year (a 100% return oninvestment)

Case study 2◆ 40% reduction in energy ◆ early estimate of 16% productivity increasewith 4-6% increase attributed to individualworkstation environmental control ◆ thermal condition complaints reduced from40 per day to two per week.

GlossaryNo single definition of sustainable construc-tion or sustainable buildings is accepted world-wide. The European Union defines the formeras the use and/or promotion of a) environ-mentally friendly materials, b) energy efficien-cy in buildings, and c) management ofconstruction and demolition waste.

The EU definition of construction is “on-siteproduction, assembly and disassembly of resi-dential buildings, non-residential buildingsand infrastructure by specialist builders.” TheConfederation of International Contractors’Associations (CICA) defines the constructionindustry as contractors and the constructionsector as all construction-related activities/pro-fessions, including architects, engineers, mate-rial producers and facility managers.

Design-build or design and build is a systemof contracting in which the same company per-forms both architectural/engineering and con-struction functions.

Embodied energy is an estimate of the ener-gy needed to make a material or structure avail-able to users. It may include transport ofmaterials. Many practitioners argue that high-er embodied energy in materials can be justi-fied if it contributes to lower operating energy.

Facility management is the activity involv-ing “coordination of the physical workplacewith the people and work of the organization.”It integrates principles of business administra-tion, architecture and the behavioral and engi-neering sciences. (International FacilityManagement Association and US Bureau ofLabor Statistics)




social and economic benefits of sustainable build-ings and construction.

Generally, investment in the built environmenthas long come primarily from:◆ governments and international financing institu-tions for infrastructure (e.g. roads, water supply,telecommunications, power supply, sanitation) andpublic institutions such as schools and hospitals;◆ private financing for residential buildings(except some social housing), commercial proper-ty and related infrastructure.

Increasingly, private financing is playing a rolein the first category.

Many forms of public-private partnershipsoblige bidders to take operation and maintenance(O&M) costs into account as well as capital costs.One of the oldest such partnership models is“build, own, operate, transfer” (BOOT), in whichthe contractor must consider operating costs, oreven whole-life costs, from the project’s earlieststages. Today, however, contracts are generallyawarded not on the basis of the shortest periodbefore government ownership, as in the BOOTmodel, but on the smallest government stakerequired to make a project economically feasible.

Another type of public-private partnership isthe public finance initiative, in which the govern-ment makes no capital investment at all (otherthan fees to have tender documents drawn up, andpossibly investment in the land required). Insteadit undertakes, in essence, to rent a finished, fullyequipped built facility (e.g. school, hospital,prison) operated by a concessionaire.

Thus far, investment in “green” buildings hascome largely from the public sector, with sustain-able housing supported partly by governmentfunding of demonstration projects (multi-family)and partly by well off individuals (single-family).For all types of clients, education and awarenessraising are critical in promoting a trend towardsSBC. Corporate image enhancement can be a keymotivation in the commissioning of green com-mercial and industrial buildings.

Notes1. UNEP/Earthscan (2002) Global EnvironmentalOutlook 3. London.2. WRI/UNEP/WBCSD (2002) Tomorrow’sMarkets: Global Trends and Their Implications forBusiness. Paris.

3. Ibid.4. Sundquist, B. (2002) The Earth’s CarryingCapacity – Some Literature Reviews (www.all-tel.net/~bsundquist1).5. CICA (Confederation of International Con-tractors’ Associations) (2002) Industry as a Part-ner for Sustainable Development: Construction.UNEP, Paris.6. UNEP/CIB/CSIRCIDB (2002) Agenda 21 forSustainable Construction in Developing Countries.Pretoria.7. CICA, op. cit.8. Ibid.9. International Labour Office (2001) The Con-struction Industry in the 21st Century: Its Image,Employment Prospects and Skill Requirements.Geneva.10. Ibid.11. Ibid.12. Ibid.13. A Concrete Foundation. In: Tomorrow, 12:6,December 2002.12. CICA, op. cit.13. OECD (2003) Environmentally SustainableBuildings: Challenges and Policies. Paris.14. UNEP/CIB/CSIRCIDB, op. cit. ◆

Table 4Policies, measures and tools that promote SBC

Stage of Siting/design Construction/ Use Demolition/building process refurbishmen deconstruction

Policies and Codes and standards Full-cost material pricing Full-cost pricing Disposal regulationspolicy measures Zoning ordinances Regulations (e.g. Taxes Recycling legislation

Land-use planning energy efficiency) Codes and standards Taxes (e.g. landfill)Eco-design criteria Labour laws and standards Take-back regulations Monitoring andProcurement policies On-site EMSc Disclosure requirements reporting

Monitoring and Awareness programmesreporting EMS

Tools Life-cycle assessmenta EPDsd Labels/certificationf

WLCb accounting ISO 14000e Energy auditsSustainability indicators Supply chain management

Additional resources

There are links to several SBC-related re-sourceson UNEP DTIE’s International EnvironmentalTechnology Centre (IETC) Web site (www.unep.or.jp). Included is information concerningthe recently formed SBC Forum (www.unep.or.jp/ietc/sbc/index.asp) and downloadable ver-sions of the Melbourne Principles for SustainableCities in English, Spanish and French (e.g.www.unep.or.jp/ietc/focus/melbourneprinci-ples/english.pdf).

For further information, contact: InternationalEnvironmental Technology Centre (IETC), 2-110 Ryokuchi Koen, Tsurumi-ku, Osaka 538-0036, Japan, Tel: +81-6-6915-4581, Fax: +81-6-6915-0304, E-mail: [email protected].

To learn more about the magazine SustainableBuilding, UNEP DTIE’s partner in this issue ofIndustry and Environment, see: www.aeneas.nl/english.

Upcoming eventsModern Earth Building 2003, international con-ference and exhibition, 24-26 October 2003, Berlin(www.moderner-lehmbau.com/english/pro-gramm/index.html)

Global Summit on Performance-BasedBuilding Codes, 3-5 November 2003, Washing-ton, D.C., (www.iccsafe.org/calendar/ircc.html)

2005 World Sustainable Building Conference,September, Tokyo (www.sb05.com) and related2004 events (www.sb04.org)

CIB 2003 International Conference on Smartand Sustainable Built Environment, 19-21November 2003, Brisbane, Australia (www.sasbe2003.qut.com)

CIB World Building Congress 2004, 2-7 May2004,Toronto, Canada (www.cib2004.ca)

Table 3Who, what and when in the building process

Stage Siting/design Construction/ Use Demolition/refurbishment deconstruction

Actors Developers Owners Owners ContractorsOwners Architects and engineers Tenants RecyclersArchitects and engineers Contractors Building managers SalvagersFinance institutions Material suppliers Operation and Landfill/incineratorGovernment authorities Labourers maintenance personnel managers

Government authorities Government authorities Government Finance institutions authorities

Actions and Choices affecting: Building materialsa Chemicals Chemicalsinputs land use Chemicals Energy Energy

material use Energy Water Waterenergy and water needs Water Labour Labouraesthetics Labour Equipmenttransport and mobility Equipment

Environment- Landscape alteration Raw material extraction and Indoor emissionsc Wasterelated impacts Transport patterns transformation impactsb Waste Noiseand risks Building performance Waste Wastewater Dust

(e.g. energy efficiency) Run-off Heat Release of hazardous Noise GHGs materialsTraffic Soil compaction and Soil/water/air pollution Landscape impairment contamination (if landfilled/Dust Traffic incinerated)Pollutant emissions

and discharges

a) e.g. wood, steel and other metals, cement, stone, aggregate, bricks and other ceramic products, paint and other coatings,glass, plasticsb) e.g. air/water/soil pollution, deforestation, energy use, resource depletionc) e.g. VOCs, formaldehyde, ammonia, carcinogens, fibres, dust, radiation

a) for building or product, e.g. Athena (US DOE), BRI LCA(Japan)b) whole-life costc) environmental management system

d) environmental product declarations, e.g. MVDB(Denmark), MRPI (Netherlands), BVC (Sweden)e) under developmentf) e.g. Blue Eco Angel (Germany), Swan (Norway)



Probably no sector has more potential to con-tribute to the achievement of sustainabledevelopment than building and construc-

tion. But this sector is very broad and its organi-zation is fragmented. The application of measuresdirected towards achieving sustainable buildingand construction (SBC) requires close coopera-tion among various professionals, decision mak-ers and other stakeholders.

The many international organizations in thesector have important roles to play in accom-plishing such non-traditional cooperation, incommunicating how potentially important thesector is to sustainable development, and in

attracting the kind of resources that thus far havemore often been made available to politicallymore “sexy” sectors.

In support of this sector-wide cooperation, con-sensus-based definitions are needed regardingwhat the building and construction sector com-prises, who the stakeholders are, and the mainissues involved.

Sectoral contributions to sustainabledevelopmentIt is important to first define the sector’s possiblecontributions to progress in sustainable develop-ment. They can be broken down into various

types of measures, each involving different typesof organizations and different stakeholders.

For instance, in the area of sustainable construc-tion per se – that is, the sustainable production,maintenance and demolition of buildings and ofinfrastructure such as roads – related measuresmight include the use of: ◆ local materials that do not require long-distance,energy-consuming transport;◆ technologies that generate less constructionwaste and require less energy; ◆ methods of demolition (or preferably decon-struction) that result in more reuse of materials.

Regarding sustainable buildings and built envi-ronment (buildings and infrastructure that helpachieve, or are components of, sustainable devel-opment), examples of relevant measures are thedesign of healthful, less energy-consuming build-ings and urban planning that discourages the useof private motorized transport.

In addition, as in any sector, the use of localrather than imported contractors contributes tolocal and national socio-economic development,and responsible behaviour by employers improvessocial sustainability. However, this article willfocus on measures specific to the buildings andconstruction field.

DefinitionsResearch and technology development (RTD)programmes related to sustainable building andconstruction, especially in developed countries,tend to emphasize the areas of:◆ energy, with RTD aiming to reduce energy con-sumption and promote use of renewable energysources, such as wind and solar energy;◆ waste, including waste prevention throughdesign for reuse as well as recycling of construc-tion materials and waste management;◆ measurement and prevention of the negativeenvironmental impacts of construction.

These are indeed important, but SBC canpotentially mean much more. Proper definition ofterms will help describe the full scope of potentialmeasures geared towards achieving sustainabledevelopment.

To many people, the building and constructionsector or industry – there is not even a single termacknowledged worldwide – essentially means con-struction firms, general contractors, and perhapsspecialized subcontractors. A broader definition,as implicitly used by some, includes manufacturersof construction materials, components and equip-ment, and perhaps engineering and design firms.

Realizing the sector’s potential forcontributing to sustainable development

Wim Bakens, Secretary General, International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB),

Postbox 1837, 3000 BV Rotterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected])

SummaryTo support cooperation in the sustainable building and construction sector, consensus-baseddefinitions are needed with regard to what this sector consists of, who the principal stake-holders are and the main issues that need to be addressed. Defining terms helps identify therange of measures that could be adopted, with the overall aim of achieving sustainable devel-opment. If the various actors are to take actions that entail non-traditional forms of coopera-tion, they need to acknowledge that they are part of the same stakeholder community andbelong to the same sector, however this sector may be defined. The publications Agenda 21on Sustainable Construction and Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction in DevelopingCountries, together with the EU CRISP project, can function as cornerstones of a conceptualframework and terminology covering every aspect of SBC.

RésuméPour soutenir la coopération en matière de développement durable de l’industrie de la con-struction, il faut définir de façon consensuelle la composition de cette industrie, quels sont lesprincipaux acteurs et les problèmes à aborder. Le fait de définir les termes aide à déterminer lesdiverses mesures qui pourraient être adoptées dans le but général de parvenir au développe-ment durable. Si les divers acteurs doivent prendre des mesures qui supposent des formes decoopération non traditionnelles, ils doivent reconnaître qu’ils appartiennent à la même com-munauté et au même secteur, quelle que soit la façon dont il est défini. Des publications commeAgenda 21 on Sustainable Construction et Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction inDeveloping Countries, ainsi que le projet CRISP de l’UE, pourraient servir de fondement à uncadre conceptuel et à une terminologie couvrant tous les aspects du développement durable del’industrie de la construction.

ResumenPara apoyar la cooperación en el sector de las edificaciones y la construcción sostenibles esnecesario definir de manera consensual en qué consiste el sector, quiénes son los principalesinteresados directos y cuáles son las cuestiones fundamentales que hay que abordar. Definir lostérminos ayuda a identificar las distintas medidas que deben adoptarse con miras al objetivogeneral de lograr un desarrollo sostenible. Si los distintos actores van a tomar acciones queconllevan formas no tradicionales de cooperación, tienen que aceptar que son parte de unamisma comunidad de interesados directos y que pertenecen a un mismo sector, como quieraque se defina este sector. Las publicaciones Programa 21 para la Construcción Sostenible yPrograma 21 para la Construcción Sostenible en Países en Desarrollo junto con el proyec-to CRISP de la Unión Europea pueden hacer las veces de piedra angular de un marco concep-tual y de terminología que cubra todos los aspectos del sector de la construcción sostenible.



But to be able to identi-fy a maximum of potentialmeasures to achieve SBC,along with the relevantinternational organiza-tions and other stakehold-ers to be incorporated intothe debate, it would bebest to have a clear under-standing of what we aretalking about.

Thus, for the purposesof this article, the buildingand construction sector isdefined as all the profes-sionals, firms and organi-zations (and their representative associations) con-tributing to the development, maintenance,management and demolition/deconstruction ofbuildings and other construction making up thebuilt environment.

Figure 1 shows the various components of thisbroad definition in the form of a matrix. It is com-posed of three levels of buildings/construction andfive phases in the buildings/construction process,as traditionally organized. In each cell of thismatrix different professionals are at work, differ-ent stakeholders are involved, and different deci-sion-making processes are crucial. The matrixillustrates both the complexity and the wide scopeof the building and construction sector, whichmust be addressed when defining the stakehold-ers and potential measures to achieve SBC.

Why is it important to have such a wide-rang-ing and complex definition, one that in fact dif-fers from other authoritative definitions, e.g. thosegiven in the ISO, CEN (the European Committeefor Standardization) and ASTM internationaltechnical standards?

Many of the known, potentially importantmeasures, if they are to be successfully applied,require cooperation by professionals, stakeholdersand decision makers who are traditionally operat-ing in different cells of the matrix and often do notfeel that they are part of the same sector or indus-try. For example:◆ An architect – an actor in the cell “Design andengineering” x “(Whole) buildings and the imme-diate built environment” – designs a housing pro-ject with a specific kind of south-facing façade, forreasons related to a desire to reduce energy use.But the city plan, drawn up by an urban planner –an actor in the cell “Programming and planning”x “(The wider) built environment” – does notallow for this. It will take close cooperationbetween these two professionals and the relateddecision makers, who work for agencies tradi-tionally unrelated to the sector, to successfullyaddress this dilemma.◆ A facility manager – an actor in the cell “Main-tenance and management” x “(Whole) buildingsand the immediate built environment” – wants tointroduce a method to control heating per roomin a building, but construction of the buildingdoes not allow for this because of the technologychosen by the contractor – an actor in the cell“Construction” x “(Whole) buildings and the

immediate built environment”.◆ A building owner – an actor in the cell “Main-tenance and management” x “(Whole) buildingsand the immediate built environment” – wants toencourage those who work in the building tocommute by public transport, but the responsiblecity planner – an actor in the cell “Programmingand planning” x “(The wider) built environ-ment”) – turns down a request to adjust the zon-ing regulations to allow for a bus stop near thebuilding.

Each of these everyday examples contains ameasure that could help make building and con-struction more sustainable. This underlines theneed for different actors to cooperate.

For the various actors to be successful in takingmeasures that may require non-traditional coop-eration, they must realize that they are part of thesame stakeholder community and that they allbelong to the same sector, however wide-rangingand complex its definition.

This is not to say that programmes involvingonly a single cell in the matrix are in vain. Theymay motivate or enable people to apply simplemeasures (and there are many of those) that donot require non-traditional cooperation. Yet allthe known “big” measures, from which substan-tial breakthrough may be expected, do requiresuch cooperation. Thus “the sector” must really

act like one, with sector-wide cooperation.

StakeholdersThe next step is to deter-mine which of the manystakeholders have decisiveroles in applying morecomplex and far-reachingmeasures to building andconstruction, and whoshould be primarily tar-geted by awareness-rais-ing and capacity-buildingcampaigns.

To make it somewhateasier to answer this question, let’s assume thatproperly motivated, educated and facilitated pro-fessionals are available in all situations to carry outproper planning, design, construction, manage-ment/maintenance and deconstruction. This isoversimplifying things; in many countries, espe-cially developing ones, such professionals may notbe available. The assumption also ignores the factthat there is often no consensus-based profession-al opinion on how appropriate certain tools andtechnologies are for sustainable building and con-struction: examples are the various methods ofassessing the environmental impacts of buildings,and methods of defining and measuring sustain-ability performance indicators.

If we nevertheless assume that the requiredknowledge, tools and technologies are available,as are the professionals to apply them, which keydecision makers will ensure that these profession-als do a proper job? Who is actually in the driver’sseat?

The answer will vary according to market seg-ment and country. The key decision makers on,say, subsidized housing in the Netherlands willdiffer from those dealing with commercial build-ings in Japan or infrastructure projects in Chile.Generally speaking, however, the decisive decisionmakers when it comes to incorporating sustain-ability measures in building and construction pro-jects are often:◆ local governments, including local politiciansand agencies;◆ project developers, the individuals or firms thatcommission buildings and other projects on acommercial basis to be sold or handed over toowners (note, though, that in many countries,especially developing ones, commercial developersdo not exist – at least not yet);◆ owners of buildings and other constructionworks in countries where the building and con-struction market allows them to influence majorplanning and design decisions, directly or indi-rectly. Examples are housing cooperatives, gov-ernment building agencies (which in somecountries are expected to set an example) andfirms, which sometimes own a very large numberof buildings;◆ national and local regulatory agencies, giventhat the above decision makers usually have towork within the framework of national (and oftenalso local) regulatory systems, including codes and

Figure 1Components of the building and construction sector

Levels of building andconstruction

Construction materials, components and technologies

Phases of the building and construction process

(Whole) buildings andthe immediate built environment

(The wider) builtenvironment (includingurban issues)

Programmingand planning

Design andengineering

Construction Maintenance,management

Demolition,deconstruction



standards for building and construction, and per-haps even including references to energy perfor-mance ratings, environmental impact assessmentsand other rating and labeling systems.

Unfortunately, these four often decisive actorsare usually poorly represented in internationaldebates on sustainable building and construction,while most of the various sector professionals –urban planners, architects, engineers, contractors,suppliers, manufacturers – are generally repre-sented by well organized international associationsthat do take active roles in such debates. Yet thelatter often complain that their members are readyand able to contribute to sustainability in the sec-tor, but are seldom asked to or allowed to by thedecision makers. Meanwhile the RTD communi-ty keeps developing concepts, methods and toolsand analyzing why they do not have the envi-sioned impact.

With some exceptions, these three groups(actual decision makers, building and construc-tion professionals, and researchers) seldom showmuch willingness to cooperate towards a commongoal of making building and construction sus-tainable. Their strategic agendas are not oftenaligned, and their international organizations arenot equally represented in international debates.In fact, many of the international debates on sus-tainable building and construction, while aimingfor international strategic or action-orientedagendas, often involve only research topics or, atbest, just a few types of professionals.

Joint framework and terminologyOn the few occasions when representatives ofdecision makers, professionals and researchers dohave joint debates on SBC, they often seem to bespeaking different languages, based upon differ-ing understandings of what SBC entails, differingcultural and educational backgrounds, and differ-ing roles and interests – along with differing defi-nitions of “the” issues, priorities and possiblesolutions.

A conceptual framework is needed, one thatcovers all aspects of SBC and incorporates clearterminology that can be understood and used byall parties concerned.

Three existing publications or projects could becornerstones of such a framework and terminolo-gy. All aim to cover every aspect of SBC, in itsbroadest sense, in an integrated and internallyconsistent system: Agenda 21 on Sustainable Con-struction; Agenda 21 on Sustainable Constructionin Developing Countries; and the European CRISPprojects on SBC performance indicators.

Agenda 21 on SustainableConstructionThis publication was produced in English in 2000by the International Council for Research andInnovation in Building and Construction (CIB)in cooperation with RILEM, CERF, the Interna-tional Energy Agency (IEA) and the Internation-al Society for Indoor Air Quality and Climate(ISIAQ). It was intended to relate the general,non-sector oriented statements on sustainabledevelopment in the original Agenda 21 (from the

1992 Rio Earth Summit) to the more specificSBC agendas needed for research and action percountry, per stakeholder and/or per aspect ofSBC. In the process, it aims to provide the kind offramework and terminology that (if used) wouldmake national, stakeholder-oriented and aspect-oriented agendas compatible.

Agenda 21 on Sustainable Construction distin-guishes among the social, economic and environ-mental aspects of sustainable development forthree levels of SBC:◆ materials and components; ◆ buildings and the micro built environment; ◆ urban environments.

It indicates possible objectives, barriers, chal-lenges and actions for further movement towardsSBC in the areas of:◆ products and buildings;◆ resource consumption;◆ process and management;◆ urban development; ◆ social, cultural and economic issues.

This publication has been translated into Spanish,Portuguese, Czech and Catalan. A Russian version isin the works. The English and Czech versions can bedownloaded from, respectively, www.cibworld.nl/pages/begin/AG21.html and www. cibworld.nl/pages/begin/CzechA21.html. For the other versions,contact the CIB Secretariat at [email protected].

Agenda 21 on SustainableConstruction in Developing CountriesAgenda 21 on Sustainable Construction was strong-ly dominated by thinking about what could orshould be accomplished in developed countries.Barriers and challenges regarding SBC in devel-oping countries are substantially different becauseof social, economic and institutional characteris-tics – so much so that some of the suggestedapproaches may not be feasible for developingcountries.

Consequently, a project was begun to producea special agenda for developing countries. Agenda21 on Sustainable Construction in Developing

Countries was published in 2002 by the SouthAfrican research agency CSIR Building and Con-struction Technology (known as Boutek) withfunding by CIB, UNEP-DTIE-IETC, Boutekand the South African Construction IndustryDevelopment Board. It can be downloaded atwww.csir.co.za/akani/2002/nov/01.html.

This agenda is not so much a conceptual frame-work, but rather is more action-oriented thanAgenda 21 on Sustainable Construction. It focuseson short, medium and long-term actions to devel-op technological, institutional and culturalenablers for SBC in developing countries.

The CRISP projectThe European Thematic Network on Construc-tion and City Related Sustainability Indicators(known as CRISP) is funded by the EuropeanCommission. Led by the Centre Scientifique etTechnique du Bâtiment (CSTB) of France andVTT Building Technology of Finland, it alsoinvolves 22 other European organizations. It isworking to develop an integrated system of per-formance indicators and related assessment meth-ods for sustainability in the building andconstruction sector – as broadly defined.

More information on the project, its currentstatus and expected outcome can be found athttp://crisp.cstb.fr. The results, presented at a con-ference in late June 2003, are expected to be pub-lished in October 2003.

It is hoped that use of this publication and theAgenda 21 books will improve understandingamong international and national organizationsrepresenting the various decision makers, profes-sionals and other stakeholders as regards applica-tion of SBC measures, and that it will helpharmonize the agendas for action that are beingdeveloped.

Sustainable development and thebuilding and construction sectorThe main challenges facing the building and con-struction sector in achieving SBC may besummed up as follows:◆ The sector pays lip service to the social and eco-nomic dimensions of SBC, but they are not wellunderstood, let alone appropriately incorporatedin decision making related to building and con-struction projects.◆ There is no clear, consensus-based definition ofthe sector that includes all stakeholders andenables them to feel part of a stakeholder com-munity, with joint responsibility.◆ In many international debates local govern-ments, project developers, owners and regulatoryagencies are not well represented.◆ A common conceptual framework and key ter-minology are lacking, which impedes efforts toreach a common basis of understanding of theissues to be jointly addressed.

To these issues should be added what is perhapsthe biggest challenge in efforts to achieve SBC:lack of resources to address the decisive issues.

For example, among the multitude of eventsthat took place as part of or in conjunction withthe World Summit on Sustainable Development



(WSSD) last year in Johannesburg, only onefocused on SBC: the launching of the GlobalAlliance for Building Sustainability (GABS).Among the thousands of WSSD attendees, fewerthan 100 demonstrated any interest in buildingand construction issues.

The situation in general is much the same –especially as regards politicians, but also on thepart of the general public, which is directly affect-ed. Few seem to realize, or have a real interest in,the enormous contributions that the building andconstruction sector could make towards sustain-able development. We in the sector are all awareof the magnitude of its social and economicimpacts, the scale of employment in the sector, theamount of waste it generates, the energy it con-sumes, and the long lives of its products. Howev-er, somehow we are not able to get the messageacross to the political figures who establish nation-al and international RTD budgets in support ofsustainable development.

The European Commission, for example, maybe the single biggest financer of RTD worldwide,and its strategy – for example, in the Sixth Frame-work Programme – explicitly presents contribu-tions to sustainable development as a key goal. Yetit prefers to focus its considerable resources onmore high-tech, mediagenic sectors.

Clearly the building and construction sectorhas a major communication problem. Policy mak-ers, politicians and other decision makers onresources for sustainable development do notseem to recognize the sector’s potential impor-tance and prefer to fund other sectors. For themany international organizations that representstakeholders in the building and construction sec-tor, this may be the biggest challenge: to joinforces, jointly develop a strong message aboutwhat the sector is capable of and how it wants toplay a substantial role in achieving sustainabledevelopment, and convince those who allocatenational and international resources that a dollarspent on RTD for sustainable development inbuilding and construction will have a biggerimpact than in any other sector.

Developments towards worldwidesector cooperationOrganization of the building and constructionsector is very fragmented: all professionals havetheir own representative organizations, and almostall organizations focus on one specific role in theprocess (e.g. planning, design, construction, facil-ities management) and/or on one level of activity(construction materials and components, wholebuildings, the built environment). There is littleintegrated or holistic thinking. This situation is

reflected in the scope and objectives of almost allinternational organizations in the sector. Most, ifnot all, state that contributing to SBC is amongtheir prime strategic objectives, but each goesabout achieving this in its own way, reflecting itsown members’ interests and almost never in coop-eration with other international organizations.The organizations that do incorporate other play-ers’ roles and other levels often focus on one aspectof SBC, such as energy consumption or renewableenergy for buildings, or waste from construction.

When looking at initiatives directed towards amore integrated, inclusive approach to SBC in,say, the last five years, at the international level fiveare of potentially major importance.

CIB: International Council for Research andInnovation in Building and ConstructionAs its name indicates, CIB has a strong focus onresearch and innovation. However, its membersinclude representatives of all professions and otherstakeholders in the sector, and its objective is tostimulate and actively facilitate worldwideexchange and cooperation. CIB’s worldwidemembership and wide scope are reflected in itsprojects, covering all aspects of building and con-struction. It has concentrated on the theme ofSBC since 1995, having refocused many of itsexpert commissions and established new ones,undertaken international cooperative research andconferences, and issued publications such as theAgenda 21 books mentioned above. It has alsolaunched strategic partnerships on SBC withinternational organizations such as the IEA,ISIAQ, the International Federation of Surveyorsand UNEP DTIE’s International EnvironmentalTechnology Centre (IETC), which is the focalpoint for SBC within UNEP. For a summary ofCIB activities especially related to SBC, seewww.cibworld.nl/pages/begin/Pro2.html.

iiSBE: International Initiative for SustainableBuilt EnvironmentsLaunched as an organization in 2000, iiSBe hasprimarily individual experts as members. Theirjoint objective is to facilitate and promote theadoption of policies, methods and tools to accel-erate the movement towards a global sustainablebuilt environment. A key activity is the manage-ment of the Green Building Challenge process,whose intent is to develop the theory and practiceof environmental performance systems for build-ings. Other activities include the establishment ofa dedicated RTD database and joint responsibili-ty, with CIB, for a series of international Sustain-able Building conferences. More information canbe found at http://iisbe.org.

GABS: Global Alliance for BuildingSustainabilityGABS was launched in 2002 at WSSD as a vol-untary alliance of individuals and organizations.Its objective is to raise awareness for sustainabledevelopment in four areas: land, property, con-struction and development. Although at presentit functions as a “virtual” organization only, it hasbeen recognized by the United Nations as a “Type2 partnership.” For more information, seewww.earth-summit.net.

SBC ForumUNEP DTIE launched the Sustainable Buildingand Construction Forum in 2003, with the objec-tive of facilitating dialogue and exchange of infor-mation among key stakeholders (and with theirconstituencies) on issues related to sustainabilityin building and construction. Members of thisplatform are international organizations repre-senting professionals, decision makers and otherstakeholders working towards SBC. Informationon the SBC Forum can be found at www.unep.or.jp/ietc/sbc/index.asp.

SB04/05 ConferencesCIB, iiSBE, and (more recently) UNEP DTIE areresponsible for a series of international confer-ences that have developed into major events onthe SBC scene worldwide. They bring togetherthe widest possible range of experts to discuss var-ious aspects of SBC. The next main SustainableBuilding Conference is schedule for Tokyo in2005, with preparatory regional conferences inEastern Europe, Southern Africa, Latin Americaand Asia in 2004. These events are expected to bea focal point for many national and internationalprojects.

Those responsible for these organizations andinitiatives are beginning to recognize the need tocooperate or at least align their activities as much aspossible. At the same time, platforms are beingestablished for the more focused or specializedinternational organizations that will contribute toSBC. So far, most activities are more or less volun-tary and somewhat incidental, or not really com-mitment based. But they could provide the foun-dation for a further, possibly decisive step. Manyin the field believe the time may be almost right tostart addressing the possibility of establishing aworldwide SBC centre in which internationalorganizations overcome traditional differences,learn to speak the same language, define their com-mon goal for SBC, and join forces to present theworld with a united sector whose contribution toachieving sustainable development may be biggerthan that of any other single sector. ◆



As the global flow of advanced architecturalmaterials grows with the expanding globaleconomy, and as even traditional dwellings

built with local materials begin to put pressure onnatural resources in developing countries, envi-ronmental policy makers, business leaders andgovernments worldwide are increasingly embrac-ing energy and material efficiency to mitigate theimpacts of architecture.

But perhaps eco-efficiency’s moment has past.“Doing more with less” played a valuable role inslowing ecological destruction in the late 20th cen-tury, but it is not up to the challenges presentedby the kind of growth and global change expectedin the 21st.

Certainly, eco-efficient measures such as theEuropean Union’s national targets for energy andmaterial efficiency are laudable attempts to sus-

tain human health and economic growth. Butusing less fuel to heat energy-efficient highrises orsending less building material to landfills does notaddress the deep flaws of contemporary architec-ture and industry; it simply limits the negativeimpact of poor design.

The result, an easing of ecological stress, hasbeen an important step towards a more just andhealthful world. But it is yesterday’s step. The timehas come to adopt a truly hopeful strategy thatwill solve rather than merely alleviate the prob-lems associated with buildings and construction, astrategy that will transform architecture into a cel-ebration of a human ecological footprint withwholly positive effects.

Yesterday’s ecological footprintTo move towards a sustaining, life-supportinghuman footprint, it is worthwhile to take a closelook at the ideas and practices informing sustain-able architecture today. The realization that con-ventional, modern architecture is not sustainableover the long term is not new. Constructing andmaintaining new buildings rivals the global econ-omy’s entire manufacturing sector in material andenergy use. For over a decade UNEP and otherinternational bodies, along with an expanding net-work of NGOs, have been striving to shift the pri-orities of governments, businesses and architectstowards more environmentally sound practices.

But how effective are the typical approaches todesign for sustainability? Most are aimed at usingenergy and material more efficiently, a strategythat grows from the idea that decoupling materi-al use from economic growth can sustain archi-tecture and industry over the long term. Thiswould seem to be a critical insight. A report by theWorld Resources Institute projects a 300% rise inenergy and material use as world population andeconomic activity increase over the next 50 years.As long as economic growth implies increasedmaterial use, it warns, “there is little hope of lim-iting the impacts of human activity on the natur-al environment.” But, the report continues, ifindustry can become more efficient, using lessmaterial to provide the goods and services peoplewant, economic growth can be sustained – andthus decoupled from resource extraction and envi-ronmental harm.1

The same study found, however, that despite 25years of dematerialization by five of the world’s

Towards a sustaining architecture for the 21st century: the promise of cradle-to-cradle design

William McDonough, William McDonough + Partners, Architecture and Community Design, 410 E. Water Street, Charlottesville, Virginia 22902, USA

([email protected]).

Michael Braungart, EPEA Internationale Umweltforschung GmbH, Feldstrasse 36, 20357 Hamburg, Germany ([email protected])

SummaryCradle-to-cradle design is an ecologically intelligent approach to architecture and industrythat involves materials, buildings and patterns of settlement which are wholly healthful andrestorative. Unlike cradle-to-grave systems, cradle-to-cradle design sees human systems asnutrient cycles in which every material can support life. Materials designed as biological nutri-ents provide nourishment for nature after use; technical nutrients circulate through industrialsystems in closed-loop cycles of production, recovery and remanufacture. Following a science-based protocol for selecting safe, healthful ingredients, cradle-to-cradle design maximizes theutility of material assets. Responding to physical, cultural and climactic settings, it createsbuildings and community plans that generate a diverse range of economic, social and eco-logical value in industrialized and developing countries.

RésuméLes méthodes de conception qui envisagent un produit depuis sa production jusqu’à la valori-sation de ses résidus constituent une approche écologiquement intelligente de l’architecture etde l’industrie qui créent des matériaux, des bâtiments et des modèles d’établissement par-faitement sains et stimulants. Contrairement aux méthodes dites « de bout en bout », ellesconsidèrent les systèmes humains comme des cycles de substances nutritives où chaque matéri-au a un rôle à jouer dans le maintien de la vie. Les matériaux étudiés comme des substancesnutritives biologiques servent de nourriture à la nature après usage ; les substances nutritivestechniques circulent dans les systèmes industriels selon des cycles de production, de valorisa-tion et de reconditionnement à boucle fermée. Respectant un protocole à fondements scien-tifiques pour sélectionner des ingrédients présentant une totale innocuité et bons pour la santé,les méthodes de conception qui envisagent le produit depuis sa production jusqu’à la valori-sation de ses résidus renforcent le potentiel des ressources en matériaux. Adaptées au contextephysique, culturel et climatique, elles créent des bâtiments et des projets d’intérêt collectifgénérateurs de valeurs économiques, sociales et écologiques, dans les pays industrialiséscomme dans les pays en développement.

ResumenEl diseño “cradle to cradle” (múltiples ciclos de vida) es un planteamiento ecológico inteligentede la arquitectura y la industria que crea materiales, edificios y patrones de asentamiento total-mente sanos y reparadores. Diferente de los sistemas “cradle to grave” (ciclo de vida único),el diseño “cradle to cradle” considera los sistemas humanos como ciclos nutrientes en los quecada material puede sustentar la vida. Los materiales diseñados como nutrientes biológicosproveen alimento para la naturaleza después de ser utilizados. Los nutrientes técnicos circulanen sistemas industriales en ciclos cerrados de producción, recuperación y remanufactura. Sigu-iendo un protocolo establecido sobre bases científicas para seleccionar ingredientes seguros ysanos, el diseño “cradle to cradle” aprovecha al máximo la utilidad de los valores materiales.De acuerdo al medio físico, cultural o climático, crea edificios y planes comunitarios que gen-eran una amplia gama de valores económicos, sociales y ecológicos tanto en naciones indus-trializadas como en países en desarrollo.



most potent economies, waste and pollution inthose nations had increased by as much as 28%.Though many European nations in the past tenyears have achieved significant reductions inwaste, they are merely reaching for sustainability,which is, after all, only a minimum condition forsurvival.

It is true that efficiently constructed buildingscan cut waste, and that lighter materials can min-imize resource consumption. But while designersmay make material substitutions – super-efficientglass, triple glazing, recycled plastic – the chem-istry of materials in efficient buildings tends to bethe same as that in their more gluttonous con-temporaries. And that still presents a serious threatto human health.

Materials and human healthIndeed, none of the materials used to make con-temporary buildings is specifically designed to behealthful for people. Even a cursory inventorybegins to suggest some of the challenges facingarchitects.

Consider the ubiquitous use of polyvinyl chlo-ride. Better known as PVC or vinyl, it is com-monly used for windows, doors, siding, flooring,wall coverings, interior surfaces and insulation.Many PVC formulations contain plasticizers andtoxic heavy metals such as cadmium and lead.Plasticizers are suspected of disrupting humanendocrine systems, cadmium is known to be car-cinogenic, and lead is a neurotoxin.

Equally common are the volatile organic com-pounds, some of which are suspected carcinogensand immune system disruptors, which are releasedfrom particleboard, paints, textiles, adhesives andcarpets. Design flaws that trap moisture in build-ings and add mould to the substances foulingindoor air, as well as the products developed tofight mould, appear to be generating a permanentbreeding ground for resistant microorganisms.The widespread presence of wood preservativesand lead rounds out this formidable array ofharmful materials.

Energy efficient buildings, which are designedto require less heating and cooling, and thus lessair circulation, can make things worse. A recentstudy in Germany found that air quality insideseveral highly rated energy efficient buildings indowntown Hamburg was nearly four times worsethan on the dirty, car-clogged street.2 For all thecare taken to save energy by keeping out the ele-ments with better insulation and sealed windows,no one considered the long-term effects of sealingin the chemically laden carpets, upholsteries,paints and adhesives used to finish the interiors.

The effects are hard to ignore. When buildingswith reduced air-exchange rates are common, soare health problems. In Germany, where tax cred-its support the construction of energy efficientbuildings, allergies affect 42% of children aged sixto seven, largely due to the poor quality of indoorair.3

Eco-efficient buildings also have a culturalimpact. Following the old modernist aesthetic,they tend to be steel and glass boxes short on freshair and natural light, their internal ecosystems

divorced from their surroundings. Whether locat-ed in Frankfurt or Indonesia, they are the same.Architecture critic James Howard Kunstler hascalled such structures “intrinsically despotic build-ings that [make] people feel placeless, powerless,insignificant, and less than human.”4

Are these the kind of buildings we want all overthe world? Can’t we do better?

Cradle-to-cradle designWe can. Cradle-to cradle design raises an entirelydifferent agenda. Rather than seeing materials as awaste management problem, as in the cradle-to-grave system, cradle-to-cradle design is based on theclosed-loop nutrient cycles of nature, in which thereis no waste. By modelling human designs on theseregenerative cycles, cradle-to-cradle design seeks,from the start, to create buildings, communitiesand systems that generate wholly positive effects onhuman and environmental health. Not less wasteand fewer negative effects, but more positive effects.Imagine, for example, buildings that make oxygen,sequester carbon, fix nitrogen, distill water, providehabitat for thousands of species, accrue solar ener-gy as fuel, build soil, create microclimate, changewith the seasons, and are beautiful.

One need not simply imagine such places. Byclearly understanding the chemistry of naturalprocesses and their interactions with human pur-pose, architects can create buildings that aredelightful, productive and regenerative by design.This represents a radical shift: from inanimate,one-size-fits-all structures into which we plugpower and largely toxic materials, to buildings aslife-support systems embedded in the materialand energy flows of particular places. The pres-ence of such buildings around the world suggeststhat human activity can indeed create footprintsto delight in rather than lament.

This is not just wishful thinking or “concept”design. The cradle-to-cradle philosophy is drivinga growing movement devoted to developing safematerials, products, supply chains and manufac-turing processes throughout architecture andindustry. It is being adopted by some of theworld’s most influential corporations, includingBASF, the world’s largest chemical company;Shaw Industries, the world’s largest carpet maker;Ford Motor and its major suppliers in the autoindustry; and a host of prestigious designers andmanufacturers of textiles, furniture and otherobjects. Even in nations as vast and influential asChina, organizations such as the China-US Cen-ter for Sustainable Development are adopting thisnew paradigm to develop healthful buildings, safeindustrial processes and sustainable communityplans.

Here’s why. Cradle-to-cradle design is animatedby ecological intelligence. In the natural world – agrand, evolving system based on hundreds of mil-lions of years of research and development – theprocesses of each organism contribute to thehealth of the whole. One organism’s waste is foodfor another, and nutrients and energy flow per-petually in closed-loop cycles of growth, decayand rebirth. Waste equals food. Understandingthis natural system allows architects and designers

to recognize that all materials can be seen as nutri-ents that flow in natural or designed metabolisms.

Nature’s nutrient cycles comprise the biologicalmetabolism. The technical metabolism is designedto mirror the Earth’s cradle-to-cradle cycles; it’s aclosed-loop system in which valuable, high-techsynthetics and mineral resources circulate in anendless cycle of production, recovery and reuse.

By specifying safe, healthful ingredients,designers and architects can create and use mate-rials within cradle-to-cradle cycles. Materialsdesigned as biological nutrients, such as textiles fordraperies, wall coverings and upholstery, can bedesigned to biodegrade safely and restore soil afteruse, generating more positive effects, not fewernegative ones. Materials designed as technicalnutrients, such as infinitely recyclable textiles, canprovide high-quality, high-tech ingredients forgeneration after generation of synthetic products.And buildings constructed with these nutritiousmaterials, and designed to respond to local energyflows and cultural settings, encourage patterns ofhuman settlement that are restorative and regen-erative.

Waste equals food: fromdematerialization to rematerializationCradle-to-cradle design yields an entirely newrelationship to materials, energy and the makingof things. Where eco-efficient designs aim todematerialize – minimizing the negative effects oftoxic materials and polluting fuels – cradle-to-cra-dle design seeks the rematerialization of safe, pro-ductive materials in systems powered by the sun.

Rematerialization can be understood as both aprocess and a metaphor. In the industrial world itrefers to chemical recycling that adds value tomaterials, allowing them to be used again andagain in high-quality products. As a metaphorgrowing from this process, it suggests a designstrategy aimed at maximizing the positive effectsof materials and energy and participating in theEarth’s abundant material flows.

Nylon 6 provides a good example of remateri-alization. This widely used polymer can be chem-ically recycled into the raw material caprolactam,which can be used to make generation after gen-eration of high-quality carpet fibre. In effect, theprocess virtually eliminates waste – very little ener-gy or material is lost. Given the hundreds of mil-lions of pounds of carpet fibre that each year aresent to landfills or incinerators or recycled intoproducts of lesser value, the significance of rema-terializing nylon 6 is enormous. And it suggests aneffective new model for material flows.

The model is changing real-world business.Shaw Industries, for example, has examined thematerial chemistry of its carpet fibre and backingto assess the healthfulness of its dyes, pigments,finishes and auxiliaries – everything that goes intocarpet tile. Out of this rigorous process has comethe promise of a fully optimized technical nutri-ent. Shaw now guarantees that all its nylon 6 car-pet fibre will be taken back and returned to nylon6 fibre, and its safe polyolefin backing returned tosafe polyolefin backing.

Rematerialization makes conventional recycling



look obsolete. Most recycling is actually downcy-cling, a loss of value over time with materials losingvalue. When various plastics are recycled intocountertops, for example, valuable materials aremixed and can’t be recycled again. New ultra-lightcomposite materials are hybrids from the start;they can’t even be recycled once. And when metalssuch as copper, nickel and manganese are blendedin recycling, their value is lost forever.

The key to effective rematerialization is defin-ing material chemistry and tracking materialflows. A materials passport – a tracking code cre-ated with molecular markers, for example – makesthat possible. The passport guides materialsthrough industrial cycles, routing them from pro-duction through reuse, defining optimum usesand intelligent practices. With a passport, valu-able construction materials can be rematerializedinto valuable construction materials, not recycledinto hybrids of lesser value heading inexorablytowards the landfill.

When conceived as nutrients, high-tech mate-rials can be safely and effectively used in everyphase of construction. Cradle-to-cradle geopoly-mers, for example, are a promising replacementfor concrete, which leaches harmful chemicals onbuilding sites and in landfills. Made from localearth and high-quality plastic, geopolymers are farmore stable than concrete and require far lessembodied energy to produce. Design for disas-sembly allows building materials made ofgeopolymers to be used again in new buildings.Or they can be returned to technical cycles andused in other high-quality products. Anothermaterial designed as a technical nutrient, a poly-styrene foam engineered by BASF, is being devel-oped as a structural material for low-cost housingin developing countries.

Safe biological nutrients can be used through-out interiors, generating healthful effects duringproduction and use and even after they wear out.

A textile we designed, woven of wool and ramieand processed with completely safe chemicals,provides an attractive, healthful upholstery fabricand can nourish the soil when it wears out. At theSwiss mill where the fabric is produced, the trim-mings serve as garden mulch. The water leavingthe factory is as clean as the water flowing in.

Rematerialization and cradle-to-cradle designcan be applied with high-tech or low-tech meth-ods to new or existing buildings. Harmful materi-als in existing buildings can be replaced withhealthful ones. Old buildings can also be restoredwith new designs and technologies that harvestthe sun’s energy – examples include the AudubonSociety’s century-old headquarters in Manhattanand the venerable Field Museum in Chicago – orflexibly refitted for a variety of new uses.

Intelligent materials poolingRematerialization on a large scale can be achievedthrough a nutrient management system we callintelligent materials pooling. This system,designed to effectively manage flows of polymers,rare minerals and high-tech materials for industryand architecture as well as local, low-tech flows ofnatural resources, calls for cooperative networksgeared to optimizing materials’ value.

In an intelligent materials pool, multiple com-panies share access to a supply of a high-qualitymaterial such as nylon 6 or copper. In effect, part-ners draw materials from the pool to create prod-ucts and replenish it with materials they haverecovered after a defined period of use. Sharingresources and knowledge, information and pur-chasing power, partners in a materials pool ideal-ly develop a shared commitment to generating ahealthy system of material flows and to using thesafest, highest-quality technical ingredients in alltheir products.

From a strategic perspective, the process beginswith an agreement by several companies to phase

out an environmentally dangerous material suchas PVC. Out of this shared commitment comes acommunity of companies with the marketstrength to engineer the phase-out and developinnovative alternatives. Together they specify pre-ferred materials, establish defined-use periods forproducts and services, and create an intelligentmaterials pool.

Design and the laws of natureCradle-to-cradle architectural materials realizetheir full potential within cradle-to-cradle build-ings. The context of material use is always the larg-er design, and the larger design always unfolds inthe overarching context of the natural world.

Cradle-to-cradle building design is thus theprocess of discovering beneficial, fitting ways forhumans to inhabit the landscape. In every land-scape, nature is our guide. We study landforms,hydrology, vegetation and climate, trying tounderstand all the natural systems at play in eachplace we work. We investigate environmental andcultural history, study local energy flows, andexplore the cycles of sunlight, shade and water.Out of these investigations comes an “essay ofclues” – a map for developing healthy and cre-atively interactive relationships between ourdesigns and the natural world.

The sun is the key to the whole show. Whensunlight shines upon the Earth, biology flourish-es and we celebrate its increase – the growth oftrees, plants, food and biodiversity. This is goodgrowth. When human activity supports ecologi-cal health, that’s good growth, too. In fact, we cancreate buildings that make the energy of the sun apart of our metabolism, allowing us to tap theeffectiveness of natural systems and apply archi-tecture to positive purpose.

At Oberlin College, William McDonough +Partners (WM+P) designed a building like a tree:a building powered by the sun, enmeshed in local

The roof of 901 Cherry (offices of Gap, Inc.) recreates the native habitat of grasses and wild flowers. Its form derives from the surrounding landscape. © William McDonough + Partners



nutrient flows and beneficial to the landscape.Built in northern Ohio, the Adam Joseph LewisCenter for Environmental Studies was designedto ultimately generate more energy than it con-sumes. Solar power is collected with rooftop cellsand sunlight pours through southwest-facing win-dows into a two-story atrium, illuminating thepublic gathering areas. Wastewater is purified by aconstructed marsh-like ecosystem that breaksdown and digests organic material and releasesclean water. The upholstery fabrics will feed thegarden, and the carpets will be retrieved by themanufacturer and reused for new, high-qualitycarpets.

Lit by the sun, refreshed with fragrant breezes,in tune with its place through local flows of ener-gy and matter, the Oberlin building’s ecologicalfootprint strongly confirms that the human pres-ence in the landscape can be positive, restorativeand 100% good.

Cradle-to-cradle economicsCradle-to-cradle design also makes extraordinari-ly good sense economically and socially. This isespecially visible in the workplace. When designsfor large-scale factories and offices are modelledon nature’s effectiveness, they generate delightful,productive places for people to work. This notonly encourages a strong sense of community andcooperation, it also allows efficiency and cost-effectiveness to serve a larger purpose.

Consider the corporate offices for Gap, Inc. inSan Bruno, California. Aiming to enhance thequalities of the local landscape, WM+P designedan undulating roof covered in flowers and grassesthat mirrors the local terrain, re-establishing sev-eral acres of the coastal savannah ecosystem thathad been destroyed by human intervention overthe past century. The living roof also absorbsstorm water and provides thermal insulation,making the landscape an integral part of the build-ing’s energy systems.

Other features maximize local energy flows. Araised-floor air system allows evening breezes toflush the building, while concrete slabs beneaththe floor store the cool air and release it during theday. The windows are operable and the delivery offresh air is under individual control. Daylightingprovides natural illumination. This is an opendesign with common spaces.

The building’s advanced integrated systems areso effective, it was recognized as one of the mostenergy efficient buildings in California. By aim-ing to maximize positive effects, the design out-performed buildings that set efficiency as theirhighest goal.

The building’s high performance is replicable.The Herman Miller furniture factory in Holland,Michigan, like the Gap building, was designed to

foster a spirit of community among employeeswhile enhancing the local environment. An effec-tive, celebratory design achieved both – and more.Not only did the building’s site plan includeextensive constructed wetlands that rebuild soilfabric, provide habitat and purify storm water, butits design, which maximizes fresh air and sunlight,generated increased worker satisfaction and pro-ductivity gains of 24%. Corporations locating indeveloping countries might take note: designingfor human and environmental health supportseconomic productivity.

Cradle-to-cradle planningThe benefits of cradle-to-cradle design are notlimited to individual buildings. In Chicago, whereMayor Richard Daley is on a quest to make thecity the greenest in America, cradle-to-cradle prin-ciples are providing an inspiring reference pointfor a host of citywide initiatives. Building on yearsof innovative environmental programmes, theCity of Chicago is now developing communityplans and cradle-to-cradle systems that will makeit an international model for cities seeking designsthat allow industry and ecology, human settle-ments and the natural world to flourish side byside.

Among many other initiatives, Chicago hasagreed to buy 20% of its power from renewablesources by 2006, which is spurring the local devel-opment of renewable energy technology. Indeed,some renewable energy companies have movedinto the city’s new Chicago Center for GreenTechnology, an ecologically-intelligent facilitybuilt on a restored industrial site. Looking ahead,we see Chicago becoming a hub of green manu-facturing and transit, energy effectiveness, envi-ronmental restoration and cradle-to-cradlematerial flows – all of which adds up to flourishinghuman communities that generate an abundanceof ecological, economic and cultural wealth.

Cradle-to-cradle systems can generate thiswide spectrum of wealth worldwide, in industri-alized and developing nations alike. In ruralChina the people of Huangbaiyu, led by localentrepreneur Dai Xiaolong, are developing a Cra-dle-to-Cradle Village that aspires to be poweredby the sun, with all materials maintained inclosed-loop technical and biological cycles.

Significantly, the Cradle-to-Cradle Village isnot an idea being imposed on Huangbaiyu by theChinese government or by an international aidagency; it was generated by Mr. Dai’s enterprisingleadership, which has drawn support from TongJi University in Shanghai, the China-US Centerfor Sustainable Development, and WM+P. Mr.Dai’s plan is based on investing in and growingHuangbaiyu’s existing capacity to become moreeconomically self-reliant and regenerative. The

chairman of the Tianyuan Eco-Cattle Farm, a suc-cessful business with subsidiary companies thatinclude a brewery, breeding farm, organic fertiliz-er factory and trout fishery, Mr. Dai is well versedin nature’s cradle-to-cradle systems and is apply-ing them to the Huangbaiyu community devel-opment plan.

This plan is centred on the building of a com-pact settlement which will make maximum use ofHuangbaiyu’s available agricultural land, generateoptimal conditions for closed-loop material flows,and provide services and amenities that cannot beeffectively furnished to a dispersed population.Local workers will employ straw bale constructionto build the village’s 300 homes, taking advantageof an essentially free local material with proveninsulating capacity. A community well will pro-vide clean running water, a resource typically inshort supply. Human and animal waste will becollected at centralized locations and used to pro-duce biogas, which will in turn be used for heatingand cooking. There will be street trees, publicparks and a village school. The people of Huang-baiyu will be steadily employed in a variety of localenterprises, from sustainable forestry to farmingto working in the biogas faciltity or a wood prod-ucts plant. The enduring cycles of nature, it ishoped, will generate a wide spectrum of commu-nity wealth.

A diversity of sustaining cradle-to-cradle visionscould come to fruition in many places. Fromhigh-tech Chicago to rural China, from Japanesetemples to American factories, the principles andpractices of cradle-to-cradle design are already cre-ating hopeful changes in the world. Ultimately,we believe intelligent design can lead to ever morebuildings, communities, cities and nations thathonour not just human ingenuity but harmonywith the exquisite intelligence of nature. Whenthat becomes the hallmark of good design, we willhave entered a moment in human history whenthe things we make will truly be a regenerativeforce.

Notes1. Matthews, Emily, et al. (2000) The Weight ofNations: Material Outflows From IndustrialEconomies. World Resources Institute, Washing-ton, D.C.2. Bujanowski, Anke, Michael Braungart andChristian Sinn (1998) Primitives Produktdesign.Müllmagazin, 2, pp. 24-26.3. Braungart, Michael, Anke Bujanowski, JürgenSchäding and Christian Sinn (1997) Poor DesignPractices – Gaseous Emissions from Complex Prod-ucts. Hamburger Umweltintitut e.V., p. 9.4. Kunstler, James Howard (2001) The City inMind: Notes on the Urban Condition. Free Press,New York. ◆



The built environment is at the origin of mostof the mass and energy flows for which manis responsible. It absorbs large economic

resources and embodies considerable cultural cap-ital. Its form and composition may vary fromplace to place, but the built environment invari-ably constitutes a principal societal resource in themodern world.

Sustainable development of the built environ-ment is concerned with trying to enhance thisresource – as an economic asset – while simulta-neously achieving many related ecological, socialand cultural objectives. However, given the scaleof resource flows and corresponding impacts, sus-tainable development is ultimately about trans-forming the built environment in ways that willmake possible our long-term survival.

Any attempt by North or South to clearlydefine objectives for sustainable development, orto evaluate progress in meaningful terms, must berooted in formal methods and tools for quantify-ing and comparing performance of the built envi-ronment. Otherwise, the concepts will have littleeffect in the real world. Among the choice ofassessment methods, life-cycle analysis (LCA) isparticularly interesting. LCA provides crucialinsight into the nature of the problem, yet it isalmost impossible to operationalize within the tra-ditional design or policy-making process.

Life-cycle analysis in the buildingsector todayMuch LCA research in the building sector to datehas attempted to apply this method to buildings as

discrete and specific entities. The results highlightmany difficulties. It would seem that buildings areunlike any other product. A single building maycomprise over 60 basic materials and around 2000separate products, each with its own lifetime andunique production/repair/disposal processes.Data collection and allocation decisions for anyparticular building are far beyond the capabilityof most design teams or decision makers. A greatmany default assumptions are required, and eventhen the task is complex.

The long life of most buildings also means that,typically, more material and energy will beexpended during the operation phase than in ini-tial construction. Scenarios must be designed topredict the nature of these future investments,including estimated life spans and disposal routesfor materials. Thus the majority of resource flowsover the life cycle are influenced by highly specu-lative assumptions.

The site-specific nature of a building compli-cates application of LCA. Significant local impactsneed to be considered, such as a building’s effecton the urban microclimate, solar access for adja-cent buildings, neighbourhood security, resiliency,diversity and amenities, and the loading of urbaninfrastructure systems and allocation of local eco-logical carrying capacity. By definition, a buildingalso creates an indoor environment – an environ-ment with a whole new list of potential impactsincluding on worker productivity and occupantsecurity, comfort, safety and health.

For all these reasons, application of LCA tobuildings has so far remained in the realm ofresearch groups – along with a few valiant privatesector firms that are pioneering LCA software andrating systems. Increasingly, however, LCA is seenas an educational and policy tool that is best appliedto generic buildings and building stocks rather thanto particular cases. And the focus of research isincreasingly expanding from individual buildingsto management of the built environment (definedas the construction, operation, renovation and finalelimination of buildings, infrastructure and exteri-or surfaces). The advantage of expanding the focusis, firstly, that it provides an opportunity to capturethe extremely important relationships (i.e. energyand mass flows) between and among buildings. Inso doing, LCA can encourage the evolution of inte-grated systems, cascading of resources (where out-put/waste from one process becomes input foranother) and the other elegant “system” solutionsthat help convert collections of buildings into sus-tainable urban ecologies.

Secondly, expanding the focus allows LCA to

Life-cycle analysis of the built environment

Niklaus Kohler, Professor, Institut für Industrielle Bauproduktion, University of Karlsruhe, Englerstrasse 7, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany

([email protected])

Sebastian Moffatt, President, Sheltair Group Resource Consultants Inc., #2 3661 West 4th Ave., Vancouver, Brtitish Columbia V6R 1P2, Canada

([email protected])

Summary Life-cycle thinking is a holistic approach to environmental and social issues. This approach iskey to the sustainable construction concept. LCA (life-cycle analysis, or life-cycle assessment)is an important tool for use in applying life-cycle thinking to building and construction. LCA canyield vital information on material and energy flows. Because it is difficult to apply to build-ings per se, the focus is increasingly on carrying out a more general analysis of the built envi-ronment. Knowledge gained through LCA can best be used as part of an integrated designprocess. In the case of most projects, a complete LCA is not affordable unless it is integratedwith other tools such as quantity surveying or energy simulation. Priorities for the use of LCAapplications in policy making will vary according to regions and economic considerations.

RésuméLa démarche fondée sur le cycle de vie envisage les problèmes environnementaux et sociauxcomme un tout. C’est la clé même du concept du développement applicable au secteur de laconstruction. L’analyse du cycle de vie (ou évaluation du cycle de vie) est un outil important quipermet d’appliquer à la construciton cette démarche. Elle peut fournir des informations vitalessur les flux de matériaux et d’énergie. Parce qu’elle est difficile par nature à appliquer aux édi-fices, la tendance est de plus en plus à une analyse plus générale de l’environnement bâti. Lesconnaissances acquises grâce à l’analyse ou évaluation du cycle de vie peuvent être utiliséesdans le cadre d’un processus de conception intégré. Pour la plupart des projets, l’analyse ouévaluation du cycle de vie n’est pas financièrement envisageable, à moins d’être intégrée àd’autres outils tels que l’étude des quantités ou la simulation énergétique. Dans l’élaborationde la réglementation, les applications de l’analyse ou évaluation du cycle de vie seront dictéesen fonction des régions et de considérations économiques.

ResumenEl concepto de ciclo de vida es un enfoque holístico de problemas sociales y medioambientales.Se trata de un enfoque clave para el concepto de la construcción sostenible. El ACV (análisis delciclo de vida) es una herramienta importante para aplicar criterios de ciclo de vida a los edifi-cios y a la construcción. El análisis de ciclo de vida puede generar información vital sobre los flu-jos de material y energía. Ya que resulta difícil efectuar este análisis en los edificios por símismos, se apunta cada vez más hacia un análisis más general del ambiente construido. Losconocimientos que se obtienen mediante el ACV se pueden utilizar mejor como parte de unproceso de diseño integrado. En la mayoría de los proyectos, no es posible costear un ACV com-pleto a menos que se incluya con otras herramientas como los presupuestos cuantitativos o lasimulación energética. Las prioridades para la utilización de aplicaciones ACV en la elabo-ración de políticas varían según las regiones y las consideraciones económicas.



inform decision makers about key trade-offsamong the broad range of performance objectivesencompassed by sustainable development. Forexample, energy and mass flows within a neigh-bourhood may need to remain within boundaries.Too little, and the built environment suffers fromneglect; too much change all at once, and cultur-al integrity may be destroyed.

LCA and the integrated design processWhether LCA is applied to individual buildings orthe entire built environment, the knowledgegained cannot easily be used without significantchanges to the traditional planning and designprocess. In simple terms, what is required is anintegrated design process (IDP) that reflects thetrans-disciplinary nature of the built environmentand encourages functional integration of long-term environmental performance with the manyother sustainable development objectives. IDPinvolves creating a design or planning team with awider range of technical experts, local stakehold-ers and partners than is normal – including indi-viduals with knowledge of and responsibility foroperations, maintenance, refurbishment and com-munity relations. A facilitator may be needed toensure successful communications, and to helpexperts and stakeholders negotiate the inevitabletrade-offs.

IDP should engage a diversity of actors at veryearly stages of the project and use their expertiseto influence seminal design decisions. As shownin Figure 1, the potential for influencing the fulllife-cycle performance is very high in the earlystages of design and decreases dramatically as timegoes by. In the early stages it is possible to find thesynergies and out-of-the-box solutions needed toactually make sustainable development practical.Performance measurements or indicators can beadopted to serve as benchmarks for the project,and for use in identifying critical thresholds (orconstraints) and setting ambitious targets. Theentire design team may participate in an inspira-

tional target-setting workshop at the beginning ofa project, and the targets may continue to informdecisions concerning the project throughout itslife cycle.

Transfer of insights from research topracticeFor most projects, a complete LCA is unafford-able as long as it is not integrated with other toolssuch as quantity surveying or energy simulation.The following insights appear to have worldwideapplication despite variations in culture, climateand construction:◆ The most environmentally friendly building isusually no building at all. For example, if a hospi-tal building can be eliminated through policies forproviding people care in their own homes, or ifadaptive reuse of existing under-used facilities caneliminate the need for more office or plant, thiswould typically be a preferable approach.◆ Understanding the system boundaries of LCAis critical for anyone attempting to compareresults, or to learn from the research. A systemboundary has the effect of limiting specificresource flows and emissions included in theassessment. Comparative international studiesimplementing different LCA tools show that mostvariations observed in the results derive from dif-ferences within the limits of the system – differ-ences that were not always clear at the outset. ◆ Sensitivity analysis, when used skilfully, can dra-matically reduce the scope of LCA as well as thecorresponding amounts of data and work neededto arrive at a robust assessment of impacts. Sensi-tivity analysis may also indicate that productsembodying toxic compounds such as the mercuryin some lighting ballasts (i.e. devices to stabilizecurrent) will typically have much greater life-cyclecosts than less toxic options. ◆ LCA emphasizes the value of adaptive designsthat continue to perform despite changes in build-ing use and technology. Small upfront invest-ments to enhance convertibility, flexibility and

expandability can greatly reduce the costs of keep-ing structures functional over time. It is often easyto make significant reductions during the operat-ing phase by investing in products and equipmentthat are more robust, as repair and replacementtend to provoke high energy and mass flows. Espe-cially problematic are situations in which long-lived products are embedded in short-lived ones. ◆ A life-cycle perspective can reveal an interestingrelationship between aesthetics and overall per-formance. Spaces and structures experienced byoccupants as pleasing and life-enhancing are morelikely to survive in the long term, despite losses inefficiency and functionality. ◆ LCA is intended to encourage trade-offs betweeneach phase of the life cycle, rather than addressingeach phase on its own. It is a common mistake toassume that LCA will result in reduction or mini-mization of embodied energy (and associated emis-sions) in a building or facility. In reality, the mosteffective strategy is often to increase embodied ener-gy (more substantial foundations and veneers, addi-tional insulation, more sophisticated envelopes thatallow access to services) and thereby reduce moresubstantial impacts related to operation, refurbish-ment and replacement of the structure. ◆ Selection of interior finishes is critical. Finishesthat are difficult to clean may require more aggres-sive cleaning products and more frequent clean-ing, which in turn can substantially increasematerial and money flows and environmentaleffects. Finishes that “turn over” quickly can alsoaccumulate substantial life-cycle flows. ◆ There are few magic bullets. Initially, designerswill want to know what works and what doesn’t –steel, concrete or wood? coal-fired electricity ordiesel? The devil is in the details. Variations with-in one class of products often exceed variationsbetween classes. Using average, out-of-date ordefault data for whole classes of materials andproducts can lump the best performing and mostinnovative with the worst, so that everyone istarred with the same brush. ◆ Concrete always deserves special attention. Insome projects, concrete alone can represent amajority of the embodied energy in the built envi-ronment. The disadvantage of concrete (i.e. itslarge impacts) can be compensated over a longlifetime (>100 years).◆ It is very important that all LCA methods refer toboth absolute and relative target values. In realdesign situations one rarely looks for the most envi-ronmentally friendly building, just as one rarelylooks for the absolutely cheapest building. Evalua-tion of a building’s design and its effective perfor-mance is always a matter of complex trade-offs.

Variations in LCA from one region toanother The use of standardized LCA methodology allowsall locations to profit from a large body of researchexperience with establishing system limits, allo-cating inputs and outputs, and constructing acommon database. A number of internationalorganizations and public-private initiatives arenow making progress towards this end. LCA cal-culations of absolute mass and energy quantities

Figure 1Influence of design decisions on life-cycle impacts and costs

of an average European or North American building

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

Cumulated impactsand costs

Impacts andcosts of planning

Impacts andcosts of construction

Impacts and costs during use phase

planning constructionuse andmaintenance Time

Envi

ron

men

tal

imp

act

s an

d c

ost

s Possibility to influence impacts and costs


will eventually permit true comparisons of theglobal impacts of buildings in different countries.For example, the ecological footprint can be cal-culated for an office in Buenos Aires and com-pared with that of an office in Berlin. Furtherwork on LCA tools may ultimately allow LCAapplications to easily accommodate the highlyvariable local norms for impacts such as resourcescarcity, ecological sensitivity, human health andpersonal security (Figures 2 and 3).

The scarcity of LCA applications worldwidelimits opportunities for comparing results takinginto account different climatic, industrial, socialand cultural contexts. However, it is still possibleto posit some general priorities with respect toLCA related policies in different parts of the globe.

European priorities In Europe, research on environmentally friendlybuildings has mainly been associated with new con-struction. LCA on the evolution of Europeanbuilding stocks suggests that the critical issues forsustainable development lie elsewhere, i.e. man-agement of existing buildings, refurbishing of postWorld War II buildings and conservation of thecomplex qualities of historic towns. Future LCAapplications are likely to focus on managing Euro-pean building stock as a resource, which will replacenature as the principal resource in the long term.The key impacts are those related to energy con-sumed for heating and transport and to the humanhealth effects of building materials. Because of thestill long lifetime of buildings, and the predomi-nance of environmental impacts in the use phase(mainly through energy consumption), the focusin the case of existing stock will downplay theimpacts of construction and deconstruction. How-ever, in the case of new low-energy buildings, allphases will receive equal attention. For both exist-ing and new buildings (and the entire built envi-ronment) LCA will be used to implement and

assess the new targets for factor ten reductions and“closed loop” material management.

North American prioritiesUnlike Europe, many urban areas in North Amer-ica are rapidly growing and the existing stock hashigh turnover rates. Consequently, attention mustbe divided between existing and new. LCA willlikely assist with the evolution of rating systemsand certifications for both new and renovatedbuildings. It is to be hoped that LCA will alsoassist in adjusting such rating systems to reflectregional contexts.

A priority for rapidly growing areas is to changethe focus from individual buildings to the built

environment, with consideration given to distrib-uted, integrated infrastructure systems and“smart” land use patterns.

Another priority is improving buildings’ opera-tional lifetimes and maintenance cycles in the faceof trends in the opposite direction. Durability andlongevity are becoming especially importantparameters in cities where building technology isundergoing rapid change and becoming increas-ingly complex. Vancouver, Canada, provides anexample of what can go wrong. Water leakage innew condominium housing has reached disasterproportions, with > US$ 2,000,000,000 in repairand associated costs over the last five years. Thecombination of new assemblies and design details,out-of-date codes and regulations, and importa-tion of flat-roof California style design features toa rainforest climate have all contributed to a cost-ly surprise. Over half of new residential buildingshave experienced failed envelopes within their firsteight years. The increasing complexity of build-ing systems, and a lack of monitoring and pre-tri-als, leave many growing urban areas susceptible tosuch surprises.

Rapidly industrializing countriesA common theme for all countries during rapidindustrialization is under-pricing of naturalresources and under-regulation of environmentalprotection, health and safety. LCA is an excellenttool for setting regulatory priorities in these areas,and for establishing appropriate fees and develop-ment charges. Another priority for LCA in indus-trializing countries is managing the pace ofchange. Many new economies prefer westernbuilding styles and technologies to the time-test-ed systems used in vernacular architecture. A life-cycle perspective helps give value to building stylesand technologies that are resilient and long-last-ing. A life-cycle perspective may also help reduceirreversible losses in cultural capital, as many

Figure 2LCA as part of the assessment of a sustainable building

social and cultural impact assessmentindoor air quality assessment

life-cycle costinglife-cycle analysis

social

cultural

economic

ecologicalprotection of resources

protection of the ecosystem

resource productivity

life-cycle use costs

human health

comfort

social capital

historic value

bequest value

knowledge and memory

sustainablebuilding

protectionobjectives

Source: Institut für Industrielle Bauproduktion (ifib)

Figure 3Example of an integrated life-cycle analysis (LCA)

and life-cycle costing (LCC) method: in the spider three design solutions are compared according to ecological, energy and economic criteria

(values take account of operation, embodied energy and transport)

Source: ECOPT (Erasmus Center for Optimization of Public Transport) - ifib.




countries are losing precious architectural heritagein the rush towards industrialization.

Another priority for industrializing countriesis to reduce impacts associated with the high vol-ume of material accumulating in the built envi-ronment. Innovative building practices areneeded to reduce the excessive amounts of heavymasonry used in construction, and to convertsome of the dirty energy systems used for pro-ducing materials.

Developing countries LCA has a different role where urban poverty andlack of affordable and healthy housing are central

societal problems. In these situations the objectiveof reducing life-cycle impacts is secondary to thatof restoring dignity and security to families. Manyresidential building projects are not subject to acontrolled design process and regulation may behaphazard. Thus the priority for LCA is to set tar-gets in those areas most amenable to regional andnational policy initiatives, and to otherwise sup-port improvements in industrial process innova-tion and environmental protection (e.g.environmental management systems). Life-cycleperspectives in these economies will emphasizeproblems created by the introduction of toxic sub-stances and the importance of environmental pro-

tection during land development and construc-tion phases.

New directions for LCA toolsWhen practising professionals are able to apply LCAeasily to the built environment, this will likely be asa result of improvements to LCA tools. One promis-ing solution in industrialized building economieswould be to combine tools for LCA with those usedfor quantity surveying, so as to construct a commonbasis for LCA, cost estimation and tender opera-tions. Through sharing basic data and tools, the sup-plementary effort required for LCA analysis andinterpretation may become acceptable.

A blueprint for green building economicsDavid Gottfried, President, WorldBuild Technologies Inc., and founder, US and World Green Building Councils

2269 Chestnut Street, No. 981, San Francisco, California 94123, USA ([email protected])

Green building has rapidly gained momentum as a design protocol andmeasurement standard for buildings’ environmental performance. Thoughmany precepts of sustainable building were established thousands of yearsago, this concept has only been defined and integrated into the global build-ing industry since the late 1980s.

Green building rating systems in various countries provide the best defi-nition of a “green building”. In many countries green building activity hastaken place mostly in the public sector. The cost of funds for government islow, and the time horizon for the average life of a public building is long.Buildings are typically owned, financed, operated and occupied by a gov-ernmental agency. Wearing these multiple hats makes it easier for govern-mental owners to design buildings to maximize their performance andoccupant health on a long-term perspective.

Green building is just beginning to gain momentum in the private sector.Only a few visionary firms like Ford Motor, Gap, Wal-Mart and HinesDevelopment have undertaken projects. The main barrier is the difficulty ofquantifying economic benefits. In addition, many buildings are speculative,contributing to a short-term (cheapest first cost) owner orientation.

The many economic opportunities (and the rationale) for green build-ing in the private sector are outlined below, following the flow of a develop-er’s typical financial analysis areas for a new development building.

Project costThree areas contribute to a project’s total project cost: site acquisition, anddirect and indirect construction costs.

Site acquisition costsIt is important to purchase a property that will enhance the ability to createa high-quality green building. LEED, the US green building rating system,provides credits for proximity to public transportation, urban infill andreduced site disturbance. Solar access is important, as is natural ventilationpotential and good ambient air quality. Sensitivity to water quality and torun-off minimization is also critical. If demolition is required, it is importantthat a majority of the materials are diverted from landfill for environmentalreasons. Some systems reward building reuse and brownfield redevelopment.

It has not been established that a green site is more expensive; this couldbe a matter of careful inspection when looking at prospective properties.Case studies show that diversion of construction and demolition wastefrom landfill is cost-effective.

Some cities even provide a density and/or height bonus for green build-ings. Increased space can more than compensate for any extra cost of devel-oping a green building.

Direct construction costsNumerous examples show that green building does not cost more. Thenew DPR Construction building in Sacramento, California, is expected toachieve a LEED Silver rating at an added cost of less than 1%. DPR esti-mates the payback period at less than two years.

The city of Seattle, Oregon, originally allocated a 4% cost increase toachieve a similar rating. However, its extensive project experience (over 30buildings at a minimum LEED Silver level) has effectively lowered the costincrease to below 1%.

The Ridgehaven Building in San Diego, California, achieved an energyefficiency improvement from the Energy Code requirement of 53%. Theincremental add was about 4%; most of the cost increase was funded bythe local utility. The internal rate of return on the net investment was 57%.The net green building cost did not take into consideration the significantdownsizing of the mechanical system (about 30% load reduction) and sim-ilar reductions in the quantity of lighting fixtures and fixture sizes. There-fore, the overall net cost was zero.

Indirect construction costsAs green building continues to expand, almost all architectural and engi-neering firms are entering the field. Green building is rapidly becomingpart of standard practice, as owners increasingly require this methodologyas part of a building’s design. In the early years design professionals chargeda premium to provide green building services. However, as the green build-ing market rapidly expands, extra fees charged for these services are declin-ing. Some firms are now offering them at no extra charge, and this will soonbe the norm.

Another indirect cost may be that of certification. In the US, for exam-ple, if a project is formally certified by the Green Building Council(USGBC) fees are charged depending on building size.

Still another indirect cost of construction is tenant lease-up contingency.It has been shown that a green building receives added publicity. Some pro-jects, like New York City’s Four Times Square, have been the subject ofhundreds of articles. This can result in a higher level of perceived buildingvalue. Educating brokers and their tenants about the merits of green build-ing can result in a more rapid building lease-up period. The green empha-sis can also assist negotiations with local governments on building permitand land use approvals, reducing land carry costs.

Income and expensesIncomeBecause green building is so new, sufficient data have not been collected to



Essentially, anyone attempting to describe abuilding would reference a multi-purpose cata-logue. All the elements in the catalogue would becomposed of building process specifications. Foreach building process specification, it would bepossible to identify each of the material processesinvolved and describe them in terms of quantitiesof materials used (including all auxiliary materialsand waste) and the quantities of tools andmachines used (including their energy consump-tion and maintenance). In this way data could beaggregated for all relevant processes that make upa building and used to estimate total life-cyclemass flow, primary energy consumption, impacts

and other indicators of interest. What this formu-la appears to provide is a practical way to analyzeeconomic and ecological consequences of designdecisions over the entire life cycle of the built envi-ronment. Time will tell.

On the other hand, it could be helpful fordesigners, builders and owners in developingcountries to dispose of very simple LCA and LCC(life-cycle costing) tools comprising the basic pro-duction, transport and use process (cooking,water cleaning, etc.). This could allow fixingstrategies for optimal use of scarce resources suchas energy intensive new building materials(cement, glass, metals) as well as fuel for transport.

Life-cycle analysis is certainly a necessary (butinsufficient) tool for all efforts aimed at achievingmore sustainable societies all over the world.

ReferencesKohler, N. and T. Lützkendorf (2002) Integrated LifeCycle Analysis. Building Research and Information 30(5),pp. 338-348.

Moffatt, S. (ed.) (2000) International Energy Agency(IEA) Annex 31: The Environmental Effects of Buildings(http://annex31.wiwi.uni-karlsruhe.de/).

SETAC (2002) LCA in Building and Construction. State-of-the-art report of SETAC-Europe.

◆

show that it can increase rental rates. However, it is logical that a buildingis worth more if it has lower operating expenses for tenants, enhanced day-lighting, operable windows, improved occupant comfort and individualcontrol, better air quality, and dozens of other positive tenant features –which will be considered in setting the rental rate.

It is a matter of marketing by the owner and broker to communicate thisenhanced value to prospective tenants. There is enormous precedent inother areas, where the consumer pays more for higher value. This occursevery time we buy a car or appliance. This is also true of office and retailspace, and even of housing. An “A” level building, for example, rents at high-er rates than a “B” building. As green building is adopted in the mainstream,it would be expected to become part of the definition of an “A” building.

Another income benefit associated with green building will be lowervacancy rates. Higher quality buildings have historically shown lowervacancy rates. Tenants prefer to renew their leases, as they appreciate abuilding with enhanced comfort and health and productivity for theiremployees. Proximity to public transport is another benefit, as well asshowers and bike racks. An underfloor air distribution system providesgreater comfort and dramatically reduces tenants’ cost of churn (cost ofoffice occupant relocations) – estimated at US$ 2500 per incident.

ExpensesIt has been demonstrated that green buildings’ operating expenses are sig-nificantly lower. Energy can be reduced by 30-50%. Water consumptioncan be reduced by over 30% or even more. Repairs and maintenance can bereduced, as well as landfill charges associated with a lower level of waste.

Improved indoor air quality can lead to reduced owner liability. Thiscontributes to reduced expenses and even to lower insurance premiums.Moreover, it is anticipated that insurance companies may soon provide aninsurance cost reduction for green buildings. In time they may also makecertification a prerequisite for obtaining insurance.

Green building is also an effective risk management strategy for proper-ty managers: improved air quality, lower energy, water and waste costs, andlonger building system lives.

The net result of higher income and lower expenses is improved projectnet cash flow.

Financing and equityA green building with increased building net operating income will achievea higher building valuation. This can result in a higher loan amount andfuture sales price. Project equity requirements are reduced accordingly.Additional debt, however, does increase the owner’s risk.

In time it is envisioned that banks will offer green loans based on certi-fication, lowering the interest rate and/or increasing the allowable loan to

cost or value ratio. Once this becomes the norm, some banks may progressto ultimately requiring a minimum green rating as a qualification for theloan. This will accelerate green building more than other measures.

Some projects are beginning to attract investors interested in participat-ing in a green building project. They understand the opportunity forimproved financial return, along with a social dividend. In times when it isdifficult to attract equity for a project, green buildings will have an advan-tage.

Green buildings can qualify for subsidies and tax credits. In the UnitedStates, the State of New York passed the first green building tax credit. Someutilities offer rebates and green building financing. They are evaluating thepotential of financing and even owning on-site distributed energy genera-tion systems for private and publicly owned properties.

Return on equity/project valuationThe net result of increased income, lower expenses, and any reductions infinancing is a more profitable building. As property appraisers learn moreabout green buildings, they are likely to incorporate relative greenness in thevaluation. Buildings with a green rating may qualify for a higher capital-ization rate than a non-green one.

Even a 1/2% of capitalization rate improvement can equate to signifi-cantly higher building value upon sale or refinance. Adding this amountto the increase associated with improved net operating income can materi-ally improve the overall project return on investment.

ConclusionIt is not hard to comprehend that a healthy, resource-efficient and day-lighted building is better than one that does not have optimal air quality, ishighly resource consumptive, and is very dependent on cheap power. It isonly a matter of time until banks, insurance companies and tenants betterunderstand the benefits and value of green building, creating a shift in mar-ket demand. When this occurs, owners who have embraced these principleswill greatly benefit. Even if this does not happen, they will prosper owingto lower expenses, greater tenant satisfaction and the resulting enhancedfinancial yield.

When the decision to go green is analyzed, the question should not be sole-ly the impact on first cost, but also the overall change in the building’s returnon investment. This is best reviewed as a projected net present value or inter-nal rate of return over the life of the asset. Green building is an economicresponsibility to our investors, and a social one to society. It is rooted in thedefinition of value, quality and performance over the life of the asset.

For more information, see: www.worldbuild.com; www.usgbc.org; www.worldgbc.org.



Demand for construction services is dividedfairly equally between the private and pub-lic sectors. In the developing world this

demand relates mainly to new infrastructure(schools, hospitals, roads) and housing. In thedeveloped world it relates mainly to housing,roads and non-residential fixed investment.

The construction industry’s “cradle-to-grave”activities in the built environment lead to impor-tant, well documented global environmentalimpacts and demands on natural resources – espe-cially for housing, infrastructure and utility servic-ing provision, which are very resource-intensive.

The industry has a responsibility to minimizenegative environmental and social impacts andmaximize positive contributions. It is potentiallythe main single-sector contributor to achievingsustainable development.

The potential impacts of change are different indifferent countries. Developed countries could

devote greater attention to creating more sustain-able assets through upgrading existing facilitiesusing innovative technologies for energy andmaterial savings. Developing countries are stillunder construction. They have a low degree ofindustrialization, so that construction activitiesare among the main factors affecting the biophys-ical environment. These countries are more likelyto focus on the social equality and economic sus-tainability of infrastructure provision.

The challenge for the construction sector is toidentify those aspects of sustainable constructionthat can realistically be addressed and whereaction might have a significant impact on sustain-ability.

Industry activities concerned withsustainabilityThe impacts of most construction projects beginwell before the conventional project cycle and end

well after the cycle is over. Activities are linked toallied sectors and industries, starting with theextraction and processing of raw materials,extending through the supply of inputs such aswater, energy and construction components andequipment, and terminating in demolition andthe disposal of wastes.

These activities are loosely grouped into whatwe might call a hierarchy of perspectives, startingwith operations and maintenance, on-site and off-site activities, and moving to sector-wide activitiesand activities involving the broad range ofprocesses for realizing the built environment.

The two industry subsectors responsible formanaging activities are physical construction andknowledge-based construction services. The for-mer, generally undertaken by contractors, bringstogether labour, material and equipment in orderto translate specifications produced by knowl-edge-based service suppliers into physical activi-ties. The design and specification side of theindustry includes architectural and engineeringdesign services used throughout the project cycle.These services require general and specializedengineering and other technical, scientific andeconomic skills needed to optimize investment inall its forms: its choice, its technical process of exe-cution, and its management. For the sector as awhole, the challenge is to translate the benefits ofsustainability into a project approach that clientscan appreciate and support.

In general terms, the permitting requirementsfor construction activities are becoming morecomprehensive on a worldwide basis, and imple-mentation of sustainability concepts at the moreoperational levels of the industry’s activity is rela-tively straightforward.

It becomes much more difficult to identifypragmatic drivers for change as one moves fromoperational and off-site project activities towardsthe sectoral and built-environment perspectives ofsustainable construction.

At present, the construction industry seemsunaware of its potential to reshape demandthrough product redesign. This is largely becausethe industry is preoccupied – and rightly so – bythe enormous unsatisfied demand for basic infra-structure, and by the fact that in the current sys-tem it is the clients and owners who decide.

Sustainable procurementNational governments and contracting authori-ties together constitute the construction industry’slargest client, especially for infrastructure supply.The regulatory framework that controls the mar-ket for engineering and design activities, and the

Drivers for sustainable construction

Sustainable Development Task Force, International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), World Trade Centre II,

Geneva Airport, PO Box 311, CH-1215 Geneva 15, Switzerland ([email protected])

SummaryThe potential impacts of changing to sustainable construction are related to constructionindustry demands, needs and drivers and to the acceptance of sustainability concepts. Theseimpacts will differ from one country to another. In this article consideration is given (in termsof an increasingly broader perspective) to activities in the main sectors where the constructionindustry is called upon to make a difference: infrastructure, commercial property and housing.The challenge for the industry is to identify – in both developed and developing countries –aspects of sustainable construction that can realistically be addressed and areas where actioncan make a significant contribution to achieving sustainability. Clients increasingly recognizethe positive economic outcomes of sustainability as a driver for investment decisions.

ResuméLes effets potentiels d’une évolution vers le développement durable de l’industrie de la con-struction sont fonction des demandes, des besoins et des moteurs de cette industrie, ainsi quedu degré d’acceptation des concepts de développement durable. Ces effets varieront d’un paysà l’autre. L’article s’intéresse (en termes d’élargissement des perspectives) aux activités desprincipaux secteurs où l’industrie de la construction devrait faire la différence : infrastructures,locaux commerciaux et logements. La gageure, pour l’industrie, est de discerner, aussi biendans les pays développés que dans les pays en développement, les aspects qui peuventraisonnablement être abordés et les domaines où une action apportera une contribution sig-nificative au développement durable. Les clients reconnaissent de plus en plus les effetséconomiques positifs du développement durable, à savoir son rôle moteur dans les décisionsd’investissement.

ResumenEl impacto potencial de un cambio a la construcción sostenible se analiza en relación con lasexigencias, necesidades e incentivos de la industria de la construcción y de la aceptación deésta de conceptos de sostenibilidad. El impacto varía de un país a otro. En el artículo, se tomanen consideración (en términos de una perspectiva cada vez más amplia) las actividades de losprincipales sectores en los que la industria de la construcción desempeña un papel importante:infraestructura, propiedad comercial y vivienda. El reto para la industria es identificar —enpaíses desarrollados y en desarrollo— los aspectos de la construcción sostenible que se puedentratar de manera realista y las áreas en que la acción aportará una contribución significativapara lograr la sostenibilidad. Más y más clientes reconocen los resultados económicos posi-tivos del la sostenibilidad como una incentivo para decisiones de inversión.



accompanying national strategies and action plans(notably national and Local Agenda 21 processes)are being adjusted to address the public’s desire forsustainable development. National priorities andrules now generally require integration of sustain-able development when clients formulate ademand for services. For example, environmentalimpact assessments are carried out for an increas-ingly wider variety of investment projects, andenvironmental codes now place a greater respon-sibility on property owners.

Regulations governing public procurement aimto guarantee fair and transparent competition toobtain the best quality-price ratio with optimumuse of public funds. Policy considerations, impor-tant as they may be, should generally not be a fac-tor in decisions concerning the award ofprocurement contracts.

For procurement by tendering (the most com-mon practice) the choice of the winning bid issimple in principle: the most economically advan-tageous offer that is responsive is awarded the con-tract. Award criteria other than price (e.g.quality, performance, time, ingenuity andenvironmental effects) should be expressedin monetary terms to the extent practicable.

When a design and construct responsibil-ity is contracted out against a design specifi-cation that defines “fitness for purpose”,there are some measurable parameters. How-ever, many parameters that respond to qual-ity (e.g. durability and maintenance) and tofunction and environment remain subjec-tive, difficult to measure, and thus difficultto award profit against. These considerationsrequire continuous discussion to set action-able but balanced standards and specifica-tions combining the objectives of publicprocurement with environmental and socialpolicies.

European legislation already accepts thatenvironmental issues can be used as an awardcriterion in a contract, provided there is eco-nomic advantage. Some argue that procurementdirectives should go much further by allowing thecontracting authority to use as criteria aspectslinked to general social or environmental objec-tives (e.g. unemployment campaigns) providedthe criteria are consistent with legal principles,notably non-discrimination.

However, it is not the role of a contract betweentwo parties that is enforced by each party to incor-porate the sustainability obligations of the twoparties with respect to a third party, namely soci-ety at large.

First, the parties are bound by law to respectenvironmental and social obligations independentof the contract.

Second, public authorities can opt for environ-mentally sound requirements by specifying whatis required in the call for tenders. They can pro-cure services on the basis of the economically mostadvantageous tender, balancing price, quality andlife-cycle costs, for which quality assessment cri-teria include sustainability factors. Local authori-ties, for example, are encouraged to apply theprinciples of ecological land-use planning. Simi-

lar expectations are placed on the military, thehealth sector, and other services areas controlleddirectly by government. However, even life-cyclecosts are often left out of the equation, let alonesustainability considerations.

Innovative methods of project deliveryExperience has shown that attempts to secure sus-tainability goals by imposing constraints andrequirements on a particular aspect of the projectcycle are ineffective and generally resisted.

At the same time, the construction industry(aware that traditional project delivery by com-petitive tendering is not necessarily the most effi-cient method) is moving away from the simpleand confined goals of cost and time for construc-tion to focus on the macro issues of overall projectoutcomes, where the outcomes are used as goalsfor all project participants. This shift comes fromstrictly commercial reasons (e.g. elimination ofdisputes) and the understanding that it should bepossible to take a more global view.

It was initially felt that contractual relationshipscould be replaced by long-term relationshipsbased on the outcome (determined by clear mea-surement of performance) of a process involvingsustained improvements in quality and efficiency.

Such arrangements are not sufficiently rigorous,so other methods based on outcome-based deliv-ery are being tried. In the partnering of projectteams, project delivery focuses on a project busi-ness plan and compares this to the project out-come, apportioning profit to the delivering partiesaccording to their ability to exceed the plan’srequirements. The aim is for team members toshare in success, in line with the value they add forthe client. However, partnering has had limitedsuccess because it relies on best endeavours andacts of faith: partners simply tell each other thatthey will act reasonably and fairly while expresslydisavowing any legal obligation to do so. Instead,it has opened the way to consideration of moreefficient project delivery methods for complexprojects based on aligning incentives.

Among the most widely used methods arealliance contracting (alliancing) and engineer-pro-

cure-construct-manage, a producer-controlledturnkey undertaking that provides greater com-petition over costs at the physical constructionstage as the client works in close cooperation witha project management team. It is believed, but notyet proven, that alliancing and similar types ofcontracts should facilitate proper recognition ofsustainability performance in the selectionprocess.

It is also felt that the same global approach toimplementing sustainability, using new modes ofproject delivery, is needed for smaller, communi-ty-based projects that seek increased public andstakeholder participation in the planning, imple-mentation, monitoring and review of projects.

These new modes will not be based on allianc-ing and the like, which focus on relatively large-scale projects in developed countries. Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are being explored as apossible delivery mode. PPPs aim to help meetinfrastructure needs by promoting private sectorinvolvement. Experience has repeatedly shown

the overriding importance of contractualterms, regulations, bidding procedures andmarket structure. Thus it is likely that devel-oping the new modes will require very care-ful evaluation of all phases of the projectdelivery cycle. Progress is slow, indicatingthat it will be an enormous challenge toimplement broad PPP concepts on a rela-tively small scale with relatively unsophisti-cated partners. In addition, private fundingof infrastructure still only represents 10%of the total in developing countries, so thereis little momentum for exploiting fully thepossibilities.

Infrastructure demandAnalyses of the demand for infrastructuregenerally focus on the main components,i.e. telecommunications, power supply,land-based transport, and water and sanita-tion. In Latin America, for example, power

infrastructure accounts for close to one-half oftotal infrastructure gross investment, followed bytransport, telecommunications and water andsanitation.

Structural change in an economy, and incomegrowth, increase the demand for infrastructure.The World Bank estimates that the investmentsneeded for Latin America should amount to US$57 billion, about 2.7% of Latin America’s GDP in2000-5. Most of this amount would be for power,followed by roads and telecommunications.

The public sector’s share of gross domestic fixedinvestment in the region was about US$ 37 bil-lion in 2000. Given that not all of this investmentis available for infrastructure financing, infra-structure investment needs will have to be fore-gone or made up by the private sector. The same istrue elsewhere in the developing world.

Private financing for infrastructure has surgedworldwide in recent years. Annual private capitalflows to developing country infrastructure pro-jects were similar in magnitude to official devel-opment assistance (ODA) in 1990. They thengrew more than eightfold, reaching US$ 120 bil-

Figure 1ODA and private capital flows to infrastructure

in developing countries

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

140,000

120,000

100,000

60,000

140,000

40,000

20,000

0

US$

mill

ion

ODA

Private capital

Report of the Third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries, LDCIII, Infrastructure Development Session, Brussels, 19 May 2001



lion in 1997. However, they have proved to bevolatile, with 80% going to only six upper mid-dle-income countries. Financial crisis in the 1990smore than halved private capital flows to the infra-structure sector after 1997 (Figure 1).

Less than 1% of private capital flowed to less-developed countries, where ODA remains thedominant source of infrastructure finance (US$35 billion over the past decade, compared withless than US$ 5 billion of private capital).

Overall, 43% of private capital went totelecommunications, 32% to energy, 19% totransport, and only 5% to water and sanitation.In regions such as Latin America, which are dom-inated by countries that attract private capital,transport and energy were inversed. More impor-tantly, private investment covers about half theinvestment demands for roads and only a fractionof what is needed for power and water and sanita-tion. The situation is much more serious inregions that attract relatively little investment,either private funds or ODA.

In a regime of shortfall, anything perceived tobe more expensive will be ignored. Unfortunately,for many of the world’s governments and privateclients sustainability falls into that category.

RoadsRecent World Bank and World Business Councilfor Sustainable Development reports show astrong relation between the level of economicdevelopment and levels of motorization, road pro-vision and distance travelled. Vehicle ownershipincreases with income, and estimated ownershipsaturation levels are well above currently observedlevels, with little evidence that ownership slows incountries at high income levels (Figure 2). Thesame is true for distance travelled. Road provisionat the national level is also very responsive toincome, especially for paved roads, and very con-sistent across countries even though provided bygovernment. In other words, overall demand forroads (ignoring the complex case of cities) invari-ably increases and obeys the same laws every-where. The extent to which government can be adriver for change by moderating demand forinfrastructure is probably limited if experiencewith roads is any indication.

Commercial propertyThe commercial property sector faces profoundchange in the developed world.

First, greater recognition of the differentiatedrole of buildings and space as productive assets (asopposed to crude containers) will drive demand.

Second, to reduce repair and maintenance therewill be an increase in investment for commercialand industrial facilities that are designed and builtas an industrial product for a single purpose, andthat are built to last for a limited period beforemajor refurbishment or dismantling.

Third, the combination of information tech-nology and the growth in small companies pro-viding business services may cause re-colonizationof obsolescent, low-grade space.

Fourth, to maintain profitability businesses willhave to work their assets harder, including build-

ings and other constructed facilities; assets mustdeliver more value.

Finally, major firms and asset managers withsignificant property portfolios are increasinglyrequiring suppliers, contractors and professionaladvisors to take their sustainability policies intoaccount when they build or manage property inorder to minimize environmental impacts and tocontribute positively to society. This trend is accel-erated by legislation such as the UK’s 1999 Pen-sions Act requiring occupational pension funds toexplain how they factor social and environmentalissues into investments.

The fact that the main drivers for changeremain largely economic is illustrated by a recentsurvey of the UK property sector, which showedthat firms invest in urban regeneration for thesame reasons they invest in normal property. Themain factors are above-average perceived totalreturns and security of investment. Factors suchas competitor behaviour, past experience, socialand community involvement, and image weremuch less important.

The problem is currently that drivers for ener-gy and resource efficiency and costs savings, espe-cially in retrofitting and refurbishment, are notbeing translated to the less-developed world, withthe exception of a handful of high-profile inter-national companies reportedly anxious to presentthe right image to international investors andpressure groups. Very few companies are respond-ing to fundamentals such as the impacts of climatechange and resource limitations on the bottomline. These pioneers aim to set an example for amore radical change in thinking.

HousingHousing investment typically accounts for 2-8%of GNP and housing services for an additional 5-10%. Some 56% of Europeans and 65% of NorthAmericans live in owner-occupied dwellings. Theremainder can be divided into the private rentalsector and social housing. Every fifth apartmentin Europe is rented from the social housing sector.Over half (52%) of the EU housing stock consistsof one-family houses; there are slightly fewer (72million) dwellings in buildings with more thanone apartment.

The interplay of supply and demand deter-mines the housing market. However, unlike roadprovision, housing conditions do not systemati-cally improve with economic growth and devel-opment due to policy differences across cities andcountries.

Reorganization of social housing provision andfinancing may change the balance of demand,with social housing accounting for an increasedproportion of all housing. But given the tendencyfor reduced investment by government in areasthat can be adequately supplied by the private sec-tor, predictions of an increase in social housing areuncertain,.

Historically, most financing for sustainablehousing comes from individuals with high networth rather than from banks and traditionalinvestors. Sustainable construction at the momentis still driven by the early adopters, mostly home-

owners with enough private financing to pay foralternatives not supported by the financing issues.Here the drivers are related to the search for analternative lifestyle.

But a shift appears to have begun. Privatehomeowners in the developed world perceivemost of the value of their homes in terms of itslocation (40%). Functionality accounts for a sim-ilar perceived value, followed by image (15%) andservices (5%). The market will respond whenowners accept that sustainable constructionincreases functional value by being more durable,economical and efficient to run, healthier andmore comfortable. In the United States institu-tional and investor resistance to environmentallyresponsible housing development is reported to beeroding. It is increasingly claimed that investorscan expect the same return as on any other equiv-alent investment. The main barriers are seen to befinancial, along with zoning regulations and pooracceptance by authorities of novel designs owingto unclear specifications.

Surveys suggest that there will be no substantialchange in the nature of the aggregate demand forhousing in the developed world in the near term,unless future changes in planning regulationsseverely restrict the availability of land for devel-opment or the price performance of new housesimproves dramatically. The trend to sustainableconstruction in private housing that requires botha suitable location near transport and perfor-mance improvements will therefore be gradual.

Informal urban housingDemand for affordable housing in the develop-

ing world has become so great that there is hardlyany spare capacity to be directed to the other lev-els of sustainability, especially opportunities forthe formal construction sector.

Low-cost urban housing in most developingcountries is characterized by rapid growth ofslums and unauthorized settlements (between 20-30% of new growth in cities). In low and low-middle income countries, 30-70% of urbanhousing stock is illegal or unauthorized sinceeither land ownership laws or building and plan-ning laws have not been followed.

Because land suitable for settlement is scarceand/or expensive, informal settlements are oftensited in hazardous locations where people experi-ence not only threats to health due to poor quali-ty housing, water supply, sanitation and access tosocial services, but also a host of other problems.

Relative to developed countries, housing poli-cies disproportionately affect the cost, availabili-ty, quality and production of informal housingsince they extend to areas not normally subject tocontrol, such as security of tenure and asset secu-rity for long-term financing.

Positive drivers for change are labour-intensiveconstruction methods, locally sourced materials,and highly structured, internally networked andmutually supportive communities.

Low-cost urban housingThe informal sector is the main producer of hous-ing stock in most developing countries. Much of



this stock is based on community-based deliveryprocesses. In many developing countries familiesbuild a significant number of houses, normallywith help from friends.

Public sector low-cost housing produced byconventional construction processes is generallycharacterized by doubtful quality, unimaginativeplanning and design, low market image, highclient dissatisfaction, poor land management,poor siting and low expectations of profit.

The situation is no better in the case of privatesector low-cost housing. Progammes aim at lowinitial cost per unit delivered, with minimal con-sideration of the life-cycle cost. Such propertiesare scarcely ever integrated into the conventionalproperty market, as they are perceived to be ofinferior quality and with high financial risks.

According to the report Agenda 21 for Sustain-able Construction in Developing Countries, “It isnow generally accepted that for housing to be sus-tainable in developing countries, programmeshave to adopt a holistic perspective and includeissues such as urban design, urban greening andthe provision of social infrastructure such asschools and clinics. Housing cannot be seen as aproduct to be fabricated and delivered, but as anenabling and empowering process. This integrat-ed concept of housing as part of the urban tissue ofa city is not often contemplated by the construc-tion industry, yet it is one of the most pressingproblems of the developing world.”

Innovative project delivery systems have shownthemselves capable of reaching the poorest sec-tions of the population. Among these systems areconstruction based on the collective and orga-nized efforts of the community, and projects man-aged by housing cooperatives or associations thatwork on a non-profit or cost-covering basis.

The most effective participative systems haveproved to be self-managed popular cooperatives,where the community has financial control of theproject, and contracts for private-sector technicalconsulting services for the development of thebuilding project and its execution.

The total indirect costs of building are some45% less than the total cost of conventional con-struction, and the quality of construction is high-er. Differences are accounted for by reduced wasteand the diversity of architectural solutions result-ing from participation of the cooperative workers

in the planning and execution.Motivation for improving low-income housing

in the majority of developing countries relates toovercrowding, insecurity, vulnerability to disas-ters, poor siting, poor quality, poor ventilationand design, sluggish supply, land and housing thatare unaffordable compared to income levels, andstrained physical infrastructure and social services.

Governments are trying to support the low-costhousing market, but the realities of market forcesare limiting adoption. Pilot projects have beenmainly driven by agencies and non-governmentalorganizations keen to import an approach or atechnology, and supported by donor aid. Thefocus is generally on energy efficiency, as that iswhere the international funding lies. Water man-agement is of critical importance, but it is receiv-ing considerably less attention.

The main drivers are improved health (reducedindoor air pollution) and poverty alleviation (lessmoney spent on energy means more money tospend on education and nutrition).

ConclusionsThe construction industry has a huge capacity toparticipate in the development of a sustainablebuilt and natural environment. It makes prag-

matic efforts to instil and extend sustainable con-cepts at the project level, with private and publicclients, in areas of activity that it can influence.Clients are increasingly recognizing the positiveeconomic outcomes of sustainability as a driver forinvestment decisions. In the developing world,adequately financed innovative project deliverysystems have the potential to meet urgent hous-ing needs on a sustainable basis. However, infra-structure shortfalls and seemingly entrenchedconsumption patterns challenge the developmentand implementation of adequate governmentalprocurement policies.

FIDIC (the International Federation of ConsultingEngineers) represents the business interests of suppli-ers of technology-based intellectual services for thebuilt and natural environment. The FIDIC Sus-tainable Development Task Force is charged withimplementing the federation’s strategy and actionplan for sustainable development.

For information, contact: Peter Boswell, FIDIC, POBox 311, CH-1215 Geneva 15, Switzerland(fidic@fidic. org); Tel.: +41 (22) 799 49 00; Fax:+41 (22) 799 49 01; Internet: www.fidic.org.

◆

Figure 2Changes in total road network density in 50 countries (1970-90)

Source: G.K. Ingram and Zhi Liu, Motorization and Road Provision in Countries and Cities, The World Bank, 2002

Tota

l roa

ds k

m/k

m2

GNP (in 1987 US$) / km2

10

1

0.1

0.01

0.001

0.0001

10,0001,000 1,000,000100,000 10,000,000



One million sustainable homesJo Wheeler, Sustainable Homes Policy Officer, WWF-UK, Panda House, Weyside Park, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1XR, UK ([email protected])

Not surprisingly, the majority of people around the world associateWWF and our famous panda logo with conservation of endangeredspecies such as tigers, rhinos and pandas. Why on earth, then, wouldWWF be interested in people’s homes?

The answer to this question lies in the pyramid on the right,which illustrates how WWF operates. WWF recognizes that wecan only achieve our vital work of protecting endangeredspecies if we take action to protect endangered habitats likeforests and oceans. To do this, WWF must address glob-al threats to nature such as climate change, deforesta-tion and wasteful use of natural resources. We aim todo this by working with partners to seek long-term,sustainable solutions benefiting people andnature.

Every two years WWF produces the LivingPlanet Report, which measures the planet’s“health”.1 With each update this reportindicates a continuing dramatic declinein the number of species and a dramat-ic rise in the rate of consumption ofnatural resources and levels of pol-lution. The report also measuresthe “ecological footprint” ofindividual nations and, shock-ingly, tells us that if everyonearound the world consumed natural resources and generated CO2 at therate people currently do in the UK we would need three planets to supportus.

Unfortunately, the majority of homes in the UK have significant nega-tive impacts on the environment. These include direct impacts with respectto a number of key WWF priorities including climate change, protectionof forests and freshwater environments and reducing the use of toxic chem-icals. For example, typical newly built homes in the UK use three and ahalf times more energy than those in Denmark and Germany.2 In socialterms, this clearly has consequences for people who have difficulty afford-ing to heat their homes properly. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foun-dation:

“Britain has around 40,000 more deaths during December andMarch….which is a larger ‘winter excess’ than in most other Europeancountries, including Scandinavia. This is in spite of the fact that Britainhas comparatively mild winters….part of the explanation may lie withBritain’s ageing housing stock, which….may provide less protection againstthe cold.”3

In environmental terms, housing in the UK contributes around 27% oftotal CO2 emissions associated with energy use. Domestic energy use isprojected to rise by 6% by 2010. It is therefore essential to reduce emis-sions from new and existing houses if we are to mitigate some of the worsteffects of climate change.

Furthermore, up to 70% of timber used in the UK goes into construc-tion and a high proportion is used for housing. The housing industry mustdemand timber from well-managed, independently certified sources if weare to halt and reverse threats to forests around the world – 14.6 millionhectares of natural forest are lost each year, a rate of 30 hectares everyminute.4

Other impacts related to construction of new homes include quarryingto provide aggregates, wasteful use of water, and widespread use of toxic

chemicals in materials, which can pose significant health risks for occu-pants as well as having impacts on wildlife.

Some developments, however, offer a more “sustainable” alterna-tive. A very good example is the Beddington Zero (fossil) Energy

Development (BedZED) in Surrey.5

BedZED homes and offices are highly energy- and water-efficient (reducing space heating needs by 90% and water

use by an average of 56%) and use energy from a renew-able source. These homes are a mix of social, shared

ownership and reasonably priced units for sale (com-pared to a local market average). Most materials used

to build BedZED were from local, recycled or cer-tified well-managed sources. Residents have

access to a car pool and local organic fooddeliveries. Although it is a high-density

housing development, all residents haveaccess to private gardens and conserva-

tories.

Mainstreamingsustainable homes

Unfortunately, developmentssuch as BedZED are current-ly the exception rather thanthe rule in the UK. This is

why, in December 2001, WWF-UK invited the government to make apublic commitment to develop one million sustainable homes in this coun-try. WWF recognized that the government could not deliver such a com-mitment alone. The support of a wide range of stakeholders would beneeded, including representatives of the house building and constructionindustry, the investment community, local authorities and planners, con-sumers and NGOs. WWF has a strong track record of bringing togetherbusinesses and governments to seek solutions that bring social, environ-mental and economic benefits. Our success in this area has been shownthrough our work on sustainable forestry, fisheries and rural development.

WWF initiated an independently facilitated dialogue process designedto identify the barriers to sustainable homes and ways to overcome them,to build on best practice and lessons learned to date, and to develop con-sensus among a wide range of stakeholders. A consultation questionnairewas sent to over 350 stakeholders, and we held a multi-stakeholder work-shop with key organizations including representatives from government,house builders, a major developer, a major investor, the Housing Corpo-ration, the Buildings Research Establishment (BRE) and the BioRegionalDevelopment Group (responsible for BedZED).

In parallel with the dialogue process outlined above, WWF held meet-ings with a wide range of stakeholders. These included representatives fromgovernment,6 the house building industry, the investment community, anda range of other business interests. The feedback from the questionnaireand meetings represented an overwhelming consensus on the need foraction.

As a result of this consultation, WWF identified six key barriers to devel-opment of sustainable homes. Our findings are summarized in the diagramon the following page.

Stakeholders told us that barriers to sustainable homes include:◆ current planning and building regulations that do not promote sustain-able homes;

WWFtakes action to:

conserve endangered species

protect endangered spaces

address global threats to the planet

by seeking sustainable solutions

for the benefit of people and nature

WWFtakes action to:

conserve endangered species

protect endangered spaces

address global threats to the planet

by seeking sustainable solutions

for the benefit of people and nature

SPECIES

SPACES

CONSUMPTION

LEVERS FOR LONG-TERM CHANGE



◆ lack of fiscal incentives;◆ perceived lack of investor support;◆ perceived extra cost;◆ lack of consensus around the definition of asustainable home;◆ perceived lack of consumer demand.

One of the key barriers to progress in this areawas the definition of a “sustainable home”. Wediscovered a plethora of existing schemes andindicators, but little clarity regarding a defini-tion. WWF found there was a general consensusthat BRE’s EcoHomes7 standard was a goodstarting point, and BRE originally developedEcoHomes in consultation with an AdvisoryGroup.

The feedback from stakeholders was thatwhile EcoHomes is not perfect, it does begin toaddress the fundamental impact of housing onthe environment. And BRE is committed todeveloping and improving the standard overtime. The assessment covers areas of energy,transport, pollution, materials, water, ecologyand land use, and health and well-being. WWFsupports the EcoHomes “Very Good” and“Excellent” standards as a good measure of newand refurbished homes that have significantlyless impact on the environment.

Next stepsWWF has secured commitments from a wide range of organizations,including house builders, developers and investors. We have now conveneda “Sustainable Homes Task Force” comprising key partners from across awide range of sectors responsible for overseeing the different strategies need-ed to overcome the barriers to sustainable homes.

These strategies include:◆ ensuring that planning and building regulations facilitate the develop-ment of sustainable homes;◆ ensuring that a range of fiscal incentives are introduced;◆ demonstrating strong investor support for sustainable homes;◆ ensuring that the cost of sustainable homes is competitive;◆ developing the EcoHomes standard;◆ building consumer awareness and demand for sustainable homes.

WWF believes government must show vision and demonstrate a lead inmaking sustainable homes the norm. WWF has recommended a numberof tax incentives that could be introduced to encourage house builders andconsumers to see the benefits of sustainable homes.8 Government alsoneeds to revise planning and building regulations to ensure that these crit-ical forms of regulation support sustainable development rather than hin-der it.

Government must lead by example as a construction client. It can dothis by ensuring that all new homes for which it has responsibility meet ata minimum the EcoHomes “Very Good” standard. Finally, governmentshould support communication of the social, economic and environ-mental benefits of sustainable homes to accelerate the step change that isneeded in the way we design, develop and refurbish homes throughoutthe UK.

ConclusionWWF does not support the “predict and provide” mentality for new devel-opments, but it does accept that there is a housing shortage in the UK.Wherever possible, this should be met by refurbishing and renovatingderelict and empty houses and other buildings, but where there is a real andjustified need for new building, such developments should meet at a min-imum BRE’s EcoHomes “Very Good” standard.

One thing is clear: we only have one planet to live on, and this meansthat wherever new homes are genuinely needed they must be developed ina way that minimizes their impact on the global environment while opti-mizing social and economic benefits for occupants and the region.

Notes1. WWF (2002) Living Planet Report (www.panda.org/downloads/gener-al/LPR_2002. pdf ).2. Energy Saving Trust (2001) Towards an Energy Efficiency Strategy forHouseholds to 2020. Supplementary Submission to the PIU Energy Review.October. 3. www.jrf.org.uk.4. WWF (2002) Forests for Life. Working to protect, manage and restorethe world’s forests. August (www.panda.org/about_wwf/what-we-do/).5. www.bedzed.org.uk.6. Meetings were held with No. 10, DTLR & Millennium Communities,DEFRA, DTI, Scottish Executive, ACCPE (Advisory Committee on Con-sumer Products in the Environment), and Rethinking Construction(Housing Forum and Sir John Egan).7. For more information about EcoHomes, see www.bre.co.uk. 8. WWF (2002) Fiscal Incentives for Sustainable Homes. May (www.wwf.org.uk/ filelibrary/pdf/sustainablehomes.pdf ).

Perception: planning reform to speed updevelopment – not

promote sustainable development

Little progress inmainstreaming

sustainable homes

Fiscal systemprovides

disincentives

Other taxes? Demand forshort-term

profits

Small-scaledemo

projects

Demand fornew homes

exceedssupply

LocationLack of

critical massPlanners don't

understandsustainability

Confusion regarding planning

and buildingregulations

VAT on energyefficient products,

etc. Plethora ofschemes/indicators

Lack ofawareness/

understanding

Planning regulations

act as barrier

Lack ofinvestorinterest

Perceiveshigh/extra

costs

No agreedstandard/definition

Lack of consumer demand



Solar energy and eco-design in the tourism sectorPatricia Cortijo, Environment Department, Accor

2 rue de la Mare Neuve, 91021 Evry Cedex, France ([email protected])

Accor is Europe’s largest travel, tourism and corporate service group. It has150,000 staff in 140 countries, There are nearly 4000 Accord hotels(443,000 rooms) in 90 countries.

Accor implements its environmental policy in hotel-building and ren-ovation, notably by promoting solar energy. Within the Group, Accor alsoidentifies and promotes innovative projects such as the Sydney OlympicPark Novotel and Ibis hotels, which have gone a step further in terms ofimproving environmental performance.

Solar energy in hotelsSince 1998 Accor has been involved in a programme to use solar water-heating technologies in its hotels. The Group has already undertaken sev-eral successful operations. In 1998 its Environment Department launcheda programme with the Technical Department to study use of solar powerto produce hot water for bathrooms. This project involved hotels inFrance, the French West Indies and Spain.By December of that year, thefirst installation had been set up at the Novotel Gosier Bas-du-Fort, whichis equipped with 96 m2 of solar panels. Today 14 installations have beencompleted, including eight in France.1 The programme will continue bothnationally and internationally.

As of March 2001, Accor was the company that had installed the great-est surface area of thermal solar panels in France (1300 m2).

Eco-design and environmentally managed hotelsFor the Olympic Games in Sydney, Accor opened a 327-room hotel com-plex in 1999 comprising Novotel and Ibis hotels at the Olympic site,Homebush Bay. In selecting the Accor project, Australian authorities wereinfluenced by its full compliance with the environmental directives imple-mented by the International Olympic Committee. The consortiuminvolved had committed consultants to prepare a strategy to maximizeecologically sustainable development principles and practices. This alsoinvolved drawing up environmental management plans for hotel designand construction and for ongoing hotel operation.

The hotels were designed with ambitious environmental objectives:◆ Building materials were selected with specific requirements, e.g. lowvolatile organic compound paint, and flooring for the bar area and lobbystaircase made of recycled graded hardwood.◆ Water saving initiatives included grey waterseparation, treatment and reuse in toilets, irri-gation, fire hydrants and the sprinkler tank,and collection of rainwater from the gutter-ing in the garden watering storage tank forrecycling. ◆ Energy saving: air conditioning automati-cally switches off in rooms if windows areopened; louvres are installed in the foyer foreffective and natural airflow and energy sav-ing; external awnings fitted to guest roomsreduce radiated heat from direct sunlight; allguest rooms have black curtains to block outlight and absorb heat.◆ Renewable energy: 250 m2 of solar panels onrooftops produce 60% of hot water requiredfor hotel bathrooms.◆ Waste recovery: a worm farm deals with upto 150 kg of organic fruit and vegetable wasteeach week, producing fertilizer for the hotels’herb gardens.

To ensure full development of the potentialof these eco-designed hotels, an environmen-tal management system was implemented in

2000. While hotel environmental designand technical innovations are important,implementation and maintenance by staffof the environmental management systemis critical to achieve significant environmental results. Environmental ini-tiatives are integrated into operating procedures. Six months after open-ing, the Novotel and Hotel Ibis Sydney Olympic Park were the first hotelsin Australia to obtain ISO 14001 certification.

These hotels use resources more efficiently, satisfying demand by anincreasing number of clients who prefer to use businesses that reflect theirown desire to care for the environment. Accor has also set up a partner-ship with the WWF through which one dollar is given to this organizationfor every room booked at the Novotel or Ibis Sydney Olympic Park.

Integrating environment in hotel managementIntegration of environmental criteria in hotel design is important, but itshould be completed by environmental guidelines for hotel management.Most environmental impacts occur when hotels are exploited.

In 1998 Accor created the Hotels Environment Charter (“Charter 15”)to integrate environmental management in hotels. The Charter gives eachhotel the means to act locally in keeping with the specific aspects of thelocal business environment, while taking into account corporate guide-lines. It has now been implemented in 2048 Accor hotels out of a total of3711. The Hotels Environment Charter covers waste management andrecycling, water and energy consumption, local involvement, employeetraining and awareness-raising.

Accor’s administrative offices are also involved in waste managementand recycling through separate collection of paper, batteries and printerink cartridges for recycling.

The Charter 15 actions are presented in the Environment Guide forHotel Managers, a training tool for hotel employees. Every year the progressof these initiatives is measured. The hotels report on their progress in imple-menting these actions. The results are published in Accor’s Annual Report.

Since 1994 Accor has had an Environmental Manager, evolving in 1997into the Environment Department. Support is provided by a network of53 international representatives. These contacts reconcile the challenges of

international and domestic environmentalpolicies, help adapt these policies to thetourism sector and formulate an operationalstrategy for the Group.

For more information, see: www.accor.com/gb/groupe/dev_durable/environnement/environnement.asp.

1.Novotel Gosier Bas-du-Fort, Guadeloupe,French West Indies (December 1998); Ibisand Novotel Homebush Bay, Australia (Janu-ary 2000); Novotel Sophia Antipolis, France(June 2000); Formule 1 Perpignan, France(July 2000); Coralia Club Marina Viva Por-ticcio, Corsica, France (July 2000); NovotelToulouse Aéroport, France (October 2000);Novotel Narbonne Sud, France (March2001) ; Novotel Avignon Sud, France (April2001); Sofitel Porticcio, Corsica, France (June2001); Ibis Meknès, Morocco (September2001); Ibis Castelldefels, Spain (December2001); Hôtel Marissol, Guadeloupe, FrenchWest Indies (February 2002); Accor Academy,France (February 2002).

Accor hotel complex onthe Olympic site in

Homebush Bay, Australia



Policies have a key role in supporting movestowards sustainable building and construc-tion (SBC). The sustainability of the built

environment, in turn, is a key element in efforts tohalt the spiral of resource depletion that jeopardizesthe future of our planet. The current political cli-mate tends to favour market-based initiatives topromote sustainability. However, recent studiesshow that, as far as SBC is concerned, the opti-mum solution is a combination of market-steeringmeasures and integrated policies, efficiently imple-mented and enforced. Yet the development ofeffective policies is not easy.

Furthermore, even the most successful of exist-ing policies geared towards SBC are barely mak-ing headway even against basic environmentalproblems related to the built environment, nevermind addressing the urgent issue of reducingresource use by a factor of four or more in orderto establish a balanced resource system. A seachange is needed: policy development even in themost progressive countries is not yet grounded inthe principles of sustainability.

Current issuesThe limits of the planet’s resources and the threatof climate change translate into a need to mini-mize use of materials and of fossil fuels. These arethe first concerns that SBC tried to address, andthey remain the most important ones.

Other issues, such as indoor air quality, greenspaces, health issues, traffic patterns and socialissues, have come to be included in various cul-tures’ understanding of the term. But the world isnot getting any nearer to sustainability, even withrespect to SBC’s two original concerns. In the caseof each of these issues a new, innovative policystrategy is needed.

The results of a four-year OECD project confirmthe importance of policies in promoting SBC. Thesynthesis report of this project defines four criteria forevaluating policy instruments:1

◆ environmental efficiency (how much the instru-ment contributes to achieving the policy objective,e.g. reducing environmental loading);◆ economic efficiency (the extent to which the instru-ment enables least-cost achievement of an objective);

◆ incentives for innovation (how much the instru-ment stimulates innovation and the diffusion ofcost-effective technology);◆ administrative costs (whether they are withinacceptable limits, for both public authorities andprivate companies).

Thus far, few policies or policy instrumentsaimed at the building and construction sector havestimulated progress beyond the level achieved bybuilding regulations. Energy and environmentalaudits appear to have encouraged the introductionof measures. Tax benefits look as if they might be apromising financial driver, as some countries havedemonstrated. But in general there is an urgentneed for innovation, ideas and further develop-ment of policies to promote SBC.

Policy resultsThe OECD review includes a number of policiesthat have been successful, though these policies donot go far enough. One is the Dutch policy aimedat diverting construction and demolition wastefrom landfills via waste reduction and recycling.It has resulted in over 90% of such waste nowbeing recycled or reused, owing to a combinationof environmental regulations, taxes, and (later) aban on dumping.

The success of this policy does not mean theNetherlands has solved the problem of resourcemanagement. It has yet to make the shift to aclosed-cycle, sustainable resource managementpolicy whose emphasis would be on reducing theamount of material consumed to begin with.

Japan appears to be on the road to such a shift.The 2000 Basic Law for Establishing a Recycling-Based Society provides some good starting pointsfor moves towards “dematerialization”. The struc-ture of its approach to resource management isprobably the best in the field. However, targetswere not set and results so far have been marginal.It has been reported that awareness of the need forregulation is growing in Japan.

Studies show that most European countries’policies have brought only slight progress so far.2

For measures to have a real impact, legislationneeds to be accompanied by targets and regula-tions.

Despite examples of policies in some countriesthat have had interesting results, these are a longway from being enough.

In a study comparing SBC-related policy inFinland, the Netherlands, France, Germany andthe UK, Minna Sunikka concludes that despitegovernment support in areas such as information

The role of policies in promoting sustainablepractices

Ronald Rovers, editor in chief of Sustainable Building and head of the Sustainable Building Support Centre, Institute for Housing

and Urban Development Studies, PO Box 1935, 300BX Rotterdam, The Netherlands ([email protected])

SummaryResource depletion is the most pressing overall concern related to the built environment. Deter-mined policy development is needed to address this concern. Policies aimed at specific issues arenot enough; a shift to “dematerialization” is required. Developing countries face particularbarriers regarding policies on the built environment. In some countries of both the developedand developing worlds, promising steps are being taken, but to deal with consequences suchas the rebound effect will require strong supranational efforts.

ResuméL’épuisement des ressources est la principale source d’inquiétude en matière d’environnementbâti. Ce problème nécessite l’élaboration de politiques fermes. Mais les politiques axées sur desproblèmes particuliers ne suffisent pas : une évolution vers la “ dématérialisation ” s’impose.Les politiques d’environnement bâti des pays en développement se heurtent à des barrièresparticulières. Si dans certains pays du monde développé et du monde en développement desmesures prometteuses sont actuellement prises, il faudra des efforts supranationaux énergiquespour faire face à des conséquences comme l’effet de rebond, par exemple.

ResumenLa disminución de recursos es la preocupación general más urgente relacionada con el medioambiente construido. Es preciso elaborar políticas concretas que respondan a esta preocu-pación. Las políticas orientadas a cuestiones específicas no son suficientes: se requiere un cam-bio hacia la “dematerialización”. Los países en desarrollo afrontan barreras particularesrespecto de las políticas sobre el medio ambiente construido. En algunos países, tanto desar-rollados como en desarrollo, se están tomando medidas prometedoras, pero para hacer frentea las consecuencias, como el efecto de rebote, se necesitarán acciones sólidas a nivel suprana-cional.



dissemination, progress towards sustainabilityin the construction sector appears to be veryslow. Information on sustainability, a long-termoutlook and a clear definition of the conceptare often lacking in the sector, the study found.3

Even if all current policies and plans on SBCin these five countries were being fully imple-mented, this report maintains that their nation-al strategies are not ambitious enough to bringabout true sustainable development, as definedand agreed at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992.

Developing countriesIf strong policies can help industrialized coun-tries lead society towards sustainability, suchefforts in developing countries face particularbarriers. For example, small and medium-sizedconstruction companies in most Sub-Saharancountries are generally not registered with thetax authorities and do not pay taxes. It would benext to impossible to apply fiscal measures tothem.

In many countries lack of planning or (infast-growing countries) inability to keep upwith the speed of growth is one of the mostpressing problems at regional and municipallevel. Most developing countries have a largeinformal building and settlement culture.Where attention is paid to any sustainabilityaspects at all, these usually involve air pollution,dust, wastewater, waste and traffic rather thanbuilding-related problems – though of courseconstruction and buildings contribute to allthese problems.

Awareness of resource management issues isgenerally scant to non-existent. Indeed, whereresources are concerned, attitudes in much of thedeveloping world are characterized by a desire touse what are perceived as “noble” materials (e.g.aluminium, steel, concrete) and by the belief that“Western” equals “modern”, as well as that achiev-ing progress inevitably entails increased energy use.

In developing countries where traditional, oftenmore sustainable construction materials andmethods persist, it is rapidly becoming difficult totake advantage of them owing to the rate at whichlocal building material industries are disappear-ing. People and industries act within the bound-aries set by policy and economics, which in muchof the world do not favour sustainable options.Some political awareness of such options existshere and there, but development of this awarenessis often impeded by unpredictable political situa-tions and/or corruption at many levels, with offi-cials unlikely to be interested in better legislation.

On the positive side, the cultures of manydeveloping countries still preserve their tradition-al ways if only in people’s memories. Where theircultural values stress balanced use of naturalresources, such countries may have a head starttowards adoption of sustainable approaches. It isessential to include this element in new policiesand approaches, just as it is essential to find waysto include the informal sector. In each case this isconditional on getting government officials andpolitical leaders involved. Furthermore, involve-ment is not enough. As a major sustainability

analysis of urban settlements in South Africa con-cludes: “Settlements will only be sustainable oncethe values of sustainability have become the basisfrom which the majority of decisions on the cre-ation and management of settlements are made.”4

Of course this conclusion applies equally to devel-oped countries.

Making sustainability centralPolicies to date have focused mostly on singleissues such as energy efficiency. However, sustain-ability needs to be the main driver of policy devel-opment, not just one of the parameters. As animportant indicator of a shift to sustainability (ingeneral development terms, and in the SBC sec-tor in particular) we might consider whether acountry has anchored sustainable development inits overall policies and even in its legislation orconstitution.

A few interesting examples exist. Take the king-dom of Bhutan, a small country north of India,whose monarch has defined progress not as grossnational product but as “gross national happi-ness”. Bhutan’s official policy is that any type ofdevelopment should be judged according towhether it contributes to this type of progress – adifficult task, but a beautiful concept. Anotherexample is the Constitution of East Timor, whichbecame independent from Indonesia in May2002. In founding the new country and writingits constitution, East Timor’s leaders have madesustainable development a basic right and duty ofthe state and its citizens. More recently, France hasbegun the process of amending its constitution to

require the state to promote sustainable devel-opment and apply the precautionary principle.

An example more specific to the buildingand construction sector is the definition of pub-lic housing in Swedish law: “Housing is a socialright, and the aim of housing policy is to createconditions that enable everyone to live in agood home at a reasonable cost in a stimulatingand secure environment, within ecologicallysustainable limits. The housing environmentshould contribute to equal and decent livingconditions and should, in particular, promotegood conditions for children and young peopleto grow up in.” A project in which these princi-ples are being carried out is the City of Tomor-row in Malmö where, among other goals,100% of energy is to be provided by renewables(see photo on following page).

While many countries in Europe have notreached this stage yet, the European Councilhas taken a major step towards doing it forthem. In the communication issued followingthe Council’s Gothenburg summit in 2001,European leaders strongly endorsed sustainabledevelopment. They declared, among otherthings, that “[the] relationship between eco-nomic growth, consumption of naturalresources and the generation of waste mustchange. Strong economic performance must gohand in hand with sustainable use of naturalresources and levels of waste, maintaining bio-diversity, preserving ecosystems and avoidingdesertification.”As a consequence of this statement, the European

Commission is working on a resource strategy thatis expected to go far beyond the current focus inmost countries, especially as regards recycling (seehttp://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/natres/index.htm). An example of concrete progress in theEU is the Energy Performance of Buildings Direc-tive, whose key provisions include minimum ener-gy performance requirements for all new buildingsand for existing large buildings undergoing majorrenovation; energy certification for all buildings (fre-quently visited buildings where public services areprovided will have to display the energy certificateprominently); and regular mandatory inspection ofboilers and air conditioning systems.

Barriers and challengesOne of the main barriers to SBC is that the build-ing and construction sector is not recognized as aresponsibility to be shared by different countries.At EU level, for example, there is no mandate todevelop common policies on construction orhousing. The Plan of Implementation adopted atthe 2002 Earth Summit in Johannesburg doescommit governments to“[use] low-cost and sus-tainable materials and appropriate technologiesfor the construction of adequate and secure hous-ing for the poor, with financial and technologicalassistance to developing countries, taking intoaccount their culture, climate, specific social con-ditions and vulnerability to natural disasters.”However, this clause is aimed principally at pover-ty alleviation rather than SBC.

Documents from the Earth Summit emphasize

At a Dutch company specializing in recovery of old building materials for reuse, nails are removed

from planks, which are checked in a metal scanner (foreground) and remilled



the duty of the private sector to “contribute to theevolution of equitable and sustainable communi-ties and societies”. They mention the need for:provision/improvement of rural infrastructureand sanitation; improved access to property, shel-ter and services for the poor; reduced energy use;integrated policy making and material reuse; andother topics related to this sector. But there isnothing specifically about balanced resource man-agement.

A further challenge is the risk that policies forSBC will be offset by rebound effects. For exam-ple, a successful campaign for use of energy effi-cient light bulbs may not produce any energysavings if users install more lights or leave lightson longer. Similarly, it has been shown that manyof the benefits of applying SBC principles in anew residential area are lost if the development islocated so far from jobs and services that extraenergy for commuting is required.

Rebound effects can be seen in material use.Charles Kibert has reported that in the past 30years the average area of a US living unit hasgrown from 170 to 220 m2 while average occu-pancy has fallen from 3.5 to 2.5 people. In mostindustrialized countries, he notes, “aggregatematerials use or throughput ... is steadily increas-ing and environmental damage is climbing pro-portionately.”5

The building and construction sector also hasits own barriers, such as the fact that longevity ofbuildings makes the economic benefits resultingfrom energy efficiency investment uncertain.Moreover, where there are both owners and users,“principal agent” problems occur with respect toimproving energy efficiency in buildings.

There is no one agreed method for assessing theenvironmental impact of energy, water and mate-rial use. National policies concerning building andconstruction differ considerably, and knowledgeof these impacts is limited. Nor is there a broadlyaccepted terminology for issues related to recy-cling of waste materials and products. The con-struction industry has to deal with legislation thatvaries according to country and is based on differ-ing information and data. Countries are develop-ing their own tools to assess the same products indifferent ways. Construction materials and prod-ucts are the building sector’s main asset in freetrade and cross-border activities. To harmonizethe various national approaches will require, onceagain, strong international cooperation.

Countries in transition face special problems inthis connection, especially those that will join theEuropean Union. They will have to adopt EUstandards for building and construction, a movethat will mean significant progress in many areas.But these standards are not yet in place for all

aspects of SBC, and they are not sufficiently strin-gent in some areas. The building and constructionsector in the accession countries will need to adaptto EU legislation even as they learn to cope withopen borders and free trade.

EU membership will mean that many localcompanies in the sector will disappear. Localbuilding products will be replaced by Westernimports. This will make it extremely difficult toestablish a strong local-based climate for SBC.From a sustainability point of view, it would bebetter if most of these countries could take a fewyears to build a strong local industry that couldcope with EU legislation and better competewith imported products and foreign-based com-panies.

Solutions involve major shiftsIf we are beginning to understand the barriers andarrive at the solutions involved in establishing asociety driven by SBC, or by recycling and renew-able forms of energy, putting the solutions intoeffect is another matter. As Gary Gardner andPayal Sampat have written, “Given the record of[the last] century, an extraterrestrial observermight conclude that conversion of raw materialsto wastes – often toxic ones – is the real purpose ofhuman economic activity.”5

Our resources are limited. If we do not make ashift, nature will do it for us. To bring about a shiftin resource management will require reinventionof the now predominant economic system and thepolicy making that guides it. This system is verycomplex, and considerable insight into its work-ings will be necessary if we are to avoid unexpect-ed consequences such as major rebound effects.

For a start, old-fashioned subsidies to industry,mining, transport and new building need to bereplaced with measures to support closed cyclesfor all materials and products. The building andconstruction sector could be at the forefront ofthis change. Its products have a longer lifetimethan average products, and with appropriate ren-ovation and maintenance they can be made use-ful virtually forever. In this sector a zero-materialsstrategy, developed in line with a zero-energy strat-egy, could well be in reach.

Recent research and models provide some cluesabout how to go about this. First must come ashift in the focus of policies from new structures toexisting ones, aiming for repeated reuse. Onlynow are we starting to realize that the realadvances can be made in the existing buildingstock, which in many countries amounts to up to99% of total stock, with only 1-1.5% added orreplaced each year.7

Another key shift will mean restructuring poli-cies to favour services over products. Current dis-cussions of effective policy involve extendingproducer responsibility to the whole lifetime of aproduct. In the buildings sector this can be trans-lated as “servicing shelter”. Solar cells in roofs pro-vide an example of such “product service systems”:in some projects the roof (as a surface) is leased toan energy supply company. The company takesfull responsibility for the roof, both as a watertightsurface and as a source of profit via the green elec-

In the City of Tomorrow (Malmö, Sweden) 120 m2 of photovoltaic cells help supply energy needs



tricity produced by the solar cells. This avoids theguarantee problems that could arise if two com-panies were involved in maintaining the roof.

Of course SBC is not only about environmen-tal concerns. In addition to securing our physicalresources, SBC means paying attention to socialand cultural values. The importance of theseaspects is only recently being recognized in thesector. The main elements receiving attention arethe history and traditional values of people in dif-ferent cultures and climates, which have oftenbeen overlooked in modern building and plan-ning. As a World Bank report on a Chinese devel-opment project puts it, “[The] loss of urbanneighborhoods and historic sites was oncethought to be the price of progress. However,planners now recognize that preserving the past isan essential part of creating livable, sustainablecities.”8

The city of Riyadh in Saudi Arabia providesanother example of attention to social and cultur-al factors. Certain local planners realized thatcopying western building styles was not very effi-cient in their climate, nor did it correspond topeople’s cultural needs and habits. In a new devel-oped area they decided to use the traditional localapproach. They designed a combined commer-cial-residential area in the medina style, usingmud-brick construction, the traditional buildingmethod which has many advantages in terms ofcomfort as well as resource use.

Such examples illustrate that social and cultur-al aspects can relate very closely to environmentalones, and can even be mutually reinforcing withuse of local resources, attention to the existingbuilding stock and respect for cultural values. Poli-cies that follow such an approach can help

improve environmental conditions while meetingpeople’s wishes and needs.

In short, in a very real sense SBC is all aboutpolicies and how we organize our society and ourmarkets. The need for a global approach is clear ifwe look at the Pacific island nations, for example:it is not the lack or failure of local policies thatthreatens these islands, but sea level rise resultingfrom climate change reflecting policies in thedeveloped world. It is not enough for industrial-ized countries to work to develop sustainabilitywithin their own vigorous economic system. Thesurvival of many other countries depends on pol-icy makers’ paying serious consideration to situa-tions in the developing world.

Further research on existing policies could helpreveal the most successful approaches for sustain-ability. A necessary first step is to inventory poli-cies in many countries related to building andconstruction. The Sustainable Building SupportCentre at the Institute for Housing and UrbanDevelopment Studies (IHS) in Rotterdam begansuch an inventory in January 2003, in line with arecommendation from the IEA, the OECD andEU housing ministers. So far, 11 countries havesigned up and are assembling policy informationto be processed and made easily available throughthe Sustainable Building Information Systembeing developed by the International Initiative forthe Sustainable Built Environment (iiSBE). It isexpected that an initial overview and analysis oftrends will be published by the end of 2003.

ConclusionsPolicies are essential to achieve SBC and balancedresource management. Existing policies have notled to any real shift. For example, most countries

will probably not be able to meet their Kyoto Pro-tocol targets despite climate change policies. A largepart of the problem is not the lack of sustainablebuilding policies, but rather the need for awarenesson the part of political leaders. Policies should focusfirst and foremost on the existing building stock.

Notes1. OECD (2003) Environmentally SustainableBuildings: Challenges and Policies. OECD, Paris. 2. Sustainable Housing Policies in Europe: SynthesisReport on Sustainable Housing Policies for the ThirdEU Ministers’ Conference on Sustainable Housing,June 2002. Available at http://mrw.wallonie.be/dgatlp/logement/logement_euro/Pages/Reunions/Genval/Colloque.htm.3. Policies and Regulations for Sustainable Building:A Comparative Study of Five European Countries,OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban andMobility Studies/Delft University Press, 2001.4. Sustainability Analysis of Human Settlements inSouth Africa. CSIR Building and ConstructionTechnology, Pretoria, 2002. Available at www.sus-tainablesettlement.co.za.5. The Role of Policy in Creating a SustainableBuilding Supply Chain, paper presented atOECD/IEA Joint Workshop on the Design ofSustainable Building Policies, June 2001. See also:www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol17_2/kibert.pdf.6. Forging a Sustainable Materials Economy. In:State of the World 1999, World Watch Institute,Washington, D.C., 1999.7. OECD, op. cit.8. www.worldbank.org/html/ningbo/overview.htm. ◆



The meaning of the term “sustainable devel-opment” is disputed and complex. Themost frequently quoted definition is that of

the World Commission on Environment andDevelopment (1987): “development that meetsthe needs of the present without compromisingthe ability of future generations to meet their ownneeds.” There are few specific agreed sustainabledevelopment strategies.

The International Organization for Standard-ization’s definition of sustainability is “the main-tenance of ecosystem components and functionsfor future generations” (ISO, 2002a). The ISOstandard in which the general principles of sus-tainable building are set out applies this definitionand identifies the following elements:

Environmental. Design, construction and oper-

ation must implement DfE (design for environ-ment) approaches. The healthy functioning oflocal, regional and global ecosystems must be pro-moted, and energy efficiency, toxicity, materials,durability, reuse and building operations must beincorporated.

Social. Buildings, individually and collectively,influence many aspects of human behaviour(including daily travel patterns) with their ownsubstantial social costs and environmental costs.Design, construction and operation must incor-porate collaboration, social impacts and continu-al improvement.

Economic. Sustainable building must incorpo-rate full-cost accounting procedures into thedevelopment of buildings and constructed assets.It must address not only initial direct economic

costs of development, but also associated directand indirect social and environmental costs.

ISO standards under development inthe sustainable building areaWithin the International Organization for Stan-dardization’s Committee on Sustainability inBuilding Construction (ISO/TC59/SC17), cur-rent standardization activity in the area of sus-tainable building and construction assets involves: ◆ Building and constructed assets – Sustainablebuilding – General Principles;◆ Building and constructed assets – Sustainability– Sustainability Indicators;◆ Building and constructed assets – Sustainabilityin building construction – Framework for assess-ment of environmental performance of buildings;◆ Building and constructed assets – Sustainabilityin building construction – Environmental decla-ration of building products; ◆ Building and constructed assets – Sustainabilityin building construction – Terminology.

These standards constitute a hierarchy (Figure1).

In the proposed General Principles standard(ISO, 2002a) it is stated that this standard does notrepresent a benchmark against which a claim ofsustainability can be made. Rather, it is a descrip-tion of the general principles of sustainabilitywhose purpose is to identify the relationship ofthese principles to the building industry and toestablish a rationale for subsequent related stan-dards. Some of these standards are described below.

Sustainability indicatorsThe aim of the standard on Sustainability Indica-tors (ISO, 2002b) is to define a framework withrespect to sustainability indicators for buildingsand groups of buildings. In this standard it is stat-ed that the general understanding of the aspectsof sustainability – including economic, environ-mental and social ones – is adopted. However,environmental and social costs seem to be miss-ing. At least there are no defined indicators forthese costs in the current version of this standard.The following core set of indicators is recom-mended: ◆ use of natural raw materials;◆ consumption of energy resources;◆ release of environmentally harmful emissions;◆ access (by public transport and bicycle or pedes-trian traffic);◆ service life;◆ indoor conditions;

Do standards and regulations supply thenecessary incentive for sustainable building?

Sigrid Melby Strand and Sverre Fossdal, Norwegian Building Research Institute, Pb. 123 Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway

([email protected]; [email protected])

SummaryVarious environmental policies’ approach to sustainable development can serve as a baselinefor assessing how well regulations and standards will promote sustainable building and con-struction. If followed up, existing acts, regulations and standards generally lead the industry inthe right direction. Achieving sustainable buildings, however, will require additional action atthe policy level. This article looks at acts, regulations and standards concerned with sustainablebuildings nationally and internationally, including International Organization for Standard-ization standards currently under development. International standards and regulations donot yet address the problems of the developing world satisfactorily, though this issue is receiv-ing growing attention.

RésuméDiverses stratégies environnementales du développement durable peuvent servir de base pourdéterminer dans quelle mesure la réglementation et les normes sont susceptibles de promou-voir une industrie de la construction durable. A condition d’en contrôler l’application, les lois,réglementations et normes existantes entraînent généralement l’industrie dans la bonne direc-tion. Mais construire des bâtiments durables exige également une action sur le plan politique.L’article fait le point sur les lois, réglementations et normes nationales et internationales rela-tives au développement durable du bâti, notamment les normes de l’Organisation interna-tionale de normalisation (ISO) actuellement en cours d’élaboration. Mais les normes et laréglementation internationales n’apportent pas de solutions satisfaisantes aux problèmes dumonde en développement, même si cette question retient de plus en plus l’attention.

ResumenEl planteamiento del desarrollo sostenible en las políticas ambientales puede servir como basepara evaluar en qué medida las reglamentaciones y normas fomentarán las edificaciones y laconstrucción sostenibles. De aplicarlas, las leyes, reglamentaciones y normas existentes gen-eralmente indicarán a la industria el camino correcto. Lograr edificaciones sostenibles, sinembargo, requerirá acciones adicionales a nivel de políticas. En el artículo se analizan leyes,reglamentaciones y normas relacionadas con edificaciones sostenibles a nivel nacional e inter-nacional, entre otras, las normas que se están preparando en la Organización Internacionalde Normalización (ISO). Las normas y reglamentaciones internacionales todavía no tratansatisfactoriamente los problemas del mundo en desarrollo, aunque actualmente se presta másatención a este problema.



◆ barrier-free use by the handicapped;◆ costs over entire life.

Indicators of sustainable development and sus-tainability indicators are developed at several lev-els. The Worldwatch Institute, for example, isresponsible for the “State of the World” indicatorset, which is used to monitor data trends affectingthe environmental health of the planet (e.g. fertil-izer use, carbon emissions), the state of the econ-omy (e.g. developing countries’ foreign debt,world trade in food and agricultural products),and health and social conditions (e.g. HIV/AIDS,cigarette smoking).

Various indicators have been developed fornational and local use, but with a strong tendencyto include only environmental aspects. The UKgovernment has developed a set of 120 indicatorsfor sustainable development. The UK’s approachto sustainable development is to ensure betterquality of life for everyone, now and in genera-tions to come. This statement is followed by thedefinition of four key objectives that must be metfor the UK and for the world: ◆ social progress, which recognizes the needs ofeveryone;◆ effective protection of the environment;◆ prudent use of natural resources;◆ maintenance of high and stable levels of eco-nomic growth and employment.

The difference between the UK strategy andother strategies is the strong focus on economicgrowth and the standard of living. Its indicator sys-tem includes indicators for social aspects (e.g.poverty and social exclusion, education) and eco-nomic aspects (e.g. GDP, social and total invest-ments, employment). It is therefore closer to thesustainability concept than are other systems. How-

ever, an indicator on this level must be used at thelevel of a single building or group of buildings.

CRISP is a European Thematic Networkwhose main objective is to create a group dynam-ic in the field of construction and city related sus-tainability indicators. Its purpose has been tocoordinate current research concerned with defin-ing and validating indicators and implementingthem, in order to measure the sustainability ofconstruction.

Framework for assessing theenvironmental impacts of buildings Work on the standardization of frameworks forassessing buildings’ environmental performanceincludes a description of principles and a frame-work for environmental assessment of new andexisting buildings, considering various environ-mental impacts and burdens associated withdesign, construction, operation, refurbishmentand deconstruction (ISO, 2002c). The basis is thedevelopment of various building assessmentmethods and the need to improve these methods’quality and comparability.

As seen in Figure 1, which illustrates the rela-tionship between the different standards, anassessment of environmental impacts does notclaim to be an assessment of a building’s sustain-ability since only the environmental aspect of thesustainability concept is included. This is also thecase for most existing building assessment sys-tems. Many of them present only a good resourceand environmental profile of the building in oper-ation.

The Norwegian Ecoprofile of a building isdivided into the three performance areas of “exter-nal environment”, “resources” and “indoor cli-

mate”. These areas are then dividedinto categories with different conse-quences for the performance areas.Each category contains a number ofcriteria and sub-criteria that are indi-vidually evaluated and given a grade.Figure 2 shows the structure of Eco-profile for office buildings. For othertypes of buildings there are somechanges in categories, weighting, andparameters.

Environmental declarationsEnvironmental declarations aim toprovide information (based on LCA,or life-cycle assessment) for manufac-turers and consumers of buildingproducts enabling them to make deci-sions that will minimize the negativeenvironmental impacts of buildingand construction work. There are sev-eral national initiatives in this area.The standard on environmental dec-larations of building products (ISO,2000d) is intended to harmonize dif-ferent approaches as far as possible.

In the environmental declaration ofa product, the functional unit is givenfor the product’s principle function

over the entire life of the building (“from cradle tograve”).1 This implies that maintenance, replace-ment, etc. are to be included in the functionalunit. The lifetime of a building in the Norwegianand UK systems is set at 60 years. The functionalunit is therefore to be given for a correspondingperiod. Environmental declarations are regardedas part of a building’s environmental assessment,and as only one of many elements of the sustain-ability concept.

Acts and regulations in this areaIn many countries environmental requirementsare included, to some extent, in building relatedacts and regulations. The most comprehensiverequirements are found in technical regulationsunder the planning and building act and the reg-ulation concerning requirements of buildings andproducts for buildings. It may be stated that build-ing activity in all its phases (i.e. acquisition, useand demolition) should be carried out with a jus-tifiable load on resources and the environment,and without deterioration of quality of life and liv-ing conditions. However, these requirements arenot followed up in related regulations such asthose concerning public enquiry and control.

Local governments responsible for following upon violations of regulations lack knowledge andtools in this area. To state that a building does notsatisfy the environmental requirements of the reg-ulations is entirely different from stating that aroof is inadequate considering the area’s snowload.

Suitability in developing countriesDeveloping countries, with their rapid develop-ment and large populations, are very important inthe context of sustainable development. Agenda

Figure 1Standards under development, and planned standardization in the area of

sustainable building (ISO, 2002a)

{

ISQ/AWI 21929: buildings and constructed assets –sustainablility in building construction –

sustainability indicators

ISQ/AWI 21931: buildings and constructed assets –

sustainablility in building construction –framework for assessment of

environmental impactsfrom buildings

ISQ/AWI XXXXX: buildings and constructed assets –


social impactsfrom buildings

ISQ/AWI XXXXX: buildings and constructed assets –


economic impactsfrom buildings


sustainablility in building construction –environmental declaration

of building products

ISQ/AWI XXXXX: declaration of important technical, economic orfurther properties of the building, instructions for

maintenance, operation and deconstruction

Documentation of data relevantto operation,refurbishmentand deconstruction


sustainablility in building construction –terminology

ISQ/AWI 15392: buildings and constructed assets –sustainablility in building construction –

general principles



21 for Sustainable Constructionin Developing Countries de-scribes the situation in thesecountries and discusses a strat-egy for action to reach sus-tainable development (CIBand UNEP-ITEC, 2002).

The main issue is that devel-oping countries struggle withdifferent problems than thoseof developed ones. Whilethere are similarities, develop-ing countries face greater dif-ferences and more extremeproblems with fewer resourcesto deal with them. Criticalissues are access to adequatehousing and infrastructure,rapid urbanization, informalsettlements, and lack of insti-tutional capacity. Two factorsin particular represent the dif-ference between developedand developing countries: asignificant portion of houses in the latter are builtby family members (45-50% in Bolivia), and smalllocal companies produce a very important propor-tion of building materials (often involving highemission rates).

Two main strategies have been identified con-cerning which way to go: ◆ follow the Western “model”; or◆ establish a different vision of development,including non-Western values.

The principal barriers to sustainable buildingin developing countries are described, amongother places, in the working document of Agenda21 for Sustainable Construction in DevelopingCountries. They include:◆ lack of capacity in both the construction sectorand governments;◆ lack of effective power in (governmental) envi-ronmental institutions; ◆ financing and uncertain economic environ-ment;◆ poverty and the subsequent low urban invest-ment and ability to pay for services;◆ lack of interest in the sustainability issue bystakeholders;◆ technological inertia and dependency due toentrenched colonial codes and standards;◆ general lack of data, standardization and codesto support, for example, the establishment ofnational benchmarks; ◆ a low level of environmental concern among cit-izens;◆ lack of institutions to facilitate appropriate poli-cies.

How to overcome these barriers cannot bedescribed in detail in this article, but some impor-tant actions are suggested. Solutions need to besought in many areas, including education,finance, policies, development of tools and bench-marks, development of standards, codes and reg-ulations, and research.

Education is perhaps the most important. Itentails educating professionals at different levels.

One task is in-service training, which could becarried out following the Sri Lankan model foreducating processionals about cleaner production.In Sri Lanka’s Industrial Pollution Reduction Pro-gramme (IPRP) two groups were trained in clean-er production assessment. The professionals whoreceived this training were chosen from a widespectrum representing industry, academic institu-tions, development banks, private consultants,research institutions, etc. which performed func-tions in different parts of the production industry.Sustainable development also needs to be inte-grated into the education of architects, plannersand engineers. Together they would form a bodyof sustainable design implementers.

It is important to establish national financingmechanisms for the transfer of sustainable tech-nology. Development and implementation of sus-tainability also depends on an active researchcommunity. Research is necessary for developingand adapting new technology, standards, codesand regulations, tools and methods, to providedata and establish benchmarks.

Few developing countries have their own toolsfor use in sustainable building. The South African“Sustainable Building Assessment Tool” (SBAT)supports implementation of more sustainablepractices in the building and construction industryin developing countries, particularly in SouthAfrica. SBAT includes environmental, economicand social aspects; it aims at assessing not only abuilding’s sustainability, but also the extent of itscontribution to the support and development ofmore sustainable systems around it. The GreenBuilding Assessment Tool (GBTool), which hasbeen used in countries including Brazil and Chile,needs to be simplified and adapted to developingcountries. Problems in developing an assessmenttool are lack of energy codes or national standardson whole building performance, lack of climaticdata, outdated existing standards, and lack of LCAdata. There is a general lack of data in standardiza-tions to support establishing national benchmarks.

Another difficulty in reach-ing sustainable development ishow to modify people’s dailyactivities. Collective effort isneeded, and this might be re-garded as the strength of devel-oping countries. Norway’s“Environmental Home Guard”(EHG) takes the task in hand.This NGO is a network ofindividuals, groups, organiza-tions and institutions commit-ted to changing their daily ac-tivities in ways that reduce useof natural resources, energy andenvironmentally harmful sub-stances, minimize waste gener-ation and protect biodiversity.They provide information,produce tools, recruit peoplefor networks and help volun-tary organizations, institutions,schools, etc. to improve theirenvironmental profiles.2

In implementing sustainability, the main play-ers are the government and authorities, educa-tional institutions and the research community.Involvement by the government and authoritiesis crucial and must include both policy and finan-cial support. In addition, institutions need to havethe power to enforce necessary changes. In manydeveloping countries this would be a good placeto start. In European countries where there isstrong support by authorities, the success story hasbeen different from the situation in countrieswithout this support. The Netherlands and Den-mark are leaders in the area of sustainable buildingin Europe.

The need to go beyond existing acts,regulations and standards to reachsustainability The standards and regulations described above donot adequately address the problems of the devel-oping world. In Agenda 21 for Sustainable Con-struction in Developing Countries it is argued thatplanning acts, building codes and regulationsadopted from the West often discourage or evenforbid housing development based on traditionalconcepts, which often provide the most sustain-able solutions. Building codes and planning con-cepts from the colonial period have been seen assuperior to anything found in the colonies. Thishas created a general lack of confidence in home-grown solutions and traditions, which are active-ly discouraged. In addition, earth constructiontechniques came into disfavour mainly due to thetechnological changes brought by the IndustrialRevolution and consequent demand from theconsumer market.

A very important point also mentioned in theAgenda 21 report is the possibility for developingcountries to offer sustainable development oppor-tunities that are not common in the developedworld. Through their cultural heritage, innovativelocal solutions and adaptability, developing coun-ties might have one of the keys to sustainability.

Figure 2Structure for the three principal components of the Norwegian

Ecoprofile and their sub-components

Ecoprofile

External environment Resources Indoor climate

Thermal climateEnergyRelease to air

Atmospheric climateWaterRelease to soil

Acoustic climateMaterialsRelease to water

Actinic climateLandWaste managenemt

Outside areas

Transport

Mechanical climate

Cross factors



In the developed world solutions are traditionallysought in new technology, while in developingcountries tradition represents a more people-cen-tred development. This last view is consistent withthe belief that people’s behaviour and choices willdetermine the success or failure of sustainabledevelopment and construction, not just the avail-ability of sustainable technology.

Existing acts and regulations from the West arenot necessarily suited to the developing world.Nevertheless, knowledge transfer is necessary toreach sustainable development in these regions. Itmight also be appropriate to ask whether modernbuildings can be sustainable at all, as constructionof a building always entails a load on naturalresources and the environment. However, hous-ing is necessary and provides economic and socialbenefits. By including these factors and substan-tially reducing the environmental load, sustain-able building should be possible. Perhaps theconstruction industry is moving in the wrongdirection – increasing the load on nature, oftendisregarding social aspects, and only includingeconomic considerations in terms of the privateinvestment economy. Sustainability will involve atotal paradigm shift that the building industry isfar from realizing.

Whether the revised standards, acts and regula-tions relevant to sustainable construction in thisarticle can be interpreted as sustainable may bedoubted. The General Principles standard pro-vides a starting point, including a description ofsustainability and the link to the building indus-try. The next step is the Indicator standard, whichaims to define indicators for buildings or groupsof buildings. Comparing the core set of indicatorswith the ISO definition of sustainable building, itcan be seen that they only address some aspects;socio-economic aspects in particular receive min-imal attention. Standards on the next level of thehierarchy cover only environmental aspects, andthus only one of the three aspects of sustainabledevelopment. The methods used to assess a build-ing’s environmental quality should be extended to

include economic and social aspects. However,barriers in technology or demand and willingnessto pay for improved buildings may not be elimi-nated through standardization.

At best, acts, regulations and standards repre-sent what might belong in a vision of weak sus-tainability. They are a reflection of where we standtoday technologically, and the degree to which theindustry has realized the need for change. Forexample, zero energy dwellings are possible but arenot required by today’s regulations. This isbecause it is inadvisable to move too fast, as eco-nomics in the industry limits the room for action(economics is also is an element of sustainabledevelopment). Again, as industry struggles tomeet new requirements, it is inadvisable to movetoo fast for economic reasons. However, standardsmay involve freedom to include drastic sustain-ability concepts. Acts, regulations and standardsneed to be under constant development and toimplement new knowledge as it evolves.

An element missing in regulations today ismaintenance and management (MM). MM is avery important part of sustainability, as it entailsmaintaining the benefit created through buildingsfor future generations. The standard on sustain-ability indicators could be used to start thisprocess. However, a set of indicators also needs amethod for monitoring the indicator and assess-ing the status of a building.

ConclusionExisting acts, regulations and standards lead theindustry in the right direction if they are followedup. However, to reach what can be called sustain-able buildings requires additional action on thepolicy level. This should involve providing incen-tives and disincentives (e.g. through taxes) andfunding and support for innovative businesses andtechnology. Special funding for good examples ofsustainable buildings is still necessary. Somesources maintain that the “the time of the pilotproject is surpassed, and that it is time to imple-ment the knowledge in mainstream building”.

However, this is not the case. It is correct that whathas been seen in pilots up to now should beincluded in mainstream building, but there is stilla long way to go. As we are very far from the goal,pilot buildings are still useful for testing new tech-nology and solutions. Finally, education is crucialwhen implementing change. The understandingof sustainable development and the changes thisinvolves for industry must be included in all pro-fessional studies within building and construc-tion. It can be expected that the type of changesneeded will take at least one generation.

Notes1. For more on the use of functional units to makecomparisons on a like-for-like basis, see “Con-struction products and life-cycle thinking” bySuzy Edwards and Philip Bennett on p. 57 of thisissue.2. See “Norway’s Environmental Home Guard” by TerjeTorkildsen, Industry and Environment, Vol. 25, No. 3-4,July-December 2002, pp. 86-87.

ReferencesCIB (International Council for Research and Innovationin Building Construction) and UNEP-ITEC (UnitedNations Environment Programme – International Envi-ronmental Technology Centre) (2002) Agenda 21 forSustainable Construction in Developing Countries. A dis-cussion document. Boutek Report No. Bou/E0204. Pub-lished by CSIR Building and Construction Technology,Pretoria, South Africa (www.csir.co.za).

International Organization for Standardization, stan-dards under development:

• ISO (2002a) ISO/TC 59/SC 3 N 459, Building and con-structed assets – Sustainable building – General principles.

• ISO (2002b) ISO/TC 59/SC 3 N 469, Building and con-structed assets – Sustainability – Sustainable indicators.

• ISO (2002c) ISO/TC 59/SC 3 N 467, Building and con-structed assets – Sustainability in building construction –Framework for assessment of environmental performance ofbuildings.

• ISO (2002d) ISO/TC 59/SC 3 N 467, Building and con-structed assets – Sustainability in building construction –Environmental declarations of building products.

◆



Use of the designation “life-cycle costing” haschanged over a number of years. It has alsovariously been called whole-life costing,

terotechnology, through-life costing, costs-in-use,total-cost-of-ownership, total-life costing, ulti-mate life cost and total cost. Life-cycle costing(LCC) and whole life costing (WLC) are com-monly used terms today. The difference betweenthe two is often taken to be that LCC is a sub-setof WLC and represents the period of interest thatthe cost analysis is aimed at.

A building owner will be interested in the costsof a built asset over its whole life, which could bemeasured in hundreds of years, whereas tenantswill only be concerned with the costs they willhave to bear during their tenancy – say 25 years.Public finance initiative (PFI) contractors will also

be more interested in the life-cycle costs of thebuilding for the 25- to 30-year contract periodthan in the residual life after it has been handedback.

In this article the term life-cycle costing (LCC)will be used because it reflects the majority ofthose who are interested in the technique. It is alsoused by the International Organization for Stan-dardization.1 Not surprisingly, given the historyof the term, there are a number of definitions. “BSISO 15686 Buildings and Constructed Assets –Service Life Planning Part 1:2000General Princi-ples”defines LCC as :

the total cost of a building or its parts throughoutits life, including the costs of planning, design,acquisition, operations, maintenance anddisposal, less any residual value.

The UK’s Construction Best Practice Pro-gramme (CBPP) provides another useful defini-tion:2

...the systematic consideration of all relevantcosts and revenues associated with theacquisition and ownership of an assetAs its most fundamental level, it includes con-

sideration of all costs and revenues associated withthe acquisition, use, maintenance and disposal ofa built asset.3

Life-cycle costing (LCC) is an estimation of themonetary costs of the funding, design, construc-tion, operation, maintenance and repair, compo-nent replacement, and sometimes demolition ofa building. It may be applied to new designs or toexisting structures, in the latter case enablingresidual life and value to be estimated. As differ-ent maintenance and repair and replacementoperations take place at different times, incre-mental costs are converted to present-day valueusing a discounted cash flow approach.

LCC relies on predicting when elements of thebuilding and its services will deteriorate to a con-dition where intervention is needed, and what thediscounted cost of each intervention will be. LCCcalculations therefore depend on numerousassumptions, all subject to a degree of uncertainty.

Why use LCC?Achieving excellence in design is essential for aconstruction project to deliver best value. Designis both a creative and a technical process. It shouldinclude the following components, each of whichmust be addressed appropriately:◆ Functional design of the facility to meet the needsof users and operations. This should result from adetailed assessment of the needs of the users andoperations and how they may change over time,as well as how the facility will need to be alteredto meet these changing needs.◆ Design of the complete facility to address the envi-ronment for those who use, enjoy, operate, main-tain or are otherwise affected by it, includingaspects that impact on their health and safety. Thedesign should address impact on the externalglobal environment, as well as the facility’s aes-thetic, cultural and civic values.◆ Detailed design of each assembly and component,whether manufactured on-site or in a factory, andwhether it is a standard product or purpose-madeor adapted for the facility.◆ Design of the entire construction process, address-ing how each component will be manufactured,transported and assembled to complete the facili-ty. Maintenance of the facility (including detailsof how components can be replaced and/orrepaired) should be addressed, as well as its ulti-mate disposal.

Life-cycle costing in the construction sector

Michael Clift, Associate Director, Centre for Whole Life Performance, Building Research Establishment, Garston, Watford WD25 9XX, UK ([email protected])

SummaryThe construction sector is a major consumer of natural resources. Inability to predict perfor-mance reliably can result in unsustainable waste (through over-design) or costly prematuredeterioration. Life-cycle costing makes it possible for the whole life performance of buildingsand other structures to be optimized. Its value is highlighted by the increasing use of privatefinance initiative type procurement, in which a developer/builder operates and maintains thestructure over an agreed period. This article introduces the concept of life-cycle costing as usedin the construction sector. It briefly explains how LCC is carried out and some of the barriers toits adoption. Initiatives seeking to tackle these barriers are presented. A case study illustratespayback on investment to reduce energy consumption. For this exercise, two design optionswere developed: the original client-compliant design and an energy efficient option.

RésuméLe secteur du bâtiment est un gros consommateur de ressources naturelles. L’incapacité deprévoir avec justesse les performances des constructions peut se traduire par des volumes dedéchets contraires au concept même de développement durable (design trop recherché) ou parune détérioration prématurée coûteuse. L’évaluation du coût du cycle de vie permet d’optimiserles performances des bâtiments et autres constructions pendant toute leur durée de vie. L’intérêtde cette évaluation a été démontré par le recours de plus en plus fréquent à des projets menéspar financement privé dans lesquels le promoteur ou le maître d’œuvre exploite et entretient laconstruction pendant une durée déterminée. L’article présente le concept d’évaluation du coûtdu cycle de vie tel qu’il est appliqué dans le secteur du bâtiment. Il explique comment est effec-tuée l’évaluation et quels obstacles freinent son adoption ; il présente quelques initiatives visantà lever ces barrières. Une étude de cas illustre le retour sur investissement des efforts de réduc-tion de la consommation d’énergie. Deux options architecturales ont été élaborées à cet effet :le projet initial conforme aux vœux du client et un projet basé sur l’efficacité énergétique.

ResumenEl sector de la construcción es un gran consumidor de recursos naturales. La incapacidad depredecir el rendimiento con seguridad puede resultar en desechos insostenibles (por planifi-cación excesiva) o en un deterioro prematuro costoso. La determinación del costo del ciclo devida permite optimizar el rendimiento de edificios y otras estructuras durante toda su vida. Suvalor ha salido a relucir por la utilización creciente de una especie de iniciativa privada de finan-ciación en la que el promotor o constructor se encarga del funcionamiento y mantenimiento dela estructura durante un período acordado. El artículo presenta el concepto de costo del ciclo devida según se utiliza en el sector de la construcción, explica brevemente como se determina elcosto del ciclo de vida y algunos de los obstáculos para su utilización, y describe iniciativas parasalvar estos obstáculos. Un estudio de caso ilustra el rendimiento de la inversión para reducirel consumo de energía. Para ello, se desarrollaron dos opciones de diseño: el diseño originalsegún el pedido del cliente y una alternativa de eficiencia energética.



◆ Costing of projects. This should includefull life-cycle costs of the facility, as well asmore immediate construction and projectcosts. The quality of both design and con-struction has the potential to greatly reducelife-cycle costs, including costs-in-use andeventual disposal of the built facility.

Decisions made early in the designprocess can have a considerable influenceon life-cycle costs. Building orientation willinfluence the amount of solar heat gain andlevel of cooling required and the degree ofshading; floor plate depth will influence thedecision on whether the building needs tobe air-conditioned as opposed to naturallyventilated; levels of insulation and air tight-ness will affect heat loss and ener-gy costs; the number of floors willimpact on costs of access for clean-ing and maintenance; the numberof entrances influences levels ofsecurity; and so on.

The earlier life-cycle costing canbe considered in the procurementprocess, the more effective theoutcome will be (Figure 1).

LCC is used in particular to:◆ determine whether a higher ini-tial cost is justified by reductionsin future costs (for new build orwhen considering alternatives to“like for like” replacement);◆ identify whether a proposedchange is cost-effective against the“do nothing” alternative, whichtypically has no initial investmentcost but higher future costs.

Taking a life-cycle cost ap-proach to procurement of build-ings provides better certaintyabout future costs and the risksassociated with them. Untilrecently, lending institutions haveconsidered that most financial riskoccurs during the constructionperiod. Costs during constructioncan be affected by unexpected

ground conditions, inclement weather,labour and materials shortages, time over-runs, defects and poor budgeting. Financialinstitutions are now in the market for fund-ing long-term PFI projects (lasting over 25years) and they realize that there is evengreater uncertainty during this period. Lackof understanding of how buildings perform,and when the need for intervention shouldoccur to prevent failure, makes predictingfuture costs a long way ahead an unreliableexercise.

Owner-occupier clients are also coming torealize that the costs of building ownership canbe a significant drain on company profits.They are looking for greater predictability of

future costs before embarking on aconstruction project.

What needs to beconsidered whencarrying out LCC?The time-dependent stages of thelife of a facility that need to beconsidered during the decisionand procurement processes are:acquisition (including pre-con-struction and construction);operation (maintenance, replace-ment or refurbishment); and dis-posal (sale or demolition).4

At each stage considerationmust be given to the basic ele-ments of the facility – such asstructure, envelope, mechanicaland electrical services, finishes,and fixtures and fittings (Table 1).

The most important aspectwhen considering a facility’swhole life is how it will enhancethe core business operations thatwill take place in, on or aroundit. A very clear understanding ofwhat those business operationscurrently are and how they mightchange in the future is necessaryas a starting point, before it is

Figure 2Effect of discount rate on NPV

Source: Task Group 4 draft report

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

0 20 40 60

2%

4%

6%

8%

years

NPV (%)

Change in NPV with time

Figure 3Uncertainty of forecasting time to

intervention affecting spend

Source: Taylor Woodrow Construction Ltd

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

01 6 11 16 21 26

years

cost

Figure 1Opportunities for effective LCC

Detail design

time

cost

VALUE MANAGEMENT VALUE ENGINEERING

Concept

Potential for cost reduction

Cost ofchange

Feasibility Construction

Source: after British Airports Authority

Table 1LCC considerations

Stage of building life Considerations for life-cycle costing

1. Acquisition by construction • land for the building, its clearance and related (new or refurbishment) – groundwork for new buildwhich would include costs of: • design, although this may often be included in the cost of

construction with use of design and build type procurement • planning, regulatory and legal fees• construction, commissioning, fitting out and handover• in-house administration • interest or cost of money

OrAcquisition by purchase or rental – • purchase price which would include costs of: • planning, regulatory and legal fees

• adaptation to suit needs of the business • in-house administration • interest or cost of money

2. Operation (use and maintenance) – • maintenance, repairs, replacements of componentswhich would include costs of: and systems

• cleaning• utilities and energy• churn (regular reconfiguration to suit changes in

business or process operation – internal layouts of officebuildings (typically change every five to seven years)

• security and management• rates (and rent if required)

Income from use of asset • income that may be generated through subletting ofplanned or surplus space

3. Disposal – which would • demolitioninclude costs of: • site clean-up

Income from disposal • sale of interest in asset• sale of land• sale of materials from demolition

Source: based on Client’s Construction Forum, Whole Life Costing: A client’s guide, 2000



possible to determine the facility’s output perfor-mance requirements.

The life-cycle cost model for a specific projectwill be developed and subsequently updated by dif-ferent parties according to the project stage reachedand the form of procurement adopted. At projectinception, the model might be developed in-houseor by an external cost consultant. At tender stage,the bidder should take on or prepare the model iftenders are to be evaluated based on life-cycle costs.Where a framework contract is already in place, theframework supplier might be the most appropriateorganization to develop the model from the outset.

A great deal of time can be spent going throughlots of historical data from numerous sources in anattempt to get the most accurate information. Thisprocess is time consuming and normally showsthat there are enormous gaps in the data availablefor creating life-cycle cost models. Where historicaldata is available, this may well reflect past mistakesin the industry such as lowest price. Irrespective ofwhether or not historical cost information is avail-able, it is always preferable to estimate the costsfrom first principles and to use historical cost andperformance information only as a check.

To account for different operations taking placeat different times, incremental costs are convertedto current costs using a discounted cash flowmethod that incorporates interest rates and infla-tion. This is particularly important when compar-ing options that have different replacement cycles.

The discounted cost rate, r, enables calculationof the discounted costs based on the future valueof money as follows:

Discounted cost rate, r = (1 + interest rate) - 1(1 + inflation rate)

If the cost in year t is Ct and the discount rate isr, the life-cycle cost for a facility with a design lifeof N years, expressed as the cost at current value, is

Present cost =

The application of the principle of present cost(PC) is similar to net present value (NPV) and cancause difficulties in the analysis of WLC. Even ata low discount rate, the NPV decreases rapidlyover time, as illustrated in Figure 2. This makescapital investment for long-term performanceunattractive to a developer in monetary terms.

The discount rate is used to calculate the pre-sent value of a future income stream or cost – thatis, the sum of money to be invested today in orderto accumulate the amounts by the time they areneeded. It is set by the client and includes thedegree of risk on return required in a commercialcontext, or the rate of interest payable where loansare required to finance the construction work. If itis set too high, future costs will appear insignifi-cant and will be favoured by the calculation. If it isset too low, higher capital costs will be discouragedbut high operational costs may result. If inflationis taken into account in the discount rate and ifrates are substantially different in practice, the cal-culation may lead to inappropriate choices.

Barriers to take-up of LCCLife-cycle costing has often been dismissed becauseof lack of clear methodology and absence of data.A study in 1999 carried out by BRE on behalf ofthe Construction Research and Innovation Panel(CRISP)5 found that these were the main reasonsonly 25% of clients used life-cycle costing. The lackof universal methodology and standard formats forcalculating life-cycle costs, the difficulty integrat-ing operating and maintenance strategies at thedesign phase, along with meaningless results, wereconsidered barriers to the use of life-cycle costing.

“BS ISO 15686 Buildings and ConstructedAssets – Service Life Planning. Part 1: GeneralPrinciples” provides an overall framework thataddresses the design of a building or constructionwith a view to its operation through the whole ofits operational life. The approach requires long-term performance and overall operating costs tobe addressed early in the design stage. It enablesthe design to be assessed against the client’s long-term needs for the service life of the building.

A major impetus for producing this new ISO

standard has been concern over the industry needto forecast and control the cost of ownership, as ahigh proportion of the life-cycle costs will have beenset by the time of hand-over (Figure 1). It encour-ages involvement of all parties in the decisionprocess for selection of components and systems,based on performance (durability) appropriate tothe function and expected life of the asset. It focus-es on the lack of data on durability, and provides amethodology for assessing and recording decisionson estimating the service lives of components wherethere is a lack of robust scientific and certifiedproduct data.

Service life planning is an integral aspect of life-cycle costing. The replacement cycles of sub-com-ponents that are expected to last less time than theoverall service life of the main component, or thelife of the building, are very sensitive to the calcula-tion of life-cycle costs. Reliable forecasting of futurereplacements against the functional requirementsof the building will reduce the possibility and costsof disruption to the business or processes being car-ried out in (or being supported by) the building or

t=N

Σ Ct

t=0 (1+r )t

100

Figure 4EuroLifeForm: main features of life-cycle cost and performance model

Performance

Performance data

Deterioration models

Statistical quantification of parameters

Probabilistic analysis of performance

Financial models

Planned maintenance

Real cost data

Environmental impact, sustainability, social impact

Capital costs

Indirect repair costs

Direct repair costs

Performance of repair

Life-cycle performance analysis

Cost

Time

Dem

oliti

on

construction due to unexpected component failure(Figure 3). Service life planning assists in the iden-tification of critical elements in the design. It canbe applied to new and existing structures, althoughin existing buildings the residual service life of theretained elements will have to be assessed.

Some current initiatives to encourageuse of LCCTG4 Life-cycle costingIn the Communication from the European Com-mission, The Competitiveness of the ConstructionIndustry 1997, 65 recommendations for action wereincluded. The Tripartite Working Group (consist-ing of representatives of Member States, the Com-mission and industry) agreed an abbreviated list ofpriorities, including sustainable construction.

Three Task Groups (TG) were subsequentlyestablished:◆ TG1: Environmentally Friendly ConstructionMaterials;◆ TG2: Energy Efficiency in Buildings;◆ TG3: Construction and Demolition WasteManagement.

Following completion of the individual reportsof these TGs, a general report on sustainable con-struction, An Agenda for Sustainable Constructionin Europe, was also drawn up and agreed.6

The general report contains a number of rec-ommendations, one of which proposed that afourth TG be set up to draft a paper on life-cyclecosts in construction and to make recommenda-tions concerning how these might be integratedinto European policy making. Consequently,TG4 was established.

The terms of reference of TG 4 are to:Draw up recommendations and guidelines on life-cycle costing of construction aimed at improving the sustainability of thebuilt environment.TG4 has yet to complete its work, but it is

preparing a number of recommendations aimedat encouraging the development and adoption ofa common European methodology for assessinglife-cycle costing, supported by guidance and factsheets. It also likely to recommend that contractsbe awarded to the economically most advanta-geous tender, taking into account life-cycle costs.

This will compliment the work that has beenundertaken by the Economically Most Advanta-geous Tender (EMAT) Task Group set up in July2001 to develop a methodology for awarding con-struction contracts. This is an import step towardsencouraging tender assessments and awards basedon best value. The award criteria being recom-mended by the EMAT Task Group are:◆ quality and life-cycle cost; ◆ the relationship (ratios) between quality, life-cycle costs and initial construction cost (the tenderprice);

◆ weightings for quality and life-cycle cost criteria;◆ mandatory thresholds.

Procurement routes such as prime contractingand PFI lend themselves more readily to beingassessed on the basis of life-cycle costing, butinvolve lengthy and costly tendering processes.

Probabilistic approach for predicting life-cycle costs and performance of buildings andcivil infrastructure (EuroLifeForm)Some LCC thinking currently attaches a risk factorto interventions for replacements, but the risk is notusually time dependent. It may be assumed thatthere is a 1% chance of leakage through a claddingsystem over a 30-year life, but there is no indicationof when the leaks may occur. To estimate the chang-ing risk with time, a probabilistic approach is need-ed

EuroLifeForm is a European funded researchproject. The principal objective of the EuroLife-Form project is the development of a genericmodel for predicting life-cycle costs and perfor-mance. This will be applicable initially to thedesign of buildings and structures to optimize life-cycle costs and latterly to optimize interventionsthrough maintenance and repair. The approachwill be essentially the same, the principal differencebeing the input data for predicting performance.For existing structures decisions can be based onobserved performance, while the design of a new

structure must rely on background information. The project primarily addresses technological

and cost issues, but other factors such as environ-mental impacts are becoming increasingly impor-tant. Some of these factors are difficult to value inmonetary terms, but qualitative methods of assess-ment are being investigated. Methods for multi-criteria decision making are being investigated inthis context, to enable the client to optimize inrelation to his own hierarchy of priorities and theweighting between them. The main features of theproposed EuroLifeForm life-cycle cost and per-formance model are shown in Figure 4.

The principal benefit of this project will beimproved predictability in relation to the cost andperformance of an asset. Uncertainties will alwaysexist, but the intention is to enable these to be iden-tified and quantified using a risk-based approach.By making possible more transparent and better-informed decisions at the design stage, this will leadto better value and more efficient use of resources.

References1. www.iso.ch/iso.2. CBPP (1998) Introduction to whole life costing(http://cbp.idnet.net/).3. Kishk, M., et al. (2003) Whole life costing in con-struction: A state of the art review (RICS Founda-tion).4. Client’s Construction Forum (2000) Whole LifeCosting: A client’s guide.

5. Clift, M. and K. Bourke (1999) Study on wholelife costing. BRE Report 367, Building ResearchEstablishment (BRE)/Construction Research andInnovation Panel (CRISP).6. These reports are available on the EuropeanCommission’s website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/entreprise/construction/index.htm).

◆



Layout and height: reduced LCC and reduced energy loss

Options identified during design can generatesavings in both initial capital cost and operat-ing costs. For example, heat loss from a com-pact, single-storey school with a 2.4 metrestorey height will be about 30% less than fromone with an irregular layout and a storey heightof 3.4 metres with the same floor area. The ini-tial capital cost will also be about 20% less.

Reducing the cost of access for maintenance and accidents

An LCC analysis enables a designer to considerthe possibility of reducing maintenance cost atno additional initial capital cost. This isachieved by improving accessibility to variousbuilding elements for foreseeable maintenanceand replacement work, or by removing theneed for access altogether.

The greatest savings can occur when:◆ regular maintenance is avoided by redesign;◆ entire cycles of maintenance are removed athigh level, where scaffolding costs will oftenexceed the costs of the work to be carried out.Over 50% of all accidents in construction are aresult of falls from a height.

Prime contracting Historically, the UK Ministry of Defence hasused the term “prime contracting” to describesingle point responsibility. Although this origi-nally referred to weapons and equipment pro-curement, the term is equally valid for con-struction procurement.

Prime contracting recognizes that industry isbest placed and best qualified to manage thecomplete task.

The prime contractor will be responsible for:◆ sub-contract selection; ◆ procurement management; ◆ design, coordination and overall system engi-neering and testing; ◆ planning, programming and cost control; ◆ total delivery, fit for purpose and in line withthrough life cost predictions.



Case study on comparative life-cycle costs: client-compliant bid versus energy efficient design (barrack accommodation for the UK Ministry of Defence)

The client wanted to build low-energy sleeping accommodation for sol-diers, but needed assurances that any additional initial capital cost wouldbe justified. Building Research Establishment (BRE) used life-cycle cost-ing to demonstrate value for money by adopting a sustainable constructionapproach. For the exercise, two design options were developed: the client-compliant (original) design and an energy efficient option. The overallproject value is in the order £4.0 million.

The results of the analysis show that initial additional capital spendingof £72,648 on the energy efficient option produces an LCC saving of over£236,945 (discounted at 6%) at current prices. The additional costs main-ly cover redesigning the building to reduce air exfiltration (leakage) andto increase wall and roof insulation and building mass. Savings were madeto the heating system by adopting a heat recovery approach, taking advan-tage of occupancy patterns, and realizing the passive environmental con-trol from utilizing the additional building mass and the effect of increasedinsulation.

Energy/utility costsThe following costs have been estimated using CYMAP, an industry rec-ognized energy use software. All energy and water consumption figuresare based on calculations carried out by the design team services engineer.Costs are based on local rates provided by the utility providers.

The gas cost takes account of an estimated additional £1000 per year sav-ing in hot water heating cost through use of low water flow showers.

The graph below shows the payback period for the selected elements,which will occur in year 5.

Partnering principles are key to the processThe pricing model is a target cost incentive fee arrangement. This is a simplearrangement under which the parties share, on a pre-determined basis, anyexcess or savings of actual costs, thus providing a strong financial incentive toimprove performance. It is an underlying premise of prime contracting thatthe contracting parties will buy into the principles of shared goals and willreceive a fair profit for delivering what the client wants, when it wants it, at theagreed price. To make this concept work to the maximum advantage of bothparties, long-term contractual relationships should be considered.

The UK National Health Service has adopted a similar approach, call-ing it ProCure21.

Total energy/utility cost (non-discounted over 60 years)Client-compliant Alternative energy Saving/

option £ efficient option £ extra £

Gas 1,155,120 436,800 718,320

Electricity 1,399,920 1,098,244 301,676

Water 438,242 273,748 164,493

Total 2,993,282 1,808,792 1 184,489

Yearly costsClient-compliant Alternative energy Saving/

option £ efficient option £ extra £

Gas 19,252 7,280 11,972

Electricity 23,332 18,004 5,328

Water 7,304 4,562 2,741

Total 49,888 29,846 20,041

Client-compliant Alternative energy Saving/option £ efficient option £ extra £

Initial capital cost of 1,623,199 1,695,848 -72,648elements analyzed

Life-cycle cost (LCC) 4,272,398.85 2,870,913 1,401,485over 60 years

Net present value (NPV) 2,608,191 2,371,245 236,945of life-cycle cost over 60 years

Energy efficient design appraisal for barrack accommodation payback period at NPV (6% discounted)

2,700,000

2,600,000

2,500,000

2,400,000

2,300,000

2,200,000

2,100,000

2,000,000

1,900,000

1,800,000

1,700,000

1,600,000

1,500,000

1,400,000

1,300,000

1,200,000

1,100,000

1,000,0000 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 39 42 45 48 51 54 57 60

Payback on investment

Time (years)

Cum

ulat

ive

NPV

NPV energy efficient option

NPV compliant option

The environmental impacts of the construc-tion sector are huge. Moreover, the chal-lenges this sector must meet in the search for

sustainability are not restricted to the environ-ment. They also include social, economic, cultur-al and political dimensions. Sustainability issuesare relatively new to the Brazilian constructionsector. Education and demonstration projects aretwo means of increasing awareness. Such activi-ties, and the process of developing them, can helpproduce major strides towards bridging the gapbetween available knowledge and local practice.

NORIE, a section of the Postgraduate Pro-gramme in Civil Engineering devoted to con-struction, is working on both these issues.

Sustainability principles as applied to design andconstruction are taught at the undergraduate andpostgraduate levels; for the latter students, an MSccourse in civil construction offers opportunities toengineers, architects and even agronomists inter-ested in sustainable construction. Recent MSc dis-sertations, for example, have dealt with urbanwaste management, low-cost solar collectors, useof timber for low-cost sustainable housing, designof more sustainable houses and communities,local materials with low environmental impact,and productive landscaping in urban areas.

The team at NORIE has also been developingseveral research and design activities to apply theprinciples of sustainability being taught. These

projects are carried out in the following overallconceptual framework:◆ The principles of sustainability should direct thedesign process;◆ A systemic approach should be adopted;◆ As far as possible, the process should considerclosed cycles for materials and energy flows; ◆ Designers should try to identify the processesoccurring in nature and apply their principles(design with nature);◆ As humans and human sustainability shouldconstitute the main purpose of each project, useof products known to pose threats to humanhealth or the surrounding environment – at anypoint in their life cycle – must be eliminated or, ifalternatives are not available, minimized;◆ As human sustainability requires nature preser-vation in ways we are just starting to understand,what applies to humans should also apply to themillions of other species with which we share thisplanet.

The key overall objectives of this conceptualframework are:◆ minimizing materials and energy use and max-imizing the elements of healthy buildings;◆ promoting social commitment and responsibil-ity so as to provide employment and income to asmany people as possible within a context of eco-nomic feasibility;◆ stimulating development and research on pro-duction options that are in harmony with localcultures, again with the aim of generating jobs andincome;◆ whenever possible, using participatory process-es including the client and final users; ◆ taking into account the impacts of all productsused over the entire period of production and use;the concepts of life-cycle analysis and ecologicalfootprints should be familiar to designers;◆ ensuring that more sustainable construction ispreceded by more sustainable design projects, aswell as adequate instruction of those who will exe-cute the work;◆ follow-up, so that the finished project is sus-tainably managed by personnel trained for thispurpose.

NORIE’s latest project: proposal for atechnical schoolIn December 2002, NORIE was invited toaddress sustainability issues with respect to a pro-posed technical school whose design was alreadyapproved by the Education Ministry. Havingheard about the group’s activities, the secretary of

Land use and sustainable buildings: design and construction in southern Brazil

Miguel Aloysio Sattler, Postgraduate Programme in Civil Engineering/NORIE, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,

Av. Osvaldo Aranha, 99 – 3° Andar, CEP 90035-190 – Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil ([email protected])

Summary In recent years several activities related to sustainability in the built environment have been car-ried out in the postgraduate civil engineering programme at the Federal University of RioGrande do Sul in southern Brazil. Some have been related to education and others to designand construction. This article presents the overall conceptual framework for projects that applysustainability principles and key overall objectives. A recent project (a proposal for a technicalschool) illustrates how the framework and its objectives can be addressed in the context of aspecific project. Other research and design activities are also briefly described. There is a shortdiscussion of barriers to incorporating sustainability issues in land use planning and projectdesign in developing countries.

ResuméDepuis quelques années, plusieurs activités en rapport avec la durabilité de l’environnementbâti ont été menées dans le cadre du cursus de génie civil de 3e cycle de l’Université fédérale deRio Grande do Sul, dans le sud du Brésil. Certaines étaient liées à l’enseignement, d’autres à laconception et à la construction. L’article présente le cadre conceptuel général des projets appli-quant les principes de développement durable et les principaux objectifs. Un projet récent con-cernant une école technique montre comment le cadre et les objectifs peuvent être envisagésdans le contexte d’un projet spécifique. L’auteur évoque succinctement d’autres activités derecherche et de conception et procède à une courte analyse des obstacles qui, dans les pays endéveloppement, freinent l’intégration des questions de développement durable au processusd’aménagement du territoire et d’élaboration des projets.

ResumenEl programa postgraduado de ingeniería civil de la Universidad Federal de Rio Grande do Sulen el sur de Brasil ha llevado a cabo en los últimos años varias actividades relacionadas con lasostenibilidad del ambiente construido, algunas relacionadas con la educación y otras con eldiseño y la construcción. El artículo presenta el marco conceptual general de los proyectossobre edificios más sostenibles y los objetivos clave de estos proyectos. Un proyecto reciente,una propuesta para una escuela técnica, muestra cómo abordar el marco conceptual y losobjetivos en el contexto de un proyecto específico. También se reseñan otras actividades deinvestigación y diseño. Una breve discusión trata sobre los obstáculos para incorporar cues-tiones de sostenibilidad en la planificación del uso de tierras y en el diseño de proyectos enpaíses en desarrollo.





education at Feliz, where the school was to bebuilt, challenged NORIE to give the school amore sustainable infrastructure. This case throwslight on how NORIE addresses the above frame-work and objectives in the context of a specificproject.

The Feliz school is intended to serve youngstersfrom towns throughout the Caí River watershed.It will offer technical education in areas of interestto the region such as biotechnology, agro-indus-try, construction ceramics and information tech-nology. The school will be administrated by theFundação de Educação Profissional do Vale doRio Caí, a foundation whose members includerepresentatives of the 20 regional municipalities.The top priority was “to guide the actions of theschool aiming at sustainable development of theregion, focusing on environmental preservation.”

The school is expected to have up to 2000 stu-dents, split into three groups attending morning,afternoon and evening classes. The total area ofthe building is around 3670 m2 on a plot of some62,000 m2 (about 75 metres wide and 825 metreslong), mostly covered with native trees.

The team stressed that since the design projecthad already been approved, NORIE’s contribu-tion would be limited to sustainability “cosmet-ics.” After discussions that included other actorsinterested in how the school turned out, it becameclear that a new, more sustainable design wouldbetter meet the aspirations of everyone involved.Less than a month after the first meeting, all par-ties met again to discuss issues and ideas for a newdesign. Everyone agreed to take the opportunityto develop a design for the school that would bemore in accordance with sustainability principles.

NORIE was asked to submit a new design. Sev-eral postgraduate students whose main interestsinvolved more sustainable buildings and commu-nities were invited to join the working groupexamining alternatives.

The original design had given no considerationto use of more sustainable materials or passivesolar architecture. Other critical points wereequally easy to identify:◆ The buildings were to be a cluster of four blocks,with no attention paid to solar orientation, insu-lation or cross ventilation; existing vegetation wasnot taken into account in their siting, which inaddition would require considerable unneededearth moving; ◆ Large parking plots (much larger than needed)were included, also requiring considerable earthmoving and tree felling;◆ There was a lack of integration between theoriginal landscape and the school buildings.

Tables 1 and 2 show the guidelines adopted forthe new project, which are in line with the princi-ples of Fritjof Capra regarding ecoliteracy and ofJohn Lyleconcerning regenerative design,1 and theemphasis on green schools in recent publications.2

The guidelines in turn were translated into spe-cific elements of the school design. For instance,under Food: crop rotation, mulching for soil pro-tection; under Energy: use of solar energy andwood cooker.

Other research and design activitiesChallenging opportunities for students were cre-ated when new research projects were begun in1999. They arose from an international DesignIdeas Competition organized by NORIE in 1995,with funds from the Brazilian government,involving sustainable housing for the poor.3 Thefirst research project related to sustainability wasto design a small settlement demonstrating the useof sustainable technologies. Called the Experi-mental Centre for Sustainable Housing Tech-nologies (CETHS),4 this project was followed by,or developed together with, others as brieflydescribed below.

The pilot community, whose design wasinspired by the results of the competition, wasintended to become an experimental centre forsustainable housing technologies. The first eightunits were completed in 2002 in Nova Hartz, atown about 90 km from Porto Alegre, the capitalof the state of Rio Grande do Sul. Once conclud-ed, this project will likely be unique in SouthAmerica for having aggregated on one site a wholegroup of strategies that are usually only partlydeveloped and at different locations. Even moreimportant is the link between the project andBrazil’s social reality, and the fact that the expect-ed results will not just be technical but will includeorganizing and mobilizing the target groups andproviding alternatives to the critical conditions inwhich most of Brazil’s low-income populationlives. The centre, if successful, will be a livingmodel for a wider public.

The strategies used in CETHS’s conceptionand design were:◆ design that maximizes the community’s auton-omy in terms of energy, waste, food productionand water;◆ local food production, both for local consump-tion and for income generation;◆ a role as demonstration centre, with the settle-

Table 1Proposed technical school: general

project guidelines

• Maximum efficiency in use of available resources

• Multiple functions for each element introduced

• Consideration of nature as a model

• Interaction with environmental educators from thedesign stage

• Openness (of auditoriums, visiting areas, trails, etc.) to the local community

• Respect for local cultural and social characteristics

Table 2Proposed technical school: specific project guidelines

Materials Food

Local Use of local skills for plant and animal management

Culturally accepted Local production

Non-toxic Productive landscape

Recycled or potentially recyclable or reusable Diversity of cultures

Durable Identification of community’s needs, diet and nutritional imbalances

Suitable for self-construction Incentives for organic food production in region

Small ecological footprint Organic food production at the school

School design Location

Flexibility Adaptation to geomorphology

Comfort. The main challenge is finding energy- Use and preservation of native speciesefficient solutions for the hot months, making it important to include cross-ventilation and control of solar radiation (mainly by shading with deciduous trees); daylighting, noise control, etc. are also important

Universal accessibility to disabled people Fitting buildings to climate

Respect for regional architectural characteristics Organic design

Adequate habitable areas outdoors as well as indoors, Adequate scaling of private spaces to students andincluding spaces near buildings where internal classrooms open spaces to local communitycould be expanded on occasion

Energy Water

Efficient use Sensible use

Use of sustainable sources Optimum management inside the system

Matching of sources to needs (e.g. biogas generation Reliance as far as possible on internal collectionand biomass production for cooking and occasional heating, solar radiation for water heating, wind energy for water pumping)

Offsetting of non-renewable sources used by Reuseinternal production

Waste Social and economic issues

Reduced consumption of goods that contribute Income generation from recycling of solid wasteto waste generation

Use of organic solid waste Provision of multiple spaces for social interaction

Recycling of organic waste Empowering of community in the decision process

Reuse of “grey water” Community educationBiological wastewater treatment



ment being open to guided public visits;◆ building design that follows the principles ofbioclimatic architecture (in which a satisfactorylevel of comfort is achieved with a minimum ofmechanical equipment fuelled by non-renewableenergy) and minimizes the environmental impactof materials;◆ an edible and aesthetic landscape in all commonand individual areas;◆ natural drainage for absorption of rain run-off;◆ no incentives for private transport, but insteadnarrow roads favouring pedestrians; ◆ cul-de-sacs, encouraging only local traffic;◆ a green belt for food production, environmentalcontrol and community privacy;◆ a community centre encouraging participation

by all inhabitants in community decisions;◆ adequate infrastructure for the local manage-ment of solid and liquid waste.

The first aim of the team engaged in the con-ception of CETHS was to design, build and mon-itor performance of a prototype house beforebuilding the houses in the settlement.5 Before thiswas completed, the mayor of Nova Hartz askedNORIE to proceed with construction of the low-cost, more sustainable housing he knew was beingdesigned. Thus the eight housing units were builtbefore a prototype house was monitored. Howev-er, the team stuck to its aim of building a proto-type that could be properly instrumented, with-out occupation, and checked against the eightoccupied houses and their residents’ perceptions

of them. This prototype is on theuniversity campus, and at thetime of writing monitoring wasabout to start.

The “more sustainable house”prototype incorporates the fol-lowing features:◆ passive solar architecture;◆ low-cost solar collectors forwater heating, using inexpensiveand economical equipment. Theidea is to use solar-heated watermainly for the shower, instead ofthe electric shower heaters gener-ally used in Brazil. A NORIEstudy of more than 300 housingunits found that electricity con-sumption for water heating inthe relevant type of housing rep-resented over 35% of total elec-tricity use for the dwelling;◆ use of low-cost local materialsand reuse or recycling of materi-als from demolition;◆ use of vegetation for shadingand food production. For exam-

ple, the west façade is covered with vines, whichallows solar radiation to penetrate during coldweather and fruit to be grown for consumption byresidents;◆ water-saving strategies for bathroom andkitchen, including collection and recycling ofrainwater for toilet flushing and garden irrigation.Water is collected on the roof and stored in tanksnear the bathroom, which is built with simplematerials. Using rainwater to flush toilets shouldreduce treated water consumption by more than40%;◆ use of elements and components suitable for do-it-yourself building;◆ biological treatment of wastewater throughcombined use of septic tanks, sand filters, reedbeds and aquaculture ponds.

Bela Vista Biological RefugeIn the second semester of 2000, NORIE wasasked to submit design proposals for remodellingthe Bela Vista Biological Refuge (RBV), part ofthe Itaipu Dam complex at Foz do Iguaçu insouthern Brazil, on the border with Paraguay.RBV6 is one of five such refuges on the shores ofthe Itaipu reservoir. Their purpose is to regener-ate areas affected by the dam and to preservenative species. RBV (1920 hectares) is used forreproduction of wild animals, production ofseedlings to reforest the shores, experiments withflora and fauna, and environmental education.

Given the importance of environmental educa-tion at RBV, both the structures at the refuge andthe whole built environment are supposed toembody methods that are less damaging to theenvironment and more efficient in use of materi-als and energy.

In response, NORIE came up with a generaltheme in which design of the outdoor areas, build-ings (or equivalent) and equipment was inspiredby the four “basic elements”: earth, water, fire and

Preliminary sketch for the school: outdoor circulation

Prototype house built on the university campus



air. This would not only guide the designers, butwould also be the basis of a user-friendly “lan-guage” for outreach to the expected 50,000 visi-tors a year.

This concept led to the formulation of severalstrategies to generate an environmentally soundproduct, as well as to increase understanding ofthe technologies used and the role of each elementand of nature as a whole. Regarding earth, forexample, the beauty of vegetation on green roofs isseen as stimulating visitors’ curiosity. The propos-al incorporates roof gardens, roof ponds, heatexchangers and sensory gardens (with plots of veg-etation dedicated to experimentation with each ofthe senses – sight, taste, smell, touch and hearing).

In developing the projects described above, theNORIE team found that the first and primarybarrier to incorporating sustainability issues inland use planning and project design is lack ofknowledge of sustainability in general by all or

most of the main actors. The traditional way ofthinking, the absence of a more systemic way ofviewing life, seems to block understanding of howimportant a shift towards a more sustainable wayof living is for survival of the human species.NORIE’s activities are in demand among peoplewith a vision – a more sustainable, systemic orholistic vision. But in Brazil, as in other develop-ing countries (though it must be stressed that thephenomenon is not restricted to developing coun-tries), addressing the lack of education about sus-tainability is the main challenge.

Notes1. See, for example, Lyle, J. T. (1994) RegenerativeDesign for Sustainable Development. John Wyley& Sons, New York.2. See, for example, EBN – Green Schools: Learn-ing as We Go. In: Environmental Building News,Vol. 11, No.11 (November 2002), pp.1, 8-14.

3. Sattler, M.A. (1996) Sustainable Housing forthe Brazilian Poor. In: Proceedings of PLEA 96 -Building and Urban Renewal, Louvain-la-Neuve,Belgium, pp. 313-18.4. Sattler, M.A. (2002) Experimental Centre forSustainable Housing Technologies. In: SustainableBuilding 2002, Oslo, Norway. Proceedings of Sus-tainable Building 2002. The Norwegian EcoBuildProgram, Oslo.5. Sattler, M.A. (2002) A Low Cost SustainableHouse. In: Sustainable Building 2002, Oslo, Nor-way. Proceedings of Sustainable Building 2002.The Norwegian EcoBuild Program, Oslo.6. Sattler, M.A., M.M. Sedrez and T.F Rosa(2001) Biological Refuge Bela Vista: A Case Studyon Sustainable Design. In: The 18th Conference onPassive and Low Energy Architecture. 2001. Flori-anópolis, Brazil. Proceedings of the PLEA 2001Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 1141-42.

◆



Sustainable building services in developingcountries: the challenge to find “best-fit”technologies

Roderic Bunn, Building Services Research and Information Centre (BSRIA), Old Bracknell Lane West, Bracknell, Berkshire RG11 7AH, UK

([email protected])

Greenhouse gas emissions do not respectnational frontiers. Developed nationsexport their technology and skills, and in

turn the developing nations are highly desirous ofthe functionality of construction that the Westcan offer. With international carbon tradingbecoming a very real prospect, the onus is onnations with the design knowledge, products and

installation skills to ensure that buildings in thedeveloping world also benefit from robust, energyefficient solutions.

In the UK, buildings of all kinds account foraround 50% of total greenhouse gas emissions.1

Much of these emissions is generated by con-sumption of gas and electricity for space heating,refrigeration, mechanical ventilation and humid-

ification systems, along with electric lighting,catering equipment, and what are known as smallpower loads, such as computers and general officeequipment. The onus is clearly on those whodesign and construct buildings (and those whooperate them) to ensure that the normal state forall this equipment is one that is inherently energyefficient.

The problem is, there are few examples wherea technological advance, often intended toimprove quality of life, has not led directly or indi-rectly to an increase in energy consumption.Indeed, some innovations intended to reduceenergy consumption have had the opposite effect.Therein lies a threat: where developed countrieslead, developing countries are sure to follow.

Technology in itself, then, is not a solution.Neither is it wise to tot up the theoretical savingsin carbon emissions from the application of osten-sibly energy efficient technologies – be they pho-tovoltaics, greywater recycling plant, naturalventilation devices or low energy lamps – andbelieve that net savings will automatically result.Often the reverse is true, with the technology notperforming either due to shortcomings in design,commissioning or management, or simplybecause of extended hours of operation. Someenergy saving technologies are simply switched offbecause they are too complex for building ownersto manage.

Such “revenge effects” of so-called smart tech-nology are rife. Even buildings in the UK laudedfor their intelligence or their low energy attribut-es have subsequently proved to consume more fos-sil fuel than their designers intended.2

If developed countries are to invest in provid-ing low energy infrastructures for the developingworld, we need to know what techniques andtechnologies are appropriate for each context. Wealso need to be sure that the intrinsic complexityof solutions will be well within the capabilities ofthe people subsequently responsible for theiroperation and maintenance. Such solutions canbe called “best-fit” technologies.

Best-fit technologiesA best-fit technology can be defined as a solutionthat is appropriate for a particular context. Techni-cal solutions need to be assessed for their function-ality for the user, for reliability in operation, forbuildability (given local skills and resources) and formanageable complexity. As with any technology,

SummaryIntelligent energy efficiency technologies in developing countries can be assessed on the basisof best-fit criteria (usable controls for occupants, minimum conflicts in operation, inherentlyenergy efficient, and easy to build, maintain and operate). This article argues that ostensiblyenergy efficient solutions will not perform as intended unless they are appropriate for the cli-mate, are well detailed, installed and commissioned, and are of a level of complexity that canbe understood by managers and users of the building. Relevant low-energy technologies includegreywater recycling systems, passive and active thermal storage, and ground-source heatpumps. Successful export of such technologies on a wide scale will depend on developed coun-tries setting an example at home. For low-energy building design to have a lasting momen-tum, commercial clients and governments on both sides of the economic divide need buildingsthat broadcast a commitment to proven – rather than theoretical – energy efficiency.

RésuméLes technologies intelligentes d’efficacité énergétique des pays en développement peuvent êtreévaluées à partir de critères dits les plus adéquats (boutons de réglage utilisables par les occu-pants, minimum de difficultés dans l’utilisation, efficacité énergétique intrinsèque, facilité deconstruction, d’entretien et d’exploitation). L’article soutient que les solutions à haute efficac-ité énergétique ne donneront pas les résultats attendus si elles ne sont pas adaptées au climat,correctement expliquées, installées et mises en service, et si leur niveau de complexité n’est pasà la portée des gestionnaires et des usagers du bâtiment. L’auteur analyse les technologies àbas profil énergétique, notamment les systèmes de recyclage des eaux grises (eaux uséestraitées), le stockage thermique passif et actif et les pompes à chaleur géothermiques. L’expor-tation à grande échelle de ces technologies dépend de la capacité des pays développés de mon-trer l’exemple chez eux. Pour que les projets de construction à bas profil énergétique segénéralisent de façon durable, les maîtres d’ouvrage et les gouvernements des deux côtés de lafracture économique ont besoin de bâtiments qui témoignent d’une recherche d’efficacitéénergétique réelle, plutôt que théorique.

ResumenLas tecnologías inteligentes de eficiencia energética en los países en desarrollo se pueden eval-uar a base de criterios de “mejor concordancia” (controles prácticos para ocupantes, conflic-tos mínimos en el funcionamiento, eficiencia energética inherente, y fácil de construir, mantenery manejar). El artículo plantea que soluciones que son eficientes claramente en materia deenergía no producirán los resultados esperados a menos que sean apropiadas para el clima, quese hayan detallado, instalado y encargado correctamente y cuyo nivel de complejidad puedaser comprendido por los administradores y utilizadores del edificio. Se analizan tecnologías rel-evantes de bajo consumo energético, por ejemplo, sistemas de reciclaje de aguas grises, alma-cenamiento termal activo y pasivo y bombas de calor geotérmico. El éxito de la exportación agran escala de estas tecnologías dependerá del buen ejemplo que den los países desarrolladosen casa. Para que el diseño de la construcción de bajo consumo energético tenga un impulsoperecedero, los clientes comerciales y los gobiernos de ambos lados de la línea divisoriaeconómica necesitan edificios que propaguen un compromiso a la eficiencia energética com-probada en vez de teórica.



from a brick to a computerized building manage-ment system, the commodity must be available andobviously must be suitable for the climate.

Any product or solution that passes these testscould be defined as intelligent, if only on the basisthat wisdom has been applied to the selection andmanagement criteria.

Building intelligence certainly has little to dowith complexity, with electronics or with automa-tion. A technically smart item of kit used in thewrong context will probably default to stupidmodes of operation. If a technically complex solu-tion is specified on the basis that it is a fit-and-for-get item, but proves to be a fit-and-manage item,then its success is out of the hands of the designerand in the laps of the poor souls running thebuilding.

Research also shows that the best intelligence inbuildings resides with the occupants.3 If so, thechallenge for designers and manufacturers is tosupport them with appropriate and under-standable systems which have readily-usablecontrol interfaces, and which give immediatefeedback on their performance.

Given this range of conditions for best-fittechnology – usable controls for occupants,minimum conflicts in operation, inherentlyenergy efficient, and easy to build, maintainand operate – which ones are most applicablefor use in developing countries?

Table 1 lists the virtues and drawbacks ofvarious building technologies systems in thecontext of their application in developingcountries. A more detailed review of some ofthese systems is given below.

Fabric energy storageGiven the inherent problems of operatingmechanical building services in regions of the

world where energy sources may be unreliable,along with the likely lack of engineering skills tomaintain those services, it makes sense to adoptpassive solutions wherever possible. The mostobvious approach is to use the building fabric as amedium for storing, cooling and heating energy.4

Most continental climates tend towards quitewide diurnal swings in temperature; in Zimbab-we, for example, summertime temperatures canrange from 16°C at night to 33°C during the day,which gives considerable scope for using thermalmass to control internal temperatures withoutrecourse to mechanical cooling or heating.

Heavyweight structural elements are the sim-plest form of thermal storage system, their prima-ry characteristic being their slow thermal response,which enables the structure to be used as a medi-um for storing cooling and heating energy. Expo-sure of such structural elements to the occupied

spaces serves to control the diurnal swings in envi-ronmental temperature and provide more of asteady-state internal environment.

However, most building fabric energy storagesystems need control over the heat flows in andout of the building, and over the time and placeof release. This requires active energy storage,which in turn may require air flow control devicesand quite possibly mechanical fan power.

Active energy storageActive energy storage is where controls are used toregulate the flow of heat energy into and out of abuilding. This can be anything from penny-flapdampers controlled by occupants to complexmechanical ventilation systems that use air to chargeand discharge the structure with heat energy.

A good example of how this can be applied todeveloping countries is the system designed by

consulting engineers Ove Arup and Partners andarchitect Pearce Partnership for the Harare Inter-national School in Zimbabwe. Here, the activeenergy storage system is based on cages of looserock that act as thermal batteries.

Situated within the tropics, Harare Interna-tional School was built in 1998 to meet theschooling needs of expatriate children from over50 nations. The school block features 12 class-rooms and laboratories, an art block, and a cen-tral music room with associated stage andamphitheatre. Supply air to the school’s class-rooms is pumped through steel cages containinglocally-sourced granite pitching stone, afterwhich the tempered supply air enters the class-rooms through low-level grilles.

During summer nights cool air is blownthrough the building via the rock stores, whichare cooled by the very cold night air that is a fea-ture of the local high veld climate. The ventila-

Wind-powered ventilation cowls on roof of PE hall atHarare International School

(©ARUP/Mike Rainbow)

Turbine-type wind cowl on the roof of the Harare International School (©ARUP/Mike Rainbow)

Installation of thermal rock stores at Harare International School in Zimbabwe: supply air isdrawn through these cages from left to right

(note deep solar shading created by extension ofroof as veranda) (©ARUP/Mike Rainbow)



tion system purges the rocks of heat to 20°C, pro-viding 4-5°C pre-heat the next morning. The sys-tem also functions efficiently during the wintermonths, when Harare experiences chilly morningsfollowed by pleasantly warm afternoons. By oper-ating the low energy fans during daytime hoursonly, afternoon heat is stored in the rocks, subse-quently producing several degrees of preheating tothe early morning supply air. In operation, theclassrooms are consistently 3-5°C cooler than theexternal temperature. Pressure loss through therockfill is said to be less than 10 Pa/m2.

As this type of scheme was the first of its kind,it was necessary for the engineers to establish themost effective fill material for the rock stores. Atest bed was fabricated, so that different optionscould be assessed in terms of rates of storage andrelease of energy and the aerodynamic resistanceat various flow rates. Various recycled fill materialswere considered at this stage, including steelgrinding mill-balls, water-filled milk cartons,

building rubble and stacked paving slabs. In theart block passive ventilation is promoted using aspecially engineered wind-driven extractor. Like-wise, the sports building benefits from a pair ofperiscope-shaped wind cowls that turn in opposi-tion to each other, and in so doing provide passivesupply and extract.

Climate is the big decider for this kind of sim-ple energy storage system. Rockstore systems workbest in a continental climate, with a large dirunalswing of around 10K – typical of continentalclimes within plus or minus 30° latitude. Thiswould cover South Africa, Zambia, Kenya,Ethiopia and many areas of Central Americaincluding Mexico City and Guatemala. Tehranand Kabul are also close to this 30°limit.

This installation successfully met the require-ments of intelligent, best-fit technology: easy tosource and build, easy to maintain, and reliable inoperation. It can also be easily replicated withouthaving to import specialist skills or equipment.

Ground-source heat pumpsGround-source heat pumps are another way togenerate heating and cooling energy while reduc-ing reliance on sources of primary energy. Ineffect, heat pumps use the vapour compressioncycle to generate heat across a wide temperaturerange that enables it to be used in either a coolingor heating mode.5

They are two basic types of heat pump: water-to-air and water-to-water units, depending onwhether the heat distribution system uses air orwater. Ground-source heat pumps take energystored in the ground, which is stable year-roundbelow a certain depth. The normal increase in theearth’s temperature is between 1.5°C and 4.5°Cper 100 metres, or an average energy flow of 60 mW/m2.

This heat energy for the heat pump can beextracted through a closed or open-circuit bore-hole. Closed loops generally rely on the latent heatof the surrounding rock, into which heat-exchange

Table 1Benefits and shortcomings of energy saving technologies for developing countries

Technology

Naturalventilation

Mechanicalventilation

Mixed modeventilation

Rainwaterrecovery

Greywaterrecovery

Compostingtoilets

Passive thermalstorage

Active thermalstorage

Ice stores

Ground-sourceheat pumps

Characteristics

Uses natural pressuredifferences to ventilateinternal spaces

Uses fan energy to controlair flow into the building

Uses a combination of fansand windows as needed, forventilation

Recovery of rainwater fordrinking or flushing

Recovery and storage ofwashing water for flushingpurposes

An alternative to the flushtoilet where effluent isstored and composted

Exposed building structurethat controls solar gains andstores heating and coolingenergy

Mechanical or semi-mechanical system tocontrol rates of energystorage and discharge

Maximizes off-peakrefrigeration energy tocharge an ice store forrelease of cooling energyduring the day

Uses latent heat in theground to power a heatpump in cooling or heatingmode

Functionality

High for simplebuildings, butpollution/daylightconflicts need to bemanaged

Medium to high,needs fan power, butheat can be recovered

Medium to high, offersflexibility betweennatural andmechanical ventilation

High, but dependenton rates of rainfall

High, for areas withlow rainfall or withunreliable supplies ofdrinking water

High, for areas withouta sewerage system

High, climatedependent

Medium, may needenergy for fans andcontrols; climatedependent

Low ,higher overall energypenalty

Medium to high

Degree of fit-and-forget (reliability)

High, but vents, cowlsand windows are notfit-and-forget

Medium,complex controlsrequire goodmanagement

Medium, needs carefulattention to controls

Medium

Low

High

High

Medium, can fail toperform without goodcontrol

Very low, complexsystems need constantmanagement

Medium

Buildability

Very good, no need for services plant

Good if kept simple

Good if kept simple

Good (simple andcomponent-based)

Reasonable(component-based)

Good (few movingparts, self-assembly)

Good, but may bedependent onmaterials availability

Good, but requires finetuning to deliverresults

Medium (component-based, but takes upmuch space)

Low to medium(component-based,but boreholes can behigh cost)

Maintenancerequirement

Low, but vents,windows and anyautomated actuatorsneed maintenance

Medium, plant needsmaintaining and asupply of filters isneeded

Medium, plant needsmaintaining and asupply of filters isneeded

Low for flushing, highfor drinking

High (for monitoring,filters, anddisinfectant)

Low and easy

Low

Low to high,depending oncomplexity

High: chillers, pumps,pipework and icevessels

Medium, heat pumpand controls needmaintaining;boreholes can silt up

Overall suitability fordeveloping countries

High, but dusty air in hotclimates cannot be easilyfiltered

High where a system canbe used for active thermalstorage and powered byrenewable energy

High where a system canbe used for active thermalstorage and powered byrenewable energy

Medium to good,depending on rainfall

Low to medium,depending on the severityof context

Very good, for systems notreliant on an electricalsupply to heat thecompost

High

Good, but may be fragilewithout robust controls,needs facilitiesmanagement ability

Low, often fragile withoutskilled management,needs good controls andfinancial acumen

Low to medium, closedcircuit boreholes mostreliable, open circuit mayprovide flushing/irrigationwater

Intelligence:1 star = stupid, 5 stars = smart

*****

***

****

****

**

****

*****

***

*

***



pipework, filled with a water/antifreeze solution,typically descends through 15-180 metres beforereturning to the heat pump. Horizontal networksare also possible, either by distributing pipeworkthrough shallow trenches or by laying them out inmudflats or marshes. Inevitably, the thermal per-formance of the system will be affected by thecloseness of the pipework to the surface and by theinfluence of solar gains and rainfall evaporation.

Open-loop circuits generally involve the extrac-tion of groundwater, either from permeable rocksor an aquifer. The water is extracted by a sub-mersible pump, passed through a heat exchangerin an air-handling unit where the heat is released(or absorbed, depending on mode of operation)and then either returned to a second borehole ordumped to a drain. Given suitable treatment, thiswater can also be used for toilet flushing or irriga-tion, which may itself justify an open-circuit solu-tion.

The big drawback with open-loop systems istheir inability to cope with high heating or coolingloads. Boreholes can be expensive to sink. As sev-eral boreholes may be needed to meet a desiredoutput, capital and maintenance costs can be pro-hibitive. Open-loop systems can also be difficultto maintain. It is not easy to pressurize the groundto accept return water. Users may have to contendwith algal growth and the settling out of suspend-ed solids, all of which can block up a borehole.

Water conservationThe increasing demand for potable water supplieshas put the focus on more efficient use of drinkingwater, and on ways the wastewater and rainwatercan be recovered and used for non-potable purpos-es such as toilet flushing, site irrigation and makeupwater for steam boilers. In countries where droughtis an ever-present danger, such systems may be asolution to unreliable water supplies.

Rainwater can be used for drinking purposesonce suitable treatment has been applied, such asUV disinfection. The system can be very simple,involving little more than gutters, storagecisterns and suitable pipework. On thedownside, the system is dependent on thedegree and periodicity of rainfall, and suf-ficient storage must be provided to sus-tain the building community, particularlyif there is no mains water connection.

Wastewater systems (also termedgreywater systems) are more complicat-ed (Figure 1). This involves the collec-tion and storage of wastewater frombaths, showers and domestic appliances.The supply of greywater is not depen-dent on rainfall, so savings can be madeeven in times of drought.

Whereas disinfection is not necessaryfor rainwater systems used in toiletflushing, a disinfection system is vitalfor greywater systems as the prolifera-tion of harmful bacteria can pose ahealth hazard. Greywater systemsrequire periodic topping up of disinfec-tant and the cleaning and replacementof filters.

While such technology may appear eminentlysuitable for use in developing countries (particu-larly where potable water is in short supply, or inarid regions for landscape irrigation), the empha-sis is on maintenance and operation.

Water supply is only one side of the water con-servation equation. The other major problem forbuildings in developing countries is lack of a san-itation infrastructure. If there is no sewerage sys-tem, then designers need to find an alternativemethod to dispose of human effluent.

Composting toilets are one such mechanism(Figure 2). They are simple to construct, usingeither prefabricated components or natural mate-rials on site. They have few moving parts and arefairly maintenance-free. What little maintenanceis needed can be carried out with minimal training

and the simplest of tools.Most composting toilets work in the same way:

waste is deposited in a chamber directly below thetoilet bowl, where it can be allowed to break downby a process of mixing, aeration and warming.Wood shavings are a suitable absorbant. Afterabout a year the composted material can be safelydisposed of, or used as local fertilizer – though noton crops.

Drawbacks are few: some systems need electricheat to accelerate the biological activity, others usea stirring prong to maintain aerobic conditions.Some systems, typically vault composters, rely ona colony of worms to hasten the compostingprocess. Only a litre of water is needed pre-flush,and this can easily come from a greywater or rain-water system.6

ConclusionsClearly, there are no panaceas when itcomes to identifying best-fit buildingservices solutions for developing coun-tries. Some approaches are best left wellalone (Table 1), particularly if a pro-posed system can be fragile in operation.Complex services and controls requireexcellence in their management, andthis may be in short supply in resource-strapped regions of the world.

The myth of building intelligence isthat it is fit-and-forget, and that elec-tronics will do the rest. The truth is thatmany building services systems are fit-and-manage, and problems will alwaysoccur where complex technology isapplied in a context that is deficient inskilled facilities management.7 Simpler,more robust solutions are more suitablefor these contexts, even if the theoreticalenergy savings would be less than opti-mal.

Figure 1Schematic of a greywater treatment system, suitable for a large-scale project

©BSRIA

Figure 2Operating principle of a composting toilet

©BSRIA

Light enters solar fluethrough fly screen and attracts flies

Only minimal light enters cubicle

Wash throughdrains tosoakway

Drainageto removesoakway

Hot air rises in the flue along with flies, smells and moisture

Dark metal finish heats upand drives solar flue

Cold air is sucked into the pitalong with flies and smells

Access door to empty pit

Dry waste compostsin twin pits

Liquids infiltrate into the ground



Is it possible that controlled application of best-fit technologies in developing countries will drivereductions in emissions of greenhouse gases? If thedesign practices typified by the Harare Interna-tional School can be replicated on a regular basis,then there is every hope that they will. However, itis sobering to note that there’s one thing develop-ing nations want, and that is to become developednations. Evidence suggests that their inspiration

often comes not from the best that environmen-tally sustainable architecture can offer, but fromwhat developed nations themselves clearly prize:ostentatious architectural symbols of wealth andprosperity. That tends to manifest itself throughexternally mounted building services and 100%glazed facades – facing south.

It matters not whether these buildings are the pre-posterous consequence of talented designers mak-

ing their names by proposing fundamentally flaweddesigns, and then making them work through tech-nical skill and panache. They are desired symbols ofnational economic prosperity that do not go unno-ticed by emerging economies.

Western design communities need to recognizethe risks in what they do at home, and try harderto acquaint themselves with a good knowledge ofthe properties of materials, embodied energy and

The open building concept for an adaptable built environment Tomonari Yashiro, Professor, Institute of Industrial Science, University of Tokyo, 4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro

Tokyo 153-8505, Japan ([email protected])

The open building (OB) approach facilitates sys-tematization of the built environment as a set of dis-tinctly layered sub-systems. One sub-system can bereplaced by various alternatives without disturbingother sub-systems. The exchangeable nature of sub-systems makes it feasible to customize a buildingaccording to the stakeholders’ specific requirements,and to adapt to requirements that are constantlychanging.

This concept is applicable to the efficient regener-ation of existing buildings, as well as to the realizationof “upgradeable buildings” and “partnership-basedgrowing buildings”. By continuously improving ser-viceability and resource productivity, the open build-ing approach improves a building’s sustainability.

A building is a complicated assembly of various elements that embodythe complicated relationship among its stakeholders. To be serviceable overtime, a building needs to meet (at acceptable levels) the ever changing,unique requirements of its stakeholders. However, physical complicated-ness and socio-economic entanglement can be obstructive factors withrespect to customization according to individual stakeholder requirementsand adaptation to the ever changing requirements of the building.

The open building approach can be the solution to problems related tocomplicatedness and entanglement. It is a method of subdividing the built

environment into clearly distinct levels, which are made up of functional orspatial groups of elements (Figure 1). Using the approach applied in theNetherlands, Japan and Finland, these levels may be referred to as “urbantissue”, “support” and “infill”. In the United States they may be referred toas the “base building” and “fit-outs”.1,2

Levels correspond to specific stakeholders. In the case of housing, “infill”corresponds to residents of dwelling units and “support” to owners andleaseholders. Buildings that do not have distinct levels tend to entangle deci-sion making by stakeholders. However, the open building approach enables

Support

Infill

CapacityUrban tissue

200 years or more?Support

100 yearsInfill

10-20 years

Territory

Dwelling

Building block

Open building is an innovative way to produce– and renovate – neighbourhoods and build-ings, using the latest building technology, infor-mation management and construction logistics.Open building projects are based on certainprinciples. The most basic of these is the desig-nation of “levels”: decisions and physical partsare grouped according to whether they belongto the level of urban fabric/tissue (the buildingsite), the base building or support (the struc-tural envelope), fit-out or infill (interior parti-tions, etc.) or FF&E (furnishings, fixtures andequipment).

This approach enhances the efficiency of thebuilding process while increasing the variety,flexibility and quality of the building itself.

In large projects (either new construction ormajor renovation) the application of openbuilding principles means that uniform unitdesigns are no more difficult to install than inte-rior layouts. Thus, there is a better balancebetween supply and demand and less need forrework. Buildings and urban fabric remain

valuable well into the future because they areplanned for change as well as stability.

In normal construction, mechanical equip-ment infrastructure systems are completelyintertwined. Structures and partitions belong todifferent parties (in the legal and trade jurisdic-tion sense). Entanglement leads to disputes,higher initial and long-term costs, reducedquality and confusing regulations. It alsoobstructs system upgrades and spatial reconfig-uration.

In open building, while each level mayinclude parts of several technical systems (e.g.fit-out may include partitions, electrical,plumbing, mechanical, fixtures and cabinets)the physical systems that comprise a level aredelivered as a distinct “bundle”. Open buildingdisentangles building systems by reducing sub-system dependencies (therefore reducing con-flicts among the various parties) and organizesparts according to their life span, leading tomore sustainable buildings and neighbour-hoods. Environments that achieve sustainabili-

ty do so in part because they can adjust withreduced waste and disruption.

Under open building principles, an urbandesign enables a variety of buildings to be erect-ed and replaced without altering the basic urbanpatterns of space and infrastructure. A basebuilding with parts shared by all occupantsenables freedom of layout at the level of theindividual unit; a fixed arrangement of wallsand doors enables a certain variety of furniturearrangements.

This approach ensures that as buildings andneighbourhoods are constructed and altered,each “social unit” (e.g. neighbourhood council,condominium association, individual occu-pant) is assured a clear measure of both freedomand responsibility. Another important princi-ple of open building is that users/inhabitantsmake design decisions; more generally, designis a process with multiple participants, includ-ing various kinds of professionals.Adapted from CIB leaflet on open building(www.decco.nl/obi/obi_flye.htm).

Figure 1Subdivision of the built environment into distinct levels



the environmental benefits of robust energy con-servation measures. With that knowledge they caneducate clients and governments on both sides ofthe economic divide on the most sustainable wayto move forward the practice of true low-energybuilding design.

Notes1. Our energy future – creating a low carbon econo-

my, DTI Energy White Paper, 2003.2. PROBE: Post-occupancy Review of Buildingsand their Engineering, 1995-2002 (a researchproject managed by Roderic Bunn, former editorof Building Services Journal, for the DTI under thePartners In Innovation collaborative research pro-gramme).3. Barnard, N. (1994) Dynamic energy storage inthe building fabric. BSRIA TR 9/94. ISBN 0

86022 372 8.4. Ibid.5. Rawlings, R. (1999) Ground-source heat pumps.BSRIA TN 18/99. ISBN 0 86022 506 2.6. Brewer, D., R. Brown and G. Stanfield (2001)Rainwater and greywater in buildings. BSRIA TN7/2001. ISBN 0 86022 577 1.7. Barnard (op.cit.).

◆

autonomous decision making at each level without theentanglement of different interests. For example, where thisapproach is applied to housing, the residents of dwellingunits (i.e. stakeholders of “infill”) can arrange interiors inde-pendently if the arrangement does not expand beyond thedefined boundaries between “infill” and “support”.

The potential for autonomy and disentanglement increas-es the economic and technical feasibility of customizationaccording to stakeholders’ unique requirements by:◆ inducing various forms of participation in the designprocess by users, residents and different types of profes-sionals;◆ managing the “buy to order” or “make to order” supplychain of each stakeholder at reasonable cost.

Thus the open building approach can promote variousarrangements of “fit-outs” within the framework of a “basebuilding”, respecting the identities of the building’s usersand residents.

Based on a number of case studies concerned withchanges in buildings over time, Stewart Brand has illustrat-ed the concept of “shearing layers of change” regarding com-ponents’ different rates of change. These layers are called“site”, “skin”, “structure”, “services”, “space plan” and“stuff”.3 The “shearing layers of change” concept suggestshow distinct subdivision could enhance continual adapta-tion through replacement of groups of elements. Distinct subdivision intofunctional or spatial groups of elements with sophisticated interfaces, usingthe open building approach, is a form of “shearing layers of change” (to use

Brand’s term). It allows replacement of a group of elements with anothergroup that performs the same or a more suitable function. The open build-ing approach therefore facilitates efficient adaptation to changing contextsover time, including:◆ adjustability to unpredictable changes in a socio-economic context;◆ upgradeability in order to profit from future innovation.

The open building approach has the potential to improve buildings’ sus-tainability in both developed and developing countries.

Potential of OB in developed countries: refurbishment ofexisting buildingsIn most developed countries, quantitative demand for floor space in build-ings is limited by the fact that populations are declining or only slowly increas-ing. However, qualitative demand for built environment is influenced byongoing economic and social transformations. Considering the magnitude ofresource use for construction related activities in developed countries, it isessential to avoid repetition of demolish-and-new-build as a method of adapt-ing to qualitative demand. The open building approach could be an alterna-tive, systematized and efficient method of refurbishment to adapt existingbuildings to changing qualitative demand through continual replacement of“infill” or “fit-outs”.

In both western and eastern Europe there are examples of run-down hous-ing estates being regenerated, using an open building approach that com-bines:◆ rehabilitation of “supports” by landlords and of “urban tissue” by localauthorities, including improvement of energy efficiency, amenities andcapacity for change;

Figure 2The open building approach can generate mechanisms for continuous

transformation

Figure 3Upgradeable buildings can respond to innovation

con’t page 52 ☞



◆ promotion of the refitting ofdwelling units through encouragingvarious forms of resident commit-ment.

These examples demonstrate thatthe open building approach canimprove the sustainability of hous-ing estates by generating a self-gov-erning mechanism for continualtransformation to maintain service-ability under partnerships of stake-holders (Figure 2).

Potential of OB indeveloping countries: upgradeable buildings Today’s innovative technology could soon be out of date. If buildings areto be serviceable in a period of rapid innovation, they need to be upgrade-able. A large number of new buildings are being constructed in developedand developing countries, reflecting economic growth. However, becauseof pressure to achieve rapid construction at minimum cost, some newbuildings embody an entangled combination of elements that couldobstruct upgrading of buildings. This means many buildings with poorenergy efficiency and considerable environmental impacts that are beingconstructed in developing countries risk technological deterioration in thefuture. If the demolish-and-new-build method were used as an alterna-tive to deterioration, or if these buildings continued their poor environ-mental performance, this could result in a global sustainability crisis dueto huge resource and energy use, waste generation and environmentalimpacts. To mitigate the probable risk, it is essential to introduce the con-cept of “upgradeable buildings” (based on the open building approach) indeveloping countries. “Upgradeable buildings” can be used for a longerperiod by inducing innovation over time.4

Japan has experienced the problems associated with less-upgradeablebuildings in a period of rapid economic growth. There are several chal-lenging examples of construction of upgradeable buildings in Japan (Fig-ure 2 and Figure 3).

Potential of OB in developing countries: partnership-based growing buildingsIn megacities in developing countries, informal construction activities playa considerable role in providing shelter to meet basic humanneeds. However, in many megacities the role of the informalsector is underestimated by the formal sector. Eventually, invest-ments by the formal and informal sectors are fragmenteddespite the limited resources available for investment. To uti-lize limited resources efficiently, the “partnership-based growingbuilding” concept (based on the open building approach) needsto be introduced in order to supply quality shelter for as manypeople as possible. Within the framework of a partnership-based growing building (Figure 4) the formal sector focusesinvestments on the “urban tissue” and “support” level, while theinformal sector is responsible for installing “infill” through uti-lizing self-help activities. Because of the adaptable nature of theopen building approach, a partnership-based growing buildingcan replace or add “infill” and some “supports” and “urban tis-sue” in the future, responding to socio-economic changes andinnovation. This approach gives people hope by demonstrat-ing the “growing” of a building through a transparent process.

Concluding comments: probable dematerializationusing the open building approachThe open building approach has the potential to enhance cus-tomization and continuous adaptation over time in differentcontexts in both developed and developing countries. As this

approach is disseminated, buildings’ serviceability increases their eco-nomic value. Especially at the “infill” level, it is probable that an infill sup-plier could be a service rather than a product provider. Based on the openbuilding approach, the author and industrial partners are currently tryingto develop and disseminate a new business model in which infill is leasedas movable property (Figure 5).5 This suggests that the open buildingapproach facilitates an emphasis on the value of serviceability, which pro-motes the dematerialization of building related economic activities. Theopen building approach can improve the sustainability of buildings notonly through technological, social and economic disentanglement, butalso through dematerialization.

Notes1. Habraken, John (2000) Supports: An alternate to mass housing. UrbanInternational Press (reprint of 1972 English edition).2. Kendall, Stephen and Jonathan Teicher (2000) Residential Open Build-ing. Spon, London and New York.3. Brand, Stewart (1994) How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’reBuilt. Viking, New York.4. www.habraken.com/john/open.htm.5. Yashiro, Tomonari, and Kenji Nishimoto (2002) Leasing of infill com-ponents – New business model development for dematerialization ofbuilding related industry. Proceedings of Sustainable Building Sympo-sium 2002. Norwegian Building Research Institute.

Upper systemMoveable property

Lower systemFixed property

infill system 2(fixed property)

infill system 1(leased properties)

Support (formal sector)

self-help innovative elements

Infill

Support

Urban tissue

minimum function

minimum structure

minimum service

basic function

basic structure

add-on space

innovative function

innovative structure

amenity development

Urban tissue (local authority)

Infill (informal sector)

Figure 4A partnership-based growing building

Figure 5Infill could be leased as moveable property

☞ con’t from page 51



Concepts and instruments for a sustainableconstruction sector

Holger Wallbaum, Senior Consultant, Wuppertal Institute, and Director for Research, Triple Innova, Luisenstrasse 102, 42103 Wuppertal, Germany

([email protected])

Claudia Buerkin, consultant, Hebelstrasse 35, 77960 Seelbach, Germany ([email protected])

Sustainable development has been an interna-tionally recognized aim since the UN Con-ference on Environment and Development

in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Its central challenges arethe maintenance of social security and justice, sus-tainable economic development, and the preserva-tion and creation of an intact environment. Look-ing at industrial sectors, the construction sector isof particular importance. On one hand, it makesa vital contribution to the social and economicdevelopment of every country by providing hous-ing and infrastructure; on the other, this sector isan important consumer of non-renewableresources, a substantial source of waste, a polluterof air and water, and an important contributor toland dereliction. Material flows analyses for Ger-

many, Japan and the United States show that theconstruction sector accounts for between one-third and one-half of commodity flows whenexpressed in terms of weight (Figure 1).1

Setting the targetIn many cases buildings are harmful to workersduring the construction period, as well as to occu-pants due to unhealthy air and indoor climate.Longer-term environmental impacts also resultfrom buildings’ use and maintenance. In Ger-many about one-third of total primary energy isused just to maintain existing structures and keepthem running. Moreover, demolition generatesenormous amounts of waste to be deposed of.

A core instrument for determining the environ-

mental impact of materials in the constructionindustry is the “ecological rucksack”, whichdescribes the total quantity of material that mustbe extracted to obtain a unit of pure (and thususable) material. For example, for iron ore extrac-tion the ecological rucksack can be expressed as aratio of 14:1 – that is, 14 metric tonnes of waste inthe form of tailings or mine waste are created inthe production of one metric tonne of iron. In thecase of rarer materials such as gold and platinum,the ratio can range up to 350,000:1.

With their knowledge of these impacts and theextent of material consumption in today’s soci-eties, senior governmental, non-governmental,industry and academic leaders argue the follow-ing: to redirect our course towards that of a sus-tainable economy, each country’s total resourceproductivity should be increased by a factor of 2;and in industrialized countries it should beincreased by a factor of 4 within the next decadeand by a factor of 10 overall within one genera-tion. To achieve these increases, every actor with-in the economy must optimize resource use fromthe national (macro) level, through the sectoraland regional (meso) levels and on down to the sin-gle firm and household level (micro) levels.

Different tools have been developed to measureresource productivity and the potential for improve-ment. These tools can be applied to the construc-tion sector. A sustainable construction sector alsohas to consider other dimensions (e.g. economicand social considerations) in order to take the holis-tic approach needed to build a sustainable future.

From resource management towards asustainable construction sector“Only what is measured gets done” is often theunderlying principle of the factor X discussion.The method we use to measure resource produc-tivity depends on the extent of information (unit)we desire. For information based on mass units, wechose MIPS (Material Input per Service Unit), andfor mass and monetary units combined with socialconsiderations we chose COMPASS (Companies’and Sectors’ Path to Sustainability). The differentmethods will be briefly explained below to showwhich periods in a building’s life cycle offer poten-tial for improvement within the fixed targets.

MIPS: a monitoring tool for material flows MIPS is a methodology for measuring materialinput at the level of products, including all their

SummaryThis article presents an overview of methods used by the Wuppertal Institute to determine sus-tainability targets in the construction sector and to develop pathways for achieving targetedimprovements. Resource productivity is considered over a building’s entire life cycle (MIPS).The COMPASS concept integrates environmental, economic and social aspects for single com-panies or industrial sectors in order to make progress towards greater sustainability. Profitingfrom each of these approaches, and based on various types of research, recommendations arederived for companies and policy makers. Multi-stakeholder processes can be used to promoteoverall sustainable development in the construction sector, and eventually to integrate con-cepts related specifically to the micro and meso levels.

RésuméL’article examine les méthodes employées par le Wuppertal Institute pour fixer des objectifs dedurabilité dans le secteur du bâtiment et élaborer les filières qui permettront les améliorationsrecherchées. La productivité des ressources est étudiée sur la totalité du cycle de vie du bâti-ment. Le concept de COMPASS intègre les aspects environnementaux, économiques et sociauxpour des entreprises isolées ou des secteurs industriels entiers, afin de progresser vers une plusgrande durabilité. Tirant parti de chacune de ces approches et des divers travaux de rechercheengagés, des recommandations sont formulées à l’intention des entreprises et des décideurs.Des processus associant de nombreux acteurs peuvent être mis en place pour promouvoir ledéveloppement durable dans l’ensemble du secteur du bâtiment, voire pour intégrer des con-cepts spécifiques aux niveaux microsectoriels et mésosectoriels.

ResumenEl artículo presenta una visión general de los métodos del Instituto Wuppertal para definir obje-tivos sostenibles en el sector de la construcción y para desarrollar procedimientos que permi-tirán lograr las mejoras deseadas. Se estudia la productividad de recursos durante todo el ciclode vida de un edificio (MIPS). El concepto COMPASS integra aspectos medioambientales,económicos y sociales para compañías individuales o sectores industriales con miras a pro-gresar hacia una mayor sostenibilidad. Aprovechando cada uno de estos enfoques y basándoseen varios tipos de investigación, se preparan recomendaciones para las compañías y los encar-gados de elaborar las políticas. Procesos que cuentan con la participación de múltiples partesinteresadas pueden ser utilizados para promover el desarrollo sostenible en general en el sec-tor de la construcción y, con el tiempo, integrar conceptos relacionados específicamente conniveles medianos y pequeños.


“ecological rucksacks” – that is, the totalmass of material flows activated by an itemof consumption in the course of its lifecycle (www.wupperinst. org).2 MIPS iscomputed in material input per total unitof services delivered by the product over itsentire useful life span Resource extraction,manufacturing, transport, packaging,operation, reuse, recycling and remanufac-turing are accounted for, as well as finalwaste disposal.3 The total MI carried by afinished product the product’s ecologicalrucksack.

The S in the MIPS formula (Figure 2)stands for the total number of units ofservice (utility) delivered by the productduring its lifetime, or the expected totalnumber of service units that the productmight supply during its lifetime (in theMIPS concept, products are “servicedeliver machines”). The S number is usu-ally greater than that implied by productwarranties.

Resource productivity can thus beimproved by lowering MI for a given S, orby increasing S with a fixed quantity ofresources. Either can be achieved throughtechnological or managerial/societalchanges/innovations.

What does this mean for the actual con-struction site?

For eight years the Wuppertal Institute hasbeen working in the field of resource efficientbuilding and construction (www.mipshaus.de). Having analyzed and assessed over 100buildings of various sizes using the MIPS con-cept, we have been able to show that, in termsof resources, the relevance of various life-cyclephases differs greatly between new and existingbuildings (see next section). Unlike existingbuildings, new buildings show a relatively smallimportance of the “use phase”. For example, apair of new semi-detached houses in the eco-logical settlement of Flintenbreite have a TMR(total material requirement) of 122 kg/m2 peryear. As shown in Figure 3, the renovation andconstruction phases dominate the entire lifecycle in terms of material requirements. Theenormous relevance of the renovation processin this case results in particular from the alu-minium roof, which will have to be replacedtwice (according to German statistics) duringthe calculated life expectancy of 80 years.

Consequently, in order to achieve animproved MIPS value, true dematerializationmust focus on virgin resource extraction and notjust intensity of use. The environmental impactsof the technologies and substitutions that lead todematerialization therefore need to be scrutinizedcarefully. Dematerialization must also focus on ashift to reuse, recycling and remanufacturing – inshort, all the important aspects of closing materi-als loops. Additionally, de-energization, decar-bonization and detoxification of theindustrial system should accompanydematerialization if significant resourceand environmental benefits are to be

achieved. Further dematerialization can beachieved through technological progress.Summarizing the potential for improvingthe environmental sustainability of build-ings, Stefan Bringezu suggests what hecalls the “Golden Rules of Eco-Design”:4

1. Potential impacts on the environmentshould be considered on a life cycle-widebasis.2. Intensity of use of processes, productsand services should be maximized.3. Intensity of resource use (material, ener-gy and land) should be minimized.4. Hazardous substances should be elimi-nated.5. Resource inputs should be shifted to-wards renewables.

How these suggestions could be imple-mented in practice by enterprises in theconstruction sector is illustrated in Table 1.

Building renovation: a chancefor climate protection and thelabour marketHaving shown how resource productivityand environmental sustainability in theconstruction of new buildings can beimproved, it is important to consider thecontribution of existing buildings to meet-ing sustainability targets. In this case, the

“use phase” is of crucial importance because ofthe current high energy demand for heating,with around 200 kWh/m2 per year or 20 litresof oil/m2/year. In a study called “The Renova-tion of a Building – A Chance for Climate Pro-tection and the Labour Market” we haveinvestigated the possible effects on the environ-ment, and on the labour market in the con-struction sector, of the extensive renovation ofresidential buildings to optimize energy savings.The starting point was the joint project “DasPlus für Arbeit und Umwelt”, which the indus-trial union Bauen-Agrar-Umwelt (IG BAU)and Greenpeace intend to initiate in coopera-tion with the housing industry (www.arbeit-und-umwelt.de).

The assumption underlying the study is thatthrough this initiative and additional measures(such as incentives, above all on the part of thefederal government), the number of residentialbuildings to be renovated to introduce energy-saving measures could be increased fromaround 150,000 today to approximately330,000 per year To achieve this, around DM15 billion (approximately Euro 7.65 billion)

would have to be invested annually between 1999and 2020. This sum corresponds to almost 3% oftotal construction volume in 1997. Investmentsat this level would:◆ secure and create on a long-term basis approxi-mately 430,000 jobs (174,000 of these in the fin-ishing trade alone);◆ decrease energy costs by reducing final energy

input by 1111 PJ (50%) and avoid up to97.5 million tonnes (58%) of CO2 com-pared with 1999, the reference year;◆ achieve considerable resource savings

Natural resources are the basis of life –today and for future generations

Source: Lucas Epret

Figure 1Material input per capita for different types of

needs in western Germany, 1990

Source: Behrensmeier und Bringezu 1994

non-saleable production

soil excavation

erosion

mineral raw materials

fossil energy carriers

biotic raw materials

Housing

Nutrition

ClothingHealth

EducationLeisure

Public administr

ation

Miscellaneous

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

Material input per capita (tonnes)

The ecological rucksack of some productsor services is too heavy


(balance of expended and saved material flows),which will reach a scale of around 68 million met-ric tonnes per year by 2020.

This investment plan, which is now activatedby a governmental support programme (www.kfw.de) among other measures, will entail higherstate revenues from national insurance and fromdirect and indirect taxes. At the same time, expen-diture for social benefits will decrease because ofan improvement in the labour market situation.

Comparing the potential of existing and newbuildings, we can conclude that on the Germanand similar European markets the (energy relat-ed) renovation of existing buildings offers a farmore promising contribution to sustainable con-struction than construction of new ones. Further-more, economic and social benefits as well as landsavings should lead us to direct our efforts towardsthe modernization of existing buildings. It goeswithout saying that where new construction isnecessary, the utmost resource productivity andeco-efficiency must be targeted.

COMPASS: the path to sustainabilityfor companies and sectors It is important for companies and sectors to knowwhat kind of targets and actions will lead themtowards sustainability. Resource productivity isonly one important path; in the broader contextof sustainable development there are also numer-ous other economic targets (e.g. high profits, highcompetitiveness, low rate of investment pay-back), environmental targets (e.g. low toxicity,high biodiversity, low erosion) and social targets(e.g. employee satisfaction over low unemploy-ment rate, overall stability in society) that have tobe addressed.

COMPASS (Companies’ and Sectors’ Path toSustainability)5 is a tool developed to providedecision makers in a company or a sector with suf-ficient information for integrated analysis and


MIPS = MI S

Figure 2The MIPS formula

MIPS = MI S

MIPS = MI S

Figure 3Resource intensity of the new Flintenbreite Housing Estate

in Lübeck, Germany

Source: Holger Wallbaum, Denk- und Kommunikationsansätze zur Bewertung des nachhaltigen Bauens und Wohnens. Dissertation, Fachbereich Architektur, University of Hannover, 2002. (Also see www.flintenbreite.de.)

Windows1%

Electrotechnics6%

Use phase (heating, gas)

3%

Construction (shell without

windows) 37%

Renovation 53%

decisions. It includes a methodological frame-work, instruments and measures to put the nor-mative concept of sustainable development intopractice. Step by step, it helps the user understandwhat sustainable development means for an enter-prise or a sector – from a life-cycle perspective of aproduct or service – and shows the extent to whicha development in the direction of a sustainableeconomy has already been achieved.

In cooperation with a company in the housingindustry, the sustainability of its product range(four residential houses) was investigated. Eco-nomic and environmental issues were the mainfocus.6 However, it was important to record accep-tance by tenants or buyers of the houses beingoffered. Product specific indicators apart fromMIPS were determined in dialogues with people


involved in the COMPASS assessment. The prod-ucts in question were detached houses of varieddesign, appealing mostly to the same type ofprospective buyers. The resulting indicators con-sidered by the company are: ◆ resource consumption (production and use);◆ energy consumption;◆ reduction of costs;◆ effects on man;◆ effects on the ecosystem;◆ acceptance by tenants;◆ profitability.

All indicators will be applied to the service unit“living space and year”. Only the “acceptance”indicator will be assessed per tenant or buyer ques-tioned. Taking the “resource productivity” indi-cator as an example, the structure and procedureare briefly explained. The “system-wide resourceconsumption” indicator can be subdivided intopart indicators (Figure 4). The subdivision intopart and sub-indicators, for example, depends onproduction processes and responsibilities withincompanies.

An assessment scale (performance comparison)for all indicators was determined, ranging from 1(very good) to 6 (unsatisfactory). Grade 4 (satis-factory) corresponds to the state of the art. Withthe help of “traffic lights” – grades 5 and 6 (red),grades 2, 3 and 4 (amber) and grade 1 (green) –the management decisions or measures intro-duced can be observed, discussed and evaluatedwith respect to their effects at all indicator levels.The grades will then be equally weighted from thebottom up and identified as the arithmetical meanof the overall grade of the indicator at the nexthigher level. The grading system can, of course,be freely chosen and can be shown in the stan-dards of other countries.

To compare the houses of the company men-tioned above, results were clearly presented on thetopmost indicator level as in Figure 5. In the so-called “Sustainable Development Radar” (COM-PASSradar) the economic, environmental andsocial efforts of entrepreneurial development areportrayed. The axes show the selected indicatorswhereby the determined grades describe the dis-tance to the defined target (grade 1) and the stateof the art (grade 4).

The “Cement andSustainability” initiative

It is widely recognized that to achieve sus-tainable development, it is essential for dif-ferent actors to work together. The federationof the German Cement Industry (Bun-desverband der Deutschen Zementindustrie,BDZ) and the industrial union for the build-ing and construction industry (IG BAU)have concluded a sectoral agreement to facil-itate joint consideration of economic, eco-logical and social challenges throughout thewhole life cycle of cement products. Based onstakeholder dialogue and practical projects,this initiative tackles the issues of biodiversi-ty, protection of resources, sustainable trans-port and logistics, as well as workers’qualifications. The stakes in the cementindustry are particularly high due to largecapital investments and long amortizationperiods in an increasingly globalized market.

Table 1Eco-efficiency strategies in the construction sector

Level of product components Level of product structure

Selection of materials with little environmental impact, e.g. Optimization of product techniques, e.g.• environmentally compatible materials • alternative product processes(small ecological rucksack, no substances toxic to • more efficient energy usehumans or the environment) • less product waste • renewable materials (if sustainably produced)• materials with low energy content• recycled materials• recyclable materials

Reduction of material inputs, e.g. Optimization of distribution systems, e.g.• reduction of product weight • less, environmentally compatible and reusable packages• reduction of product volume • use of more energy efficient transport systems

• choice of more energy efficient logistics

Reduction of environmental impacts during use phase, e.g.• more efficient energy use• energy from environmentally compatible sources

Shifting from product-oriented to service-oriented approaches• mobility management, e.g. car sharing, removal services, caretaker services



Multi-stakeholder processes as ameans of integration The construction sector involves a multitude ofactors and stakeholders, including building mate-rial manufacturers, building and constructioncompanies, small and medium-sized enterprises(above all those engaged in trade),unions, planners, environmentalNGOs, users, governmental institu-tions, financial institutions andresearch institutes. Stakeholder-basedapproaches are widely seen as apromising way to use on an equalbasis the expertise and experience ofall those involved and affected. With aview to finding quality sustainabledevelopment solutions, such anapproach is opposed to the concept ofnegotiation, which favours the solu-tion proposed by the strongest ratherthan the best and most sustainablesolution.

A recent study from Germany7

found that the large majority ofstakeholders asserted the need formulti-stakeholder cooperation.Many went so far as to state that itrepresents the only viable solution toavoid misleading incentives and toimprove industrial governance. As aresult, stakeholder processes can leadto voluntary self-governance or toimproved and more informed gover-nance by the state (through incen-tives or legislation).

However, this approach also givesrise to considerable criticism andscepticism. Critics mostly refer tothese processes as merely serving as analibi for political inertia. Further-more, they fear that solutions will belimited to the lowest common

denominator among the actors involved insteadof leading a big step towards sustainable develop-ment. The constraints can be found in the orga-nizations themselves, the relationships betweenthe different actors, and general considerationssuch as the sector’s economic situation.

As for the organizations seen as collective actors,it is important to note their specific logic andfunctioning. Most serve specific aims in the firstplace and find it hard to justify any slightly differ-entiating position to their members. This is espe-cially true for the federations of the Germanconstruction industry concerned with overcom-ing the grave economic crisis, and for unions con-cerned with the preservation of jobs and fairworking conditions in times of economic reces-sion. In addition, a long tradition of corporatismin Germany has produced well-established rela-tionships and modes of negotiation that are diffi-cult to change.

In examining the commitment of business instakeholder processes, we must identify the dif-ference between the construction industry itselfand producers of building material. The first, rep-resented by its federations, shows very little com-mitment to sustainability issues, which isexplained by the fact that firms only carry outdecisions taken by others. The latter are exposedto much higher pressure from civil society becauseof their direct access to resources. This is directlynoticeable by neighbours and concerned citizens.As a result, we can observe increasing readiness tocooperate by manufacturers of building materials,as seen in the BDZ/IG BAU initiative at thenational level as well as the World Business Coun-cil for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)“Cement and Sustainability” initiative.

These examples and others showthat rather than abandoning multi-stakeholder processes before theyhave even started to work efficiently,we should seek to explain the con-straints and try to find ways toimprove their performance. In par-ticular, power relations betweenactors and stakeholders and the per-ception of indivisible problems aremain fields for further investigation.

Simultaneous action atdifferent levelsThe old saying that too many cooksspoil the broth is certainly not theright approach to creating a sustain-able construction sector. The call forsimultaneous action at different lev-els can only be repeated as a conclu-sion to this article. Necessarycoordination through a broadlyaccepted framework could be estab-lished in national and regionalmulti-stakeholder processes. This,along with the COMPASS method-ology, also seems a suitable approachto push forward integration of thecore dimensions of sustainability. Inaddition to the MIPS concept onthe environmental side, and eco-nomic indicators, more effort stillneeds to be put into determining thesocial dimension of sustainability inorder to use the COMPASS indica-tor set.

Figure 5Comparison of two different buildings using

COMPASS methodology

1

2

3

4

5

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

Sustainability index

Ecology:

Economy:

Society:

Sustainability index

Ecology:

Economy:

Society:

1 = very good2 = good3 = satisfactory4 = sufficient5 = poor6 = unsatisfactory

Profitability

Materialsproductivity


Energyrequirements

Energyrequirements

Dismantle-ability

Dismantle-ability

Pollution pressure

Pollution pressure

Toxiceffects

Toxiceffects

Profitability

Social acceptance(polls of tenants/purchasers)

Social acceptance(polls of tenants/purchasers)

House A Service unit area for use (m2 x a)

House B Service unit area for use (m2 x a)

Source: C. Liedtke, Working group on eco-efficiency and sustainable enterprises, 1999

Figure 4Indicator tree: material intensity

(system-wide resource consumption per product and service)1

2

3

4

5

6

House 1


Constructionphase

… … …

Maintenance Heatingproductivity

Recyclabilityof materials

Dismantling DemolitionDeposition

Advertising

Energyrequirement

Dismantle-ability

Pollutionpressure

Toxiceffects

Socialaspects

Profitability

House 2 House 3 House 4Alternatives

Comparison of buildings

Indicator 1:

Indicator 2:

Indicator 3: Source: Holgar Wallbaum, Christa Liedtke, Stefan Bringezu, Wuppertal Institute, 1998

Notes1. Adriaanse, A. et al. (1997) Resource Flows: TheMaterial Basis of Industrial Economies. WorldResource Institute Washington, D.C.2. Schmidt-Bleek. F. (1993) Wieviel Umweltbraucht der Mensch? MIPS – Das Mass für oekolo-gisches Wirtschaften, Birkhaeuser (English transla-tion: The Fossil Makers – Factor 10 and More).Birkhäuser Verlag, Berlin, Basel and Boston. Alsosee F. Schmidt-Bleek (1995) Increasing resourceproductivity on the way to sustainability, Industryand Environment, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 8-12.

3. Ritthoff, M., H. Rohn and C. Liedtke (2002)MIPS berechnen: Ressourcenproduktivität von Pro-dukten und Dienstleistungen. Wuppertal Spezial 27(downloadable at www.wupperinst. org). Englishtranslation will soon be available.4. Bringezu, S. (2001) Construction ecology andmetabolism: re-materialization and de-materializa-tion. In: Construction Ecology and Metabolism:Nature as the Basis for the Built Environment, C.Kibert, J. Sendzimir, G. Guy (eds.), Spon, London.5. Kuhndt, M. and C. Liedtke (1999) COMPASS– Die Methodik. Wuppertal Institute.

6. At first, social criteria were deliberately kept inthe background, mainly because at this point thediscussion of social indicators on both the nation-al and international level has not yet reached a levelequal to that of the development of environmentaland economic indicators.7. Buerkin, C. (2003) Multi-Stakeholder-Prozesseals Chance für nachhaltiges Wirtschaften: eine kri-tische Betrachtung am Beispiel des Bausektors. The-sis, University of Passau/Wuppertal Institute.

◆


Construction products and life-cyclethinking

Suzy Edwards, Principal Consultant, Centre for Sustainable Construction, BRE, Garston, Herts WD25 9XX, UK ([email protected])

Philip Bennett, Secretary General, Council of European Producers of Materials for Construction, Gulledelle 98 Box 7, 1200 Brussels, Belgium ([email protected])

SummaryLife-cycle concepts, in the context of the building and construction sector, are particularly suit-ed to analysis of building products. Such products play an essential role in increasing the ener-gy efficiency of buildings and contributing to economic prosperity. It has been estimated thatthe construction sector is responsible for up to half of material resources taken from natureand of total waste generation. To manage and minimize the impacts of construction prod-ucts, the impacts have to be measured using a life-cycle approach. This article reviews life-cycle concepts and considers recent developments. Materials and sustainable construction,environmental product declarations, embodied energy and differences encountered in theassessment of construction products in the North and South are among the topics addressed.

RésuméDans le contexte du bâtiment, les concepts fondés sur le cycle de vie se prêtent particulière-ment bien à l’analyse des produits de construction, lesquels jouent un rôle essentiel dansl’amélioration de l’efficacité énergétique des bâtiments et la prospérité économique. On estimeque le secteur du bâtiment est responsable de près de la moitié des ressources naturelles con-sommées et du volume total de déchets produits. Pour gérer et limiter le plus possible lesimpacts des produits de construction, il faut pouvoir les mesurer selon une méthode fondée surle cycle de vie. L’article fait le point sur les concepts liés au cycle de vie et sur les tendancesrécentes dans ce domaine. Matériaux et techniques de construction durables, déclarations deproduits respectueux de l’environnement, contenu énergétique et différences entre le Nord etle Sud dans la façon d’évaluer les produits de construction figurent parmi les sujets abordés.

ResumenLos conceptos de ciclo de vida, en el contexto del sector de la construcción y edificios, resultanparticularmente apropiados para los productos de construcción. Estos productos desempeñanun papel capital para el aumento de la eficiencia energética de los edificios y el desarrollo de laprosperidad económica. Según estimados, el sector de la construcción utiliza la mitad de losrecursos materiales provenientes de la naturaleza y es responsable de la mitad de todos losdesechos generados. Para poder administrar y minimizar el impacto de los productos de con-strucción, es necesario medir dicho impacto utilizando criterios de ciclo de vida. Los autoresexaminan conceptos de ciclo de vida y analizan la evolución reciente. Algunos de los temastratados son: materiales y construcción sostenible, declaraciones de productos ambientales,energía incorporada y diferencias en la evaluación de productos de construcción en el Norte yel Sur.

Construction materials and products areessential to life as we know it – with respectto both buildings and infrastructure.

Humans spend around 80% of their time (onaverage) in some type of building or on roads.Construction products play a major role inimproving the energy efficiency of buildings andcontributing to economic prosperity.

On the other hand, construction products alsohave a considerable impact on the environment.According to one source, the construction sector isresponsible for 50% of the material resources takenfrom nature and 50% of total waste generated.1

The impact of construction products relative tothe overall lifetime impact of a building is cur-rently 10-20%. For infrastructure this value is sig-nificantly higher, greater than 80% in some cases.As buildings become more energy efficient, theimpact of construction products will make up anincreasingly significant proportion. This hasalready been seen in recent entrants for the GreenBuilding Challenge, where construction productscontributed up to 50% of the impacts of some ofthe buildings (www.buildingsgroup.nrcan.gc.ca/projects/gbc_e.html).

Different contexts for consideringconstruction products: North and SouthWhen considering differences related to con-struction products in the North and South, it isimportant to make a distinction between “global”and “local” construction. At the most simplisticlevel, this can be considered as a split between city-based commercial buildings and dwellings, andrural dwellings and public buildings. The distinc-tion can also be applied to products required to




create the buildings. There are inherent differ-ences in the nature of materials, the technologiesused in extraction and manufacture, and healthand safety issues for workers involved in con-struction product manufacture and constructionactivities. Global construction products (whetherglobally traded or locally produced) includecement, steel, aluminium, glass and timber. Localproducts might include local fired/unfired block,

rammed earth, local timber, bamboo, and otherrenewable products.

Modern building materials can also have a placein local dwellings. The balance must be madebetween the desirable qualities of indigenous, tra-ditional materials in terms of internal comfort andrelatively benign environmental impacts, and thesocial need for providing quickly constructed,affordable housing solutions on a mass scale. The

decision to use different materials will be influ-enced by a number of factors; for example, Mbatu(corrugated sheet) roofs are now commonly usedacross Africa despite the fact that they offer lessprotection against extreme temperatures than tra-ditional thatch. To illustrate the complexity of thesituation, one of the reasons for this choice is thathouse owners do not have land rights to grow thethatch material. Clearly the most pressing concernin Southern countries must be the achievement ofbetter living conditions. However, an increasingnumber of solutions for affordable housing arebeing imported to the South, often with interna-tional funding. Work is urgently needed to under-stand the social, economic and environmentalimplications of different products and buildingsolutions. The findings should be fed into nation-al housing strategies and those of the lenders andaid providers, in order to plan ahead and ensurethat the best overall solutions are provided.

This article focuses on initiatives related to“global” construction products, as defined above,because this is the area in which the most work hasbeen carried out to date. However, life-cyclethinking has a role in construction at every level.For this reason, many of the concepts discussedare also of relevance to local construction tech-niques in Southern countries.

Another aspect of international relationships,often overlooked, is information transfer fromSouth to North. Plenty of products with betterthan average sustainability credentials are alreadyavailable in the North but remain marginalized:clay reed boards, unfired blocks, hemp lime blocks,and straw or earth buildings to name but a few. Aresearch project on “unburnt clay building prod-ucts” estimated that these products (bricks, tiles,blocks, boards and plasters) have less than half theenvironmental impacts of traditional products.2

An increase in the use of these products requiresinvestment in research to devise appropriate teststo ensure that they do offer lifetime benefits, aswell as a number of significant changes in thetightly defined building regulations, insuranceand standards. Influencing these processes isbeyond the budgets of most small and medium-sized companies manufacturing these products,which therefore remain outside the mainstream.Occasionally they make a breakthrough. Forexample, prefabricated straw bale panels were usedin a new building for the UK’s Bristol University.

Driving demand: sustainableconstruction Careful selection of construction products is a fea-ture of national green building labels such asBREEAM in the UK and LEED in the US. Theselabels provide an easy way for clients to demandmore sustainable construction. Using such meth-ods, construction products are treated as more orless important with respect to issues such as energyand water consumption, health considerations,opportunities to use public transport, and facilitiesfor recycling. In turn, they are part of the widerconcept of environmental procurement. TheInternational Council for Local EnvironmentalInitiatives (ICLEI) recently published The World

Figure 1Application of LCA to construction products

Productionof fuels Production

of materials

Manufacturingof products

Constructionand rebuilding

Wastemanagement

Use and maintenanceof buildings

Demolition Deposition

Productionof electricity

Watersupply

Productionby-products

Emissionsto air

Inventory

Emissionsto water

Emissionsto land

Energy resources

Materialresources

Waterresources

Building

Functional unit

Inputs Upstream Product system Downstream Outputs

Boundarykey

Table 1LCA programmes for construction products worldwide3

Country Programme organizer LCA schemes for materials and buildings Year

CH SIA (Swiss Society of Engineers SIA declaration matrix 1994and Architects)

D Stuttgart University Ganzheitliche Bilanzierung von Baustoffe und Gebäude 2000(LCA of building materials and buildings)

D AUB (Arbeitsgemeinschafft Umweltdeklarationen (environmental declarations) 2002/2003?Umweltverträgliches Bauproducte) (under development)

DK SBI (Danish Building and MVDB (Environmental Product Declaration for 2002 (?)Urban Research) Building Products) (under development)

F AIMCC (French Construction Experimental standards - Information concerning the 2001Products Association) based on environmental characteristics of construction products:AFNOR (French standardization • XP P 01-010-1: Methodology and model of data declarationorganization) standards • XP P 01-010-2: Guidelines for the application of

environmental characteristics to given construction work

FIN RTS (Building Information Environmental Product Declaration for building 2001Foundation) products

N NBI (Norwegian Building Environmental Declaration of building products 1999Research Institute)

NL NVTB (Dutch Construction MRPI (Environmentally Relevant Product Information) 2000Products Association)

NL NEN (Dutch standardization MEPB (Material Based Environmental Profile for Building) 2002/2003?organization) (in development)

N Byggforsk (Norwegian Building EcoDec (Miljødeklarasjoner - Environmental Declaration) 1999Research Institute)

S Ecocycle Council for the BVD (Building Product Declarations) 1997Building Sector

S Swedish Environmental Environmental Product Declaration 1997Management Council (Svenska Miljöstyrningsrådet)

UK BRE (Building Research Environmental Profiles of Construction Materials, 1999Establishment) Components and Buildings

US NIST BEES Building for Environmental and Economic 2002Sustainability



Buys Green, an international survey ofnational green procurement practices(www.iclei.org).

When do construction productscontribute to more sustainableconstruction?It is important to consider context: manyproducts which are not in themselvesparticularly “environmentally friendly”could be exactly the right products forreducing a building’s environmentalimpact. A particular window may nothave a lower environmental impact, butthe way it is used could maximize collec-tion of low winter sunlight and block thesummer sun. Creating a low environ-mental impact building means matchingproducts to the specific design and site inorder to optimize overall environmentalimpact.

We should not allow ourselves to bewooed by the idea of “green material” asthe only solution to sustainability. Afterall, timber accredited by the Forest Stew-ardship Council produces just as muchmethane in landfills as uncertified timber. The keyto greener material use is to use the material in away that changes the “one-way trip” mentalityinherent in so many applications of constructionproducts.

The challenge is how best to measure and tomanage the impact of construction products.

By evaluating the performance of productsagainst specific environmental parameters, it is pos-sible for the specifier to select products and com-ponents on the basis of personal, organizational orindependently chosen preferences or priorities.

A common approach to measuring the envi-ronmental impact of construction products is life-cycle assessment. How this can be applied toconstruction products is described below, togeth-er with a closer look at some of the most prevalentindicators currently measured – embodied ener-gy and “recyclability”.

What is clear from taking a life-cycle thinkingapproach is that it is not only the type of productused that is important, but also how it is produced(with clear links to environmental managementsystems) and even more importantly how it is used(and treated when its first life is over). As well asthe tools described below, this leads to conceptslike “design for adaptability” and “design fordeconstruction”. In the modern city environment,where building functions and fashions change sooften, it may also challenge the assumption thatdurability and sustainability always go hand inhand.

Life-cycle assessment The data needed to measure the lifetime environ-mental impacts of any product or system, includ-ing construction products, can be generated usinglife-cycle assessment (LCA). LCA is a method forevaluating the environmental impacts of a systemby taking into account its full life cycle from cra-dle to grave. This means consideration of all the

impacts associated with production and use of asystem, from the first time man has an impact onthe environment till the last. This concept isexpressed in Figure 1.

If we take the manufacture and use of a brickwall as an example, then using LCA we would typ-ically consider the environmental impacts associ-ated with:◆ extraction and transport of clay to the brick-works;◆ manufacture and transport of ancillary materi-als;◆ extraction and distribution of natural gas for thebrick kiln;◆ mining and transport of fuels to generate elec-tricity for use in the factory;◆ production and transport of raw materials forpackaging;◆ manufacture and transport of packaging forbricks; ◆ manufacture of brick in the brickworks;

◆ transport of bricks to the buildingsite;◆ extraction of sand and production ofcement for the mortar;◆ building of the brick wall;◆ maintenance of the wall, such aspainting or repointing;◆ demolition of the wall;◆ the fate of the products after demoli-tion.

LCA must be carried out in accor-dance with a detailed LCA methodol-ogy (in other words, a description ofrules that need to be followed). Thisensures that the LCA is fair and that theresults can be used comparatively. ISOstandards 14040 to 14043 have beendeveloped to standardize and define themanner in which LCAs should beundertaken. However, more preciserules are required to enable like-with-like comparisons using an LCA. ManyLCA programmes have been developedto create environmental product decla-ration (EPD) schemes, and a numberof national approaches for construction

products currently exist (Table 1). There is no sin-gle harmonized approach (see below).

Making fair comparisons One of the most important aspects of an LCA is toensure that comparisons are made on a like-for-like basis. For example, let us say we wanted tocompare the environmental impacts of two inter-nal walls for a building – one made of aeratedblockwork and one of timber studwork with tim-ber panelling. We might well find a database thatcould provide us with the environmental impactsassociated with production of a tonne of aeratedblockwork and a tonne of kiln dried softwood.However, the comparison of the two internal wallscannot be made immediately on the basis of thesetwo profiles. A tonne of each product would pro-duce very different areas of wall. Instead, we needto define a “functional unit” that will enable us tocompare the two internal walls.

A typical functional unit would be one squaremetre of internal wall over a particular buildinglife of, say, 60 years. Included would be assump-tions about repair and maintenance over the 60-year life, and about the dismantling/demolitionof the wall at the end of its life.

For an external wall or roof, the functional unitalso takes into account the thermal resistance ofthe construction to ensure that all the specifica-tions are compared on a like-for-like basis. Somespecifications may use less insulation product (andtherefore have a lower initial environmentalimpact). However, they will also allow muchgreater heat loss (i.e. operational environmentalimpact) over the building’s lifetime.

LCA design tools for buildingsThis interaction between the environmentalimpact of the products and the overall impact ofthe building has prompted the development ofintegrated environmental design tools for build-

Figure 2Relative contribution of different construction elements to impacts of a typical office building

Source: J. Anderson and D. Shiers, The Green Guide to Specification, Blackwells, Oxford, 2002

Ceiling finishes

Internal walls

Superstructure

Windows

Ground floor

Roof

External walls

Floor surfacing

Substructure

Upper floors

Floor finishes

Figure 3Relationship between LCA and EPD

Product basedenvironmental information

systems

Product basedexternal

communicationto stakeholders



ing. These tools allow trade-offs between higherembodied impact and lower operational impactto be evaluated. Again, tools are now available inseveral countries (Table 2). Environmentalimpacts are compared in different ways within thetools, from a simple single environmental score tofull environmental profiles.

Though not an easy task, modelling environ-mental impacts at building level is important sincereal answers concerning the environmentalimpact of building products are found when thewhole building is considered. For example, com-paring floor-covering materials with one anothermay not be fair if one product requires a moresubstantial substrate. Similarly, comparing woodand steel as light-gauge framing materials onlyworks if insulation is included in the steel assem-bly to provide comparable thermal performance.

These calculation tools can demonstrate thevery significant trade-offs between materials andspecification choices and the operational perfor-mance of buildings. This is important; the mostsignificant decisions about a new design are madeat the very beginning of the design process, soimmediate feedback on energy use and materialchoice is crucial. Comparison of the various toolsis currently underway in the PRESCO (PracticalRecommendations for Sustainable Construction)project (www.etn-presco.net).

Embodied energyEmbodied energy is the most frequently citedmeasure of the environmental impact of buildingproducts. Embodied energy is measured usingLCA principles, collating information on totalenergy used in extraction, manufacture, transport,maintenance and disposal. It is normally mea-sured in “primary” rather than delivered terms.This means it includes the energy used to producethe energy delivered to the point of use (e.g. theenergy used to generate electricity or the energyused to mine for coal, as well as the energy in thefuel or power source itself ).

If a whole range of processes all use the same sort

of energy (e.g. coal), the embodied energy for eachof these processes provides a good proxy for theamount of climate change or acid rain that eachprocess would cause. However, different processeswill use different mixes of fuel and electricity, andmany fuels or energy sources can be used to gener-ate electricity. Embodied energy figures can there-fore be misleading. This will apply in particular torenewable energy sources. The other difficultywith using embodied energy as a proxy for all envi-ronmental impacts is that many products requireonly low amounts of energy but still have consid-erable impacts on the environment (e.g. throughminerals extraction, waste generation and waterusage). The range of issues commonly covered inan LCA give a more holistic and accurate picture ofoverall environmental impact.

Recycling and construction productsLCA can take account of both actual levels of recy-cled input and the current fate of products at theend of their life cycle, due to the way they are gen-erated. A masonry product made using recycledinput, for example, will have a reduced mineralextraction impact; products such as primary steelwhich are recycled are sometimes calculated tohave lower impact if the LCA methodology usedpasses some of the environmental impacts associ-ated with primary manufacture on to future recy-cled phases of the product’s life.

The merits of recycling should be judged on acase-by-case basis. However, it is important thatwe do not choose products that may potentially berecycled tomorrow at the expense of recycledproducts that are available today. Passing theresponsibility to future generations does notreflect the spirit of sustainable development.

Ensuring that buildings are designed so thatproducts can be either reused (as a preference) orrecycled is very much the responsibility of today’sdesigner and is embraced by the concept “Designfor Deconstruction”. This is the subject of aninternational task group (CIB TG 39, “Decon-struction”, www.cibworld.nl ).

The importance of different elementsBRE calculated the embodied environmentalimpacts relating to a typical UK office buildingand broke them down into constituent elements.The contribution of each building element isshown in Figure 2. This includes all the elementsof the building, including substructure and super-structure, and covers the maintenance andreplacement of elements over the 60-year life.

Floor finishes contribute the largest impactbecause they are typically fossil fuel intensive andreplaced frequently. Choosing lower impact prod-ucts can significantly reduce a building’s overalllifetime impact. In addition, raised access floorsoffer flexibility while floor surfaces contribute thethird most significant embodied impact.

Of the major design elements, windows havethe lowest impact (only 3% of the building total).For a building with higher glazing ratios, theimpact of windows will increase as the impact ofthe external walls reduces.

The choice of structure makes very little differ-ence to the overall impacts of the building sinceboth cement and steel account for around 2% ofthe total.

Green procurementTwo important decisions affect procurement ofbuilding products and its impact on the environ-ment: what to buy (i.e. the product type) and fromwhom to buy it.

General LCA information provides assistanceto specifiers on what to buy. Deciding from whomto buy can be determined in a variety of ways.Clients might use certification to ISO14001 or anEMAS environmental management system as anindicator of good performance by a supplier.Alternatively, specific measures such as use of localor low-impact raw materials or low-emission tech-nologies may also be useful.

Neither an Environmental Management Sys-tem nor evidence of a “single issue” approach toenvironmental impact help clients to decide howa particular manufacturer’s product compares tothe typical product across the wide range of issuesthat need to be considered. Many manufacturersare therefore now turning to LCA in the form ofenvironmental product declarations (EPDs) tocommunicate their own environmental perfor-mance to their customers.

The ISO 14025 Technical Report: Environ-mental Labels and Declarations – Type III Envi-ronmental Declarations gives guidance on how aproducer can provide quantified environmentallife-cycle product information. The informationis presented across a range of indices relevant tothe product category. The objective of such a dec-laration is “to encourage the demand for, and sup-ply of, those products and services that cause lessstress on the environment, thereby stimulating thepotential for market driven continuous environ-mental improvement” (ISO 14020). The rela-tionship between LCA and EPDs is illustrated inFigure 3.

Specifiers can ask their suppliers for environ-mental product declarations to satisfy themselvesthat the company they are using takes a responsi-

Table 2Calculation tools for environmental impact assessment of buildings4

Country Model owner Model Further information

Canada Athena Sustainable Athena www.athenasmi.caMaterials Institute

Germany IKP – Stuttgart University Build-It

Denmark SBI (Danish Building Building Environmental www.by-og-byg.dk/english/research/and Urban Research) Assessment Tool 2000 environmental-impacts-from-buildings/

(BEAT) index.html

France CSTB Escale www.cstb.fr

Finland VTT LCA House www.vtt.fi/rte/esitteet/ymparisto/lcahouse.html

Norway NBI (Norwegian Building Ecoprofile www.byggforsk.no/oekoprofil/default.Research Institute) html

Netherlands SBR Eco-Quantum www.ecoquantum.nl

Stichting SUREAC Greencalc www.dgmr.nl/new/software/software_gc.html

Sweden KTH Infrastructure Eco-effect hwww.infra.kth.se/bba/bbasvenska/& Planning forsning/miljoweb/miljovardering/

nysammanft.pdf

UK BRE (Building Research Envest: environmental www.bre.co.uk/sustainable/envest.htmlEstablishment) impact estimating software

Life-cycle thinking made simple: The Green Guide to Specification



ble attitude to management of their environmen-tal performance. Choosing lower lifetime envi-ronmental impact solutions often goes hand inhand with lower whole-life cost solutions, creat-ing a double business benefit.

Towards harmonizationMany companies manufacture in several coun-tries. They therefore wish to see the range ofschemes listed in Table 1 harmonized in order toallow more economic use of LCA and environ-mental product declarations across their business.

The International Organization for Standard-ization Committee on Sustainability in BuildingConstruction (ISO/TC59/SC17) is working tocreate, inter alia, an international standard for envi-ronmental declarations for building products par-allel to the more general activity on EPDs of aseparate committee (ISO/TC207/SC3/WG4).The European Commission published a compre-hensive report in 2002 which described the differ-ent schemes currently in operation and consideredopportunities for harmonization.5 SETAC (theSociety of Environmental Toxicology and Chem-istry) has produced a state of the art report that ishelpful in demonstrating the basis on which har-monization can be achieved.6

ConclusionsThe overall performance of the building is themost important consideration in achieving moresustainable construction. Construction productsmust be chosen in this context. The most success-ful approach to specification is one in whichunderlying objectives and priorities are clearlyestablished at the early stages of a project, as thiscan then help determine the appropriate balancebetween environmental and technical require-ments. Taking a life-cycle approach is a significantand very positive step in the right direction.

Notes1. Anink, D., et al. (1996) The Handbook of Sus-tainable Building: Ecological Choice of Materials inConstruction and Renovation. James and James(Science Publishers), London. 2. Targeted Research Action – Environmentally

The third edition of The Green Guide to Specification, a simple guide for design professionals, waspublished in 2002. It provides environmental impact, cost and replacement interval information fora wide range of commonly used building specifications, using simple A, B, C ratings. The GreenGuide uses a normalized and weighted approach to analyzing data, allowing environmental infor-mation to be added together. A-rated products have the lowest scores, C-rated the highest.

Element

Beam and blockwork floor with screed A A A A A A A A A A A A 47-73 60 A C C A

Hollow precast reiniforced slab and screed A A A A A A A A A A A A 47-73 60 C A C A

Hollow precast reiniforced slab with B B B A B B B B A B A B 50-80 60 C A C Astructural topping

In situ reinforced concrete slab C B B A B C B B A B A C 40-60 60 C A C A

In situ reinforced concrete trough slab B A A A A B A A A A A B 40-60 60 C A C A

In situ reinforced concrete waffle slab B A A A A B A A A A A B 40-60 60 C A C A

Lattice girder precast concrete floor B A A A B B A A A A A C 84-153 60 C A C Awith in situ concrete topping

Lattice girder precast concrete floor with B B C A A A A B A A A A 84-153 60 C B C Cpolystyrene void formers and in situ concrete topping

Profiled steel permanant steel shuttering, B B C A A B C A C A C B 55-120 60 C A A Ain situ concrete slab, steel reinforcement bars and mesh

Solid prestressed composite floor with C C C A C C C C A C A C 65-90 60 C A C Astructural topping

Sum

mar

y ra

ting

Clim

ate

chan

ge

Foss

il fu

el d

eple

tion

Ozo

ne d

eple

tion

Hum

an to

xici

ty to

air

and

wat

er

Was

te d

ispos

al

Wat

er e

xtra

ctio

n

Acid

dep

ositi

on

Ecot

oxic

ity

Eutr

opho

catio

n

Sum

mer

smog

Min

eral

s ext

ract

ion

Cos

t £/m

2

Typi

cal r

epla

cem

ent i

nter

val

Recy

cled

inpu

t

Recy

clab

ility

Recy

cled

cur

rent

ly

Ener

y sa

ved

by re

cycl

ing

Upper floors

Friendly Construction Technologies (www.tra-efct.com). 3. Tables 1 and 2 are adapted from DG EnterpriseEuropean Commission and Pricewaterhouse-Coopers, Comparative study of national schemesaiming to analyse the problems of LCA tools and theenvironmental aspects in harmonised standards,2002 (http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/

construction/internal/essreq/environ/lcarep/lcafinrep.htm).4. See note 35. Anderson, J., and D. Shiers (2002) The GreenGuide to Specification. Blackwells, Oxford. 6. Kotaji, S., Schuurmans, A. and Edwards, S.(eds.) (June 2003) Life Cycle Assessment in Buildingand Construction. SETAC (www.setac.org). ◆



On the sustainability of concreteVanderley M. John, Escola Politécnica, University of São Paulo, Brazil, Ed. Engenharia Civil

Cidade Universitária São Paulo, 05508 900 Brazil ([email protected])

After several important technical improvements, concrete made with Port-land cement is probably the world’s most used man-made material. Glob-al cement production in 1997 was 1.57 billion tonnes (Humphreys andMahasenan, 2002). That much cement, mixed with water, gravel and othersubstances, equals some 1.05 trillion tonnes of building material to pro-duce houses, office buildings, sewage pipes, dams, concrete roads, etc.

Cement production is widespread: plants are found in 150 countries(Marland et al., 2002 ), with China being responsible for roughly one-thirdof the total. Global cement production is increasing as consumption indeveloping countries rises: between 1990 and 2000, production grew 55%in developing countries and 3% in the developed ones. Cement demand in2020 is expected to be 120-180% higher than in 1990, with most of thegrowth in developing countries (Humphreys and Mahasenan, 2002).

The basic way to make Portland cement is to heat a mixture of limestoneand clay – two largely available, natural, non-renewable materials – in akiln at about 1500°C to produce cement “clinker”. After cooling, the clink-er is finely ground and mixed with gypsum and, frequently, other finelyground materials such as fly ash and blast furnace slag to produce variouscommercial varieties of cement.

Cement production and the environmentThe major global impact of cement production is global warming.Humphreys and Mahasenan (2002) estimate that the cement industry isresponsible for 3% of global anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and5% of global anthropogenic CO2 emissions. About half the CO2 is releasedby limestone decomposition in the kiln – “cement process CO2”(Humphreys and Mahasenan, 2002; Gale and Freund, 2000) – and theother half is due mainly to fuel burning (Figure 1).

CO2 release rates differ among countries, depending on a) productionprocess, b) clinker content, c) energy efficiency in the calcination phase,which is responsible for 90% of energy consumption (Gale and Freund,2000), and d) differences in fossil fuels’ carbon content. Old cement plantsare less energy efficient and sometimes still use the wet process, which con-sumes 20-40% more energy (Gale and Freund, 2000).

Cement production also generates emissions of NOx, SOx, dust, diox-ins, etc.

Blending materialsMixing clinker with other materials, a process called “blending”, reducesCO2 emissions and increases energy efficiency during cement production.

Table 1 presents the most common blending materials. Fly ash (includ-ing from cement-making itself ) and blast furnace slag are the types of wastemost used in blending. Their use could be greatly increased except wherelocal shortages exist.

Clinker content can range from about 95% (when only gypsum isadded) to 5%. In the mid-1990s average clinker content was 88% in theUS, 80% in Japan and 70% in Europe. The overall trend has been towardsdecreasing clinker content.

Recent research into new sources of blending materials has concentrat-ed on waste from agriculture, industry and mining, including ash fromburning lignocellulosic material (e.g. rice husk), fly ash slag from munici-pal solid waste incineration, paper mill sludge ash, colemanite waste andceramic waste.

Concrete and the environmentConcrete typically contains 8-15% cement, 2-5% water, about 80% aggre-gates (e.g. gravel, sand, limestone filler) and less than 0.1% chemicaladmixtures.

Despite its size, the 80% share of natural or recycled aggregates causesless than 3% of total emissions and energy use in concrete production(Vares and Häkkinen, 1998). Hence cement content and composition, asdetermined by engineers and architects, determine the concrete’s environ-mental load.

For a constant set of materials, the cement content is a function of thedesired mechanical strength, production variability, service life require-ment and concrete workability, along with the nature of the admixturesused.

Chemical admixtures can reduce the cement consumed for a givenstrength, or increase concrete workability, without increasing cement con-sumption. A modern concrete mix design, combining several aggregategrades with admixtures, produces a more eco-efficient concrete. Minimiz-

Figure 1CO2 released in limestone decomposition during cement production, selected regions, 1920-2020*

*Projected.

Source: Marland et al., 2002.

Far East

Africa

Latin America and Caribbean

World

USA and Canada

8

6

4

2

0

1920

CO

2 fro

m o

rdin

ary

Port

land

cem

ent (

% o

f tot

al)

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020Year

Table 1Most common blending materials used in cement

production

Material Description Nature

Blast furnace slag Pig iron by-product Waste

Fly ash Coal combustion by-product Waste

Silica fume Silicon metal/ferrosilicon alloy by-product Waste

Natural pozzolan Volcanic ash Natural

Burnt clay Pozzolan calcinated at ~700°C Industrial

Limestone filler Ground limestone Natural

Metakaolin Kaolin (a special clay) calcinated at ~700°C IndustrialSource: author



ing concrete production variability by using adequatelytrained personnel, carefully selected raw materials and moresophisticated proportioning and mixing equipment, as mostready-mix companies today can do, is also an effective way toreduce concrete’s environmental impact.

When concrete is made on site by do-it-yourself homebuilders or small contractors, the above approaches are notviable. In Brazil, for instance, 68% of the cement sold isbought by building material dealers and used with little orno controls.

A large share of concrete used worldwide is reinforcedwith steel. In Brazil most steel rebars are made by recyclingsteel scrap in electric mini-mills. In countries where the steelfor concrete reinforcement is often made from virgin pigiron, the environmental impact is higher. Steel’s contribu-tion to the environmental load of reinforced concrete isgreater than that of the aggregates but much less than that ofthe cement.

Service lifeIncreasing the service life of concrete structures is a very effi-cient way to improve the eco-efficiency of the global econo-my. Service life can be dramatically extended with little orno increase in – or even a reduction of – the environmentalload. Doubling the thickness of the concrete over the steel rebar from 10mm to 20 mm, for instance, quadruples the service life of reinforced con-crete, defined as the time it takes carbonation reach the rebar, but increas-es concrete consumption by only 5-10% (Helene, 1993). In marineenvironments, a high blast furnace slag or fly ash content can increase ser-vice life and decrease the environmental load.

At the end of its service life, most concrete can be recycled as aggregate oreven in cement production. But because natural aggregate is usually cheap,concrete is not extensively recycled except in a few European countries (e.g. theNetherlands). In Brazil, as in most developing countries, only local authoritiesrun recycling plants processing concrete and other construction and demoli-tion waste, and the resulting aggregate is generally used as road base. Addi-tional recycling opportunities for such waste need to be investigated.

Making concrete a more sustainable materialAside from some specialized applications such as the use of chalk or glue asmortar, there are currently no viable alternatives to clinker-based cementand concrete, and despite intensive research it will probably take decades todevelop any. And while the technical options mentioned above, along withother technologies, can increase the sustainability of concrete and are avail-able on markets worldwide, they are not always explored.

The first reason seems to be lack of knowledge/awareness on the part ofprofessionals and authorities. With few exceptions, there is almost no tech-nical reason to use cement with high clinker content, but many engineersand architects still prefer it. Designing reinforced concrete structures foran extended service life is a relatively new, often unfamiliar concept thatneeds to be refined and has not yet been incorporated into concrete designcodes and standards, which sometimes set a minimum of cement con-sumption in structural concrete. Much effort is needed in the technical andenvironmental education of civil engineers and architects, and to change

design codes and create incentives to use blended cement.Other barriers are market based. Old, inefficient cement plants may still

be competitive. Advanced admixtures can be expensive. Ready-mix con-crete sometimes costs more than concrete produced at the building site, soDIY builders and small contractors often prefer the latter option. Here theneed is to balance social sustainability with environmental sustainability.

Finally, concrete’s sustainability must be judged in real situations. Ageneric life-cycle assessment approach that may work for more standardizedmaterials, like plastics and metals, will seldom be adequate to evaluate con-crete. There is a great need for more accurate and independent data aboutlife-cycle loads of cement – and other building materials – especially indeveloping countries.

ReferencesCarvalho, J. (2002) Life cycle analysis applied to building products. Case study: Com-parison among different Portland cement types. M. Eng. dissertation, University of SãoPaulo, 2002 (in Portuguese).

Gale, J. and P. Freund, papers presented at GHGT-5 Conference on work by IEAGHG (Cairns, Australia, 2000). See www.ieagreen.org.uk/ GHGT5-3.pdf.

Helene, P.R.L. (1993) Contribution to the understanding of corrosion of steel rebars inconcrete. Associate professor thesis, University of São Paulo, 1993 (in Portuguese).

Humphreys, K. and M. Mahasenan (2002) “Climate Change” in Toward a Sustain-able Cement Industry. Battelle – World Business Council for Sustainable Develop-ment.

Marland, G., T.A. Boden and R.J. Andres (2002) “Global, Regional, and NationalCO2 Emissions” in Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change, Carbon Diox-

ide Information Analysis Center. See http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm.

Vares, S. and T. Häkkinen (1998) Environmental burdens of concrete and concrete prod-ucts. Nordic Concrete Research publication 21 1/98. June. See www.itn.is/ncr/pub-lications/doc-21-10.pdf.

Figure 2CO2 release per kg of cement produced, selected regions

Source: Humphrey and Mahasenan, 2002

Middle East

Africa

S. & L. America

Former Soviet Union

India

S.E. Asia

China

Australia & N. Zealand

Japan

W. Europe

Canada

USA

0.7 0.8 0.9 1

kg CO2 per kg cement

20001990



Bamboo in construction: status and potentialLionel Jayanetti, Head of TRADA International, and

Paul Follett, Senior Development Engineer, TRADA International, Chiltern House, Stocking Lane, Hughenden Valley,High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire HP14 4ND, UK ([email protected]; www.trada.co.uk)

Bamboo is a well established cultural feature in manyregions of the world. Its diversity and versatility arewell documented. Some 1250 species and 1500 tra-ditional applications have been identified. The mainusers are the rural poor, and it is perhaps for this rea-son that bamboo has largely been taken for grantedby the wider community. As a material resource,bamboo has not received the mainstream recognitionit deserves.

Bamboo is the fastest growing woody plant on theplanet. However, it actually belongs to the grass fam-ily. Most species produce mature fibre in about threeyears, much more rapidly than any tree species. Somespecies grow by up to one metre a day, and the major-ity reach a height of 30 metres or more.

Bamboo has exemplary “green” credentials. It isadaptable to most climatic conditions and soil types,acts as an effective carbon sink and helps counter thegreenhouse effect. It is being used increasingly in landstabilization to check erosion and conserve soil. It canbe grown quickly and easily, even on degraded land,and harvested sustainably on three- to five-year rota-tion. Bamboo is a truly renewable, environmentallyfriendly material.

The bulk of bamboo is gathered from the wild orrural environment, but in many areas bambooresources have dwindled due to overexploitation andpoor management. This issue needs to be addressed through well organizedand managed cultivation if bamboo utilization is to develop on a sustainablebasis. Plantations are already being raised in China and India to supportthe pulp and paper industry.

A billion people worldwide live in bamboo houses. For the most part theyare low-grade, impermanent buildings, belying the material properties ofbamboo and doing little to promote its image as a viable construction mate-rial. At little extra cost these buildings can be upgraded to provide safe, secureand durable shelter, benefiting the most vulnerable members of society.

Possibly the major factor contributing to the view of bamboo as a tem-porary material is its lack of natural durability. It is susceptible to attack byinsects and fungi. Its service life may be as low as one year when in groundcontact. However, the durability of bamboo can be greatly enhanced byappropriate specification and design and by careful use of safe and envi-ronmentally friendly preservatives such as boron.

The main structural advantages of bamboo – its strength and light weight– mean that properly constructed bamboo buildings are inherently resis-tant to wind and earthquake. These properties can be effectively exploitedthrough careful yet simple design and detailing.

Even when issues of durability and strength are resolved, the question ofacceptability remains. A bamboo building need not look “low-cost” or evennecessarily look like bamboo! Imaginative design and the use of other local-

ly available materials within the cultural context can make the buildingdesirable rather than just acceptable.

Bamboo: the international viewBamboo has a long history as a building material. It is widely used in con-struction throughout the world’s tropical and sub-tropical regions, with arange of applications to match or even exceed those of timber. Bamboo build-ings of every description can be found in Central and South America, fromlow-grade temporary shanties to exclusive, architect-designed mansions.

Bamboo products for use in construction are increasing in availability.They range from bamboo mat boards (flat and corrugated), to more sophis-ticated panel products such as fibreboard, “plyboo” and flooring, to largelaminated sections (now under development) for use in external joinery.Costs are currently similar to those of equivalent timber products. Bamboowill therefore find a market where timber is in short supply, or where it isspecified for architectural reasons. In Europe there is a small but flourishingmarket in bamboo for internal applications (e.g. flooring) but not as yet forstructural ones.

Bamboo use is not restricted to building. Bamboo has been used as con-crete reinforcement, and development work is continuing in this field.Bamboo is used for light traffic bridges, and the feasibility of constructinglarge span bridges carrying vehicular traffic has recently been demonstrat-

Corrugated bamboo matboard (IPIRTI, India) and laminated bamboo flooring

52 metre bamboo road bridge by Jorg Stamm (Colombia)and bamboo scaffolding (Hong Kong)



ed in Colombia. Bamboo as scaffolding is well known (40-storey con-struction is not uncommon in the Far East), and its use is set to increase asa result of the development of a design and erection guide in Hong KongKong.1

Other construction applications include ground stabilization, throughthe use of retaining walls and piling, and coastal protection (recently tri-alled in Sri Lanka).

TRADA’s experienceTRADA (the Timber Research and Development Association) is an inter-nationally renowned centre for forest product engineering and technology.Its origins can be traced to 1934. TRADA is based in the UK, with opera-tions worldwide.

TRADA has recently completed the first phase of a project in India todevelop and promote a cost-effective bamboo based building system. Thisproject is designed to provide safe, secure and durable shelter at a cost thatis within reach of even the poorest communities in developing countries. Ithas demonstrated that with careful specification, detailing and environ-ment-friendly preservation, the life of bamboo can be extended to matchthat of other building materials.

Prototype testing provided an effective visual demonstration of the per-formance and strength of components and assemblies, as well as of the resis-tance of walls and roofs to wind, earthquakes and impacts.

The building system costs around half that of traditional brick, block orreinfoced concrete construction. It is one of the cheapest permanent meth-ods of building yet developed. It is also sustainable, simple to erect, strongand durable, incorporating all the essential requirements for affordable shel-ter. Moreover, the basic system can enhanced through improved use ofshape, space and colour at little or no cost. Overall, the system effectivelydemonstrates that desirability and quality are fully compatible with afford-ability.

In its second phase (2000-05) the project will be extended to Bangladeshand Sri Lanka. The technology will be applied in the development ofdesigns for larger community buildings such as schools and health clinics.Use of bamboo for construction of footbridges in rural areas will also beinvestigated, with the development and testing of prototypes.

Bamboo’s potentialTaking into account all that bamboo has to offer, it is well placed to addressfour major global challenges:◆ shelter security through provision of safe, secure, durable, affordable hous-ing and community buildings;◆ livelihood security through generation of employment in planting, pri-mary and secondary processing, construction, furniture and manufactureof high value-added products;◆ ecological security through conservation of natural forests by substitutionof primary timber species, as an efficient carbon sink, and as an alternativeto non-biodegradable and high-embodied energy materials such as plasticsand metals;◆ sustainable food security through agro-forestry systems, by maintainingthe fertility of adjoining agricultural lands, controlling erosion. Bamboo isalso a direct food source.

The challenge now is how to share this knowledge: to bring it to the

attention of a wider audience and demonstrate that the new technologiesare equally viable in areas which have not had exposure to the “new think-ing” and, above all, to deliver the benefits it promises to the poorest mem-bers of society.

Future requirementsSustainable supplyA policy of organized planting, careful management of plantations and nat-ural stands, and appropriate regulation of supply are prerequisites for anyother interventions aimed at promoting bamboo as a building material.

StandardizationLack of guidance on use of bamboo in building has been a major obstacleto its wider adoption. Draft international standards ISO 22156 and 22157represent the first step towards addressing this problem. New or amendednational regulatory instruments such as manuals, codes of practice, speci-fications, building regulations and standards are now required.

Research and extension activitiesThe will must exist at government level to explore the potential of alterna-tive materials, and to put in place the resources and mechanisms to carryout necessary material developments and evaluations. Where this capacityalready exists, it is often necessary to reorient the approach of research insti-tutions to link them directly with the building industry, together with theirgovernment and private sector clients.

TrainingCurriculum revision is required to give greater emphasis to the new tech-nologies. This would apply to institutions training high-level artisans ortechnicians for the construction industry, as well as professionals such asarchitects, building technologists, civil, structural and mechanical engi-neers, and quantity surveyors.

Fiscal policyFinancial incentives are required in order to encourage the establishmentand support of industries involved with the new technologies. In addition,the widespread policy which limits the advance of bank loans and mort-gages on “bamboo” houses must be reviewed.

Demonstration and qualityEffective dissemination aimed at popularizing the new technologies is vital,considering the negative perceptions held by many about bamboo in build-ing. Even when issues of durability and strength are resolved, the questionof acceptability remains. Construction of model buildings is thereforeessential to overcome prejudice and boost the confidence of specifiers (e.g.architects, engineers, builders) and users. In this regard the quality must bethe highest achievable, since any shortcomings in the standard of con-struction, detailing and finish will be reflected, unfairly, on the buildingsystem as a whole.

1. Draft documents prepared by the University of Hong Kong .



Long recognized as a major contributor to glob-al depletion of natural resources, the US con-struction industry is finally making strides in

its efforts to achieve more sustainable building pro-jects. Along the way, design and construction orga-nizations face new challenges and the need torethink their approach to almost every aspect oftheir operations. Many are finding that efforts tobecome more sustainable also create incentives toadopt logical and much needed improvements tothe traditional sequential design and constructionprocess.

In an industry that has clung to traditions ofdysfunctional business practices and adversarialteam relationships, many are beginning to realizethat sustainable building projects might be moreappropriately referred to as sensible building pro-jects. For the purposes of this article, the term“green buildings” has been adopted (i.e. projectsin which efforts are made to minimize the envi-ronmental impact of construction, and to maxi-mize energy efficiency and the productivity ofoccupants).

Most architecture, engineering and construc-tion organizations agree that the popularity ofgreen buildings will continue to grow, but few haveproduced definitive conclusions about the impactof this shift on their organizations. The design pro-fession, which has clearly embraced this emergingtrend, has largely dominated discussions of greendesign and construction. However, many ownersare finding that construction organizations canalso play a key role in green building projects.

When the Toyota Motor Corporation (TMC)decided to construct a new facility for its USFinancial and Customer Service Centres, theTMC Real Estate and Facilities philosophy,“Process Green”, was implemented on the project.The contractor selected, Turner Construction Co.,played an unexpectedly valuable role, achievingLeadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) Gold Certification. Besides workingclosely with the design team, some examples ofhow Turner contributed include 98% recycling ofconstruction waste – far exceeding the project goalof 70%. Moreover, through detailed managementof indoor air quality issues during construction,

Procurement of sustainable constructionservices in the United States: the contractor’s role in green buildings

David Riley, Associate Professor, Department of Architectural Engineering, Pennsylvania State University, 104 Engineering Unit A, University Park,

Pennsylvania 16802, USA ([email protected])

Kim Pexton, Sustainability Director, James G. Davis Construction Corporation, 7600 Colshire Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102, USA

([email protected])

Jennifer Drilling, Research Assistant, Pennsylvania State University, 104 Engineering Unit A, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802, USA

([email protected])

SummarySuccessful sustainable building design and construction processes are characterized as col-laborative and interdisciplinary. In many cases, however, procurement of construction ser-vices is not perceived as one of the necessary steps in the design and delivery of a sustainablebuilding project. Contractors are often viewed merely as brokers of construction services, whosimply follow drawings and specifications and are able to contribute to sustainable buildingprojects only through job site recycling plans. Research on the role of construction manage-ment organizations in the successful delivery of high-performance sustainable buildings isbeing carried out at Penn State University and the Partnership for Achieving ConstructionExcellence (PACE). The objectives are to identify the value of construction services in theprocesses and decision-making that are critical to sustainable building projects, and to devel-op proactive techniques for engaging construction organizations in collaborative sustainabledesign and construction processes.

RésuméLes procédés efficaces pour un développement durable en matière de conception et de con-struction des bâtiments se distinguent par leur nature collaborative et interdisciplinaire. Pour-tant, dans de nombreux cas la fourniture des services de construction n’est pas perçue commel’une des étapes nécessaires de la conception et de la réalisation d’un projet de constructiondit durable. Les entreprises du bâtiment sont souvent considérées comme de simplesprestataires de services de construction qui se contentent de suivre des plans et des spécifica-tions, et dont la contribution aux projets de construction durable se limite à des programmesde recyclage sur le chantier. Des recherches sur le rôle des organismes de gestion des projetsde construction pour livrer des bâtiments durables de haute qualité environnementale sontactuellement menées par la Penn State University et le Partnership for Achieving ConstructionExcellence (PACE). Les objectifs sont de déterminer la valeur des services de construction dansles procédés et le processus décisionnel critiques pour les projets de bâtiment durable et d’éla-borer des techniques favorisant l’initiative pour faire participer les entreprises du bâtiment àdes processus collaboratifs de conception et de construction durables.

ResumenLa colaboración y los aportes interdisciplinarios son característicos del diseño de edificiossostenibles y de los procesos de construcción exitosos. Sin embargo, en muchos casos, el pro-cedimiento para la obtención de servicios de construcción no se considera como uno de lospasos necesarios en el diseño y la ejecución de un proyecto de edificio sostenible. Se piensa amenudo que los contratistas son sencillamente corredores de servicios de construcción que seguían por diseños y especificaciones y que sólo pueden contribuir a los proyectos de edificiossostenibles con planes de reciclaje para las obras. Penn State University y PACE (Asociaciónpara lograr una construcción de excelencia) están llevando a cabo investigaciones sobre el rolde organizaciones para la gestión de la construcción en la realización exitosa de edificiossostenibles de alto rendimiento. Los objetivos son identificar el valor de los servicios de con-strucción en los procesos y en la toma de decisiones, fundamentales para los proyectos deedificaciones sostenibles, y desarrollar técnicas proactivas para obtener la participación delas organizaciones de construcción en procesos de colaboración de diseño y construcciónsostenibles.



significant time was saved in commissioning andstart-up of what is now the largest LEED (version2.0) gold certified facility in the US.

Success stories are in abundance. What com-mon practices explain their success? Research inprogress at Penn State University seeks to defineenabling processes and team functions that resultin sustainable building solutions, with a particularemphasis on how to actively engage constructionorganizations on green building projects and posi-tion them as value-added contributors.

Current perceptionsThrough case studies of over 20 green buildingprojects and interviews with more than 40 indus-try professionals in the US, the perceptions ofowners, design professionals and constructionorganizations concerning the contractor’s role ingreen building projects were assessed. The pur-pose of the first phase of this investigation was todefine factors that could increase or diminish theengagement of construction organizations ongreen building projects.

Several parallel and contributing factors wereidentified:◆ Green building projects demand open lines ofcommunication between disciplines They typi-cally involve more complex interdependenciesbetween building systems and project organiza-tions than do traditional projects. Thus they arethus best serviced by inclusive and integrated pro-ject teams.◆ The LEED rating system has been rapidlyaccepted, as the US construction industry wasstarved for a set of metrics to assess the “greenness”of a building. However, what began as an assess-ment mechanism for the final product – a greenbuilding – has resulted in significant processimplications for designers and builders. Theseprocesses (how to best make green buildings) arestill largely undefined. ◆ In the US the leading owners seeking greenbuildings are government agencies such as theGeneral Services Administration, the US Navy,and many state and local governments. At thesame time, a large number of these agencies aremoving towards the use of design-build deliverysystems in which construction organizations arehighly involved during project design.◆ Most owners and professionals hold the opin-ion that green buildings cost more than tradition-al ones. While a longer-term view of sustainablebuildings makes initial premiums paid for higherperformance facilities seem small in comparisonto potential gains in energy efficiency and workerproductivity, we must face the reality that theindustry will be slow to move away from a short-sighted first cost perspective. ◆ Progressive and forward-thinking constructionfirms are adopting lean principles proven in themanufacturing community to reduce waste andinefficiencies in construction processes. Greenprinciples and lean principles are closely alignedin their goals of maximizing total process efficien-cy and reducing waste.

Each of these factors implies that perceptionsof the role of construction organizations will like-

ly broaden as the industry becomes more adept atdelivering green buildings.

The next phase of this research was to examinegreen building case studies in detail to garnerimpressions from owners, designers and con-struction professionals on the key roles of con-struction organizations. Many differing opinionswere revealed. Owners were found to have thebroadest perspective with respect to how con-struction firms can assist during both design andconstruction; design professionals as a group hadthe narrowest perspective.

The most significant ways in which constructionfirms can contribute include the most obvious,such as estimating and jobsite recycling. Neverthe-less, case studies show clearly that constructionfirms, given the opportunity, have the potential tomake useful contributions to all phases of greenbuilding projects including the areas of materialselection, indoor air quality management, and thevast need to educate specialty contractors aboutgreen building methodologies and processes. Notsurprisingly, the broadest and most comprehensivepoint of view came from design-build teams.

While there is no shortage of differing views andopinions, particularly between traditional designfirms and progressive construction firms, trendsand consistencies are emerging that help shape amore systematic movement towards achieving sus-tainable construction goals. Among these, onenotable trend is recognition of the valuable contri-butions of members of an integrated project teamthat includes construction organizations.

Value added by constructionorganizationsAs progressive construction organizations gainexperience with green building projects, they willbe better equipped to articulate specific services andcompetencies that could contribute to the successof these projects. Four key areas of contributionhave begun to surface as the most vital: estimating,green building materials, waste minimization andrecycling, and indoor air quality management.

EstimatingThe value of construction organizations in pro-viding estimating services on a green building pro-

Toyota Motor Corporation’s US Financial and Customer Service Headquarters,Torrance, California

Pentagon renovation project in Washington, D.C.



ject is indisputable. This value is amplified whenaccurate estimating in the early phases of designpermits accurate cost information to be includedin the preliminary selection of building systemsand materials.

Case studies of green building projects clearlyshow that implementing sustainable projectrequirements mid-stream will result in cost pre-miums for “add-on” sustainable features. Howev-er, if sustainable project features are made apriority in a project’s earliest stages, it is widelyheld that these features will not have to add to theproject’s overall cost. High performance and sus-tainable project features need to be selected basedon the owner’s budget and priorities and on accu-rate cost information. With this in mind, the roleof construction organizations in project estimat-ing is vital for green building projects during plan-ning and preconstruction as it provides timely costinformation about design decisions.

From a broader perspective, it is also the con-tractor’s responsibility to understand the highintegration of systems on a sustainable buildingproject. As building systems become more inte-grated, incorporation of green elements canrequire a redesign of other systems. For example,more reflective paint can improve the efficiency ofan indirect lighting system and allow reductionsin the size of electrical and cooling systems. Inmany cases, however, these interdependencies arenot fully exploited. Instead, redundancies inbuilding designs are maintained.

An emerging concept called “total project cost-ing” advocates the practice of seeking cost savingsin a project’s less crucial areas to facilitate the high-er initial cost of energy efficient building systemsand environmentally friendly building materials.Thus it is the role of construction organizationsto assist the design team with pricing methodsthat acknowledge the interlinked benefits of avariety of systems (i.e. moving from materials-based to system-linked cost estimates, so that thecalculated life-cycle costs and integrated systemcosts clarify the benefits of green building sys-tems). While some construction organizations arequite capable of implementing this approach,their input will be muted if it is not embraced inthe early stages of a project.

Green building materialsA wide variety of new environmentally sensitivebuilding materials are available. Many design pro-fessionals surveyed as part of this project viewedthe selection of materials as being strictly the jobof design firms, with construction organizationsonly needing to follow detailed specifications tomeet sustainable material requirements. However,contractors can complement this process, asdemonstrated by many case study projects. Caulk,joint sealants, drywall compounds, fireproofingmaterials, adhesives, duct cement and insulationare all items that should be selected with the sameenvironmental considerations as those for finishmaterials. A more holistic approach to procure-ment of building materials that meet a project’senvironmental objectives is needed. The knowl-edge of general and specialty contractors can be

invaluable in this effort.Contractors have increasing responsibility to

become familiar with the environmental impactsof building materials. A baseline understandingmay be a good start for long-term benefits to pro-jects and to their own company, but a deeperunderstanding of environmentally sensitive prod-ucts is needed. Additionally, contractors’ role ofensuring proper handling, storage, installation,finishing and cleaning, and training maintenancepersonnel on long-term care of materials, increas-es their understanding of the characteristics of“green” materials.

When presented with unfamiliar materials inproject specifications, the first reaction of con-struction organizations is suspicion – of poten-tially higher costs, more complex or unfamiliarjobsite handling and construction methods, andlower productivity. If they are given the opportu-nity to investigate the true impact of a new mate-rial on a project, construction organizations canmore accurately determine whether the materialis best suited to the project and provide realisticcosting information, rather than prices inflateddue to undefined potential risks.

Detailed sole-source specifications place mate-rial vendors in a position to charge whatever theywish, typically resulting in higher costs. Con-struction organizations routinely solicit competi-tive materials pricing from multiple vendors andcan often utilize collective purchasing to obtainlower prices. One approach taken by more expe-rienced owners (e.g. the US Department ofDefense and the US Navy) to mitigate this prob-lem is to adopt performance-based requirementsthat replace detailed specifications and give con-tractors the opportunity to find innovative solu-tions that achieve the performance goals ofmaterials and systems.

Construction waste minimization and recyclingMany design and construction professionals statethat the “green” role of a construction organizationis limited to jobsite recycling. As contractors areonly beginning to be asked for wider services onsustainable building projects, this may often be thecase. However, implementing a jobsite recyclingplan just because it is mandated in project specifi-cations is a one-dimensional approach to sustain-ability. In most regions of the US it is cheaper tolandfill waste than to recycle it. Recycling can andmust be market driven, and be initiated by legisla-tion or regional constraints that make landfill moreexpensive than recycling and reward recyclingefforts.

Once infrastructure is developed for recyclingconstruction waste, and a market is created forrecycled content products, contractors will notneed to be convinced – or need to be required todo it. The State of Washington led the US in ini-tiating a recycling paradigm at both public andprivate levels. As a result, Seattle-based SellenConstruction was among the first to suggest thatthe money saved by diverting construction wastefrom landfills should be incorporated in the pro-ject budget to defray the higher costs of using recy-

cled content materials. This allows owners to seeno net cost increase for choosing recycled materi-als and, perhaps more importantly, helps drive theemerging market for recycled building materials.

Through experience and alliances with wastehaulers, many construction firms have becomequite adept at recycling and the related jobsite psy-chology and infrastructure needed to fully imple-ment a waste minimization and jobsite recyclingplan. Often these company based policies resultin diversion rates of up to 80%, far in excess of amandated recycling programme.

Indoor air qualityAchieving a healthy building is a primary tenet ofgreen design and construction. Constructionmethods have direct implications for indoor airquality. Examples include protecting HVAC sys-tems from pollutants, building time into con-struction schedules to purge buildings of harmfulemissions, and sequencing work to minimizeexposure of materials to potential contamination,particularly wet materials that could lead togrowth of mould and paints and finishes that con-tain harmful volatile organic compounds.

As demonstrated by the Toyota case, TurnerConstruction’s efforts to manage indoor air qual-ity during construction proved highly valuable tothe commissioning process. Toyota’s Director ofCorporate Facilities, Sanford Smith, singled outcommissioning as the most important element ofdelivering a facility. He stated that “Constructionis the building of a continuum,” referring to theinterwoven nature of construction and operationsand the value of a commissioning process thatensures a building is functioning as intended.

During this study most architects and contrac-tors were found to agree that if indoor air qualityrequirements are not specified on a project, theywould not be met. However, recent threats ofmould and related liability issues are increasingthe value of steps taken during construction tomaintain indoor air quality. In addition, signifi-cant research has shown the increased risk of infec-tion due to hospital and laboratory construction.For these reasons alone, many contractors havelearned that commissioning costs will be reducedand exposure to mould or water damage mini-mized by focusing on indoor air quality manage-ment during planning and construction. Theseefforts will also drastically minimize the risk of anypresent or future contamination of the buildingand its occupants. As contractors get better atmanaging these new risks, their expertise will helpcontribute to meeting indoor air quality require-ments on green building projects.

Making a case for integrated teams:renovation of the Pentagon The largest office building in the world is the homeof the US Department of Defense. The Pentagonis emerging as one of the country’s best examplesof green design through the processes used and thedesign solution for its 585,000 m2 renovation.

Some key project features include:◆ maximum use of daylighting and materials madefrom recycled content such as carpet and ceiling tile;



◆ a high-performance mechanical system thatrequires minimal ductwork for air distribution,drastically reducing the space needed for mechan-ical equipment in rooms and ceilings;◆ a Universal Space Plan that permits modularand repetitive construction processes and mini-mizes the effort and waste generated by frequentreconfigurations of spaces;◆ prefabricated “smart walls” which include allpower and communication systems and are com-bined with high-tech support spaces to simplifyconstruction sequences, facilitate reconfiguration,and minimize waste during construction;◆ recycling requirements authored by the projectteams which, because of the project’s massive size,have spurred development of a recycling infra-structure in the region that will benefit other pro-jects.

How was this accomplished? The credit goesto the Pentagon renovation team, including amanagement organization that crafted perfor-mance-based specifications for the project – alarge collaborative design-build team that em-braced the sustainability goals of the owner.

Still under construction, the Pentagon renova-tion also provides an excellent example of the syn-ergies between sustainability and constructability,and how construction organizations can con-tribute to the design of an energy efficient andenvironmentally conscious solution and observesignificant savings in productivity through wasteminimization and elegant design-build solutionsthat simplify construction. As these synergies arerecognized by project teams, they will help furtherembrace construction organizations’ contribu-tions to the growing green building movement.

The greening of constructionorganizationsIf construction organizations are to maximizetheir contributions to green building projects,they must shift their paradigm – away from a frag-mented and bid package perspective towards amore holistic and integrated view of projects. Theinextricable relationships between water, site,energy and indoor environmental quality issues

must be woven into estimating and planningprocesses, subcontractor education and overallbusiness practices. Some organizations will makethis shift voluntarily. Others will only do it whenforced by competition. It has already become clearthat a construction company’s environmental pol-icy is an important way to differentiate itself toowners seeking construction services on greenbuilding projects.

Several progressive builders stated that their cur-rent efforts in embracing green building at thecompany level were spurred by positive experienceson their first green building projects. The James G.Davis Construction Corporation is an excellentexample. Success in the greening of Davis camefrom within, through pooling the experience ofthose in the organization who had an interest, ifnot a passion, for environmental issues. As in anytransitional processes, executive-level support ofthese initiatives played a key role in embracinggreen construction as an organization. The goal atDavis is now to leap beyond a project-basedresponse to green buildings, to a more completeapproach to environmental management.

ConclusionsConstruction organizations clearly have both thepotential and the responsibility to enhance greenbuilding project teams through the fundamentaltools of the trade, from value engineering to mate-rial procurement to subcontractor communica-tions and pricing. One consistency identified incase study research is that this potential cannot befully realized unless construction organizations areincluded on the team during design.

Broad change is hindered by the fact that greenbuilding efforts are largely being led by the designprofession – the segment of the industry which isstill most resistant to integrated teams that includethe construction organizations. Perceived as athreat to the design process, many design profes-sionals are most comfortable when contractors arerelegated to a low-price commodity on a buildingproject rather than a valuable service provider to aproject team.

In the scramble to implement new metrics like

the LEED rating system, it has become clear thatthey will need to evolve. More guidance is neededin defining the contracting methods, organiza-tional structures and services that enable greenbuildings. For example, the LEED system recog-nizes inclusion of a LEED accredited profession-al but does little to encourage integrated teamsformed through design-build contracting anddesign-assist services by construction firms.

As more construction organizations gaindesign-build experience on green building pro-jects, they will be better equipped to align them-selves and develop preconstruction services thatwill enhance the green design process. Also,increased use of performance-based project require-ments that include more direct construction relat-ed elements such as pollution prevention andresource conservation measures, lean thinking insitework and pre-assembly techniques, and theeducation of subcontractors and vendors will pro-vide creative incentive programmes that would“fund” a part of this learning curve. Competitioncould then work to move the US constructionindustry forward towards a better definition ofgreen construction.

One truth is clear. Just as the idea of sustain-ability broadly defines the relevant environmen-tal costs, the teams whose job is to achievesustainability in the construction industry mustalso be broadly defined to include all players in theprocess.

David Riley will make a presentation on this subjectat the CIB 2003 International Conference on Smartand Sustainable Built Environment (SASBE2003)on 19-21 November 2003 in Brisbane, Australia(www.sasbe2003.qut.com/).

ReferencesDrilling, D. (2003) The Role of the Contractor on GreenBuilding Projects. Fifth Year Senior Thesis, Departmentof Architectural Engineering, Penn State University.

Reed, B. (2002) About Natural Logic. Smart Design3Conference, Washington, D.C.

Zeigler, P. (2002) What is a Green Building? TechnicalReport, Pennsylvania Green Governmental Council. ◆



Sustainable construction: a Swedish company’s approachAxel Wenblad, Senior Vice-President Sustainability, Skanska AB, Box 1195, SE-11191 Stockholm, Sweden ([email protected])

Skanska is the world’s second largest construction company. It builds fam-ily homes, commercial buildings (e.g. offices, shopping malls and hotels)and transportation infrastructure including roads, tunnels and bridges.Our products and services impact the lives of many people in developedand developing countries. They also impact people around building sites(e.g. due to heavy traffic and generation of noise and dust).

In 2002 Skanska had 76,000 employees and created employment at over10,000 project sites around the world. We have to reduce our workforcewhen we finish a project; this is the nature of the construction business,and an important responsibility.

Why is sustainability important for Skanska?Skanska has incorporated the notion of sustainability in its busi-ness for three main reasons: ◆ to strengthen our brand;◆ for risk management; ◆ to benefit current and future employees.

Many of our most important clients are actively engaged inaddressing sustainability issues, and they expect nothing less fromtheir contractor. Managing environmental and social risks is a keyelement of our sustainability approach – and not only from a sus-tainability perspective. It is just plain good business to minimizeand manage risks. Accidents and poor performance can have directnegative financial impacts, e.g. through falling share prices, high-er insurance premiums, declining project profitability, and increas-ing costs of crisis management and mitigation measures.

Sustainable development is a key element of our objective to bean attractive employer. Employees want to work for a companythey are proud of, and with whose values they can identify. Skan-ska wants to be competitive in the global marketplace for manyyears to come, so we must be able to keep and recruit the bestemployees.

Skanska’s sustainability efforts have received external recogni-tion. It has been listed by the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes for thefourth consecutive year, as well as by a number of other registers for social-ly responsible investing. Skanska comes first on the Fortune 2003 list ofMost Admired Companies in the engineering and construction category,and it is Europe’s third most admired company in all categories. Skanskaalso participates in the UN Global Compact.

Skanska’s corporate code of conductIn February 2002 Skanska adopted a corporate code of conduct establishinga level of performance for our global operations with respect to employeerelations, human rights, business ethics, stakeholder relations and the envi-ronment. The code of conduct reflects and refers to a number of UN, ILOand OECD agreements. It is the most tangible umbrella instrument for ourimplementation of sustainable development. The code of conduct, devel-

oped in cooperation with all our Business Units, has been translated and isavailable in the languages of our home markets (see www.skanska.com/sus-tainability).

More sustainable constructionAs the World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundt-land Commission) noted in 1987 in its report Our Common Future, “sus-tainable development is not a fixed state of harmony, but rather a process ofchange.” For us this means, practically speaking, that we have not definedwhat sustainable construction is, but an approach to knowing what is moresustainable – thereby managing a process of continual improvement. As a

global company operating at the local level, we make progress most effec-tively in small practical steps. These small steps add up to leaps in improvedoverall performance. The most significant example of this approach is thattoday Skanska is the first global contractor all of whose units are ISO 14001certified.

Skanska has assumed a key role in the construction vs. sustainable devel-opment debate. One reason for this is our involvement in a major envi-ronmental mishap in 1997, when toxic substances leaked from a tunnelbuilding project at Halland Ridge in southern Sweden. In addition, Skan-ska has taken an active stance on priority issues such as major hydropowerprojects and related social and environmental impacts. Skanska decided towithdraw from some major hydropower projects at the end of the 1990s,and to join the World Commission on Dams in 1998 to take part in itsassessment of dam building practices.

Figure 1Priority given by Skanska and its clients to different types of

environmental improvements, 2002

35%

30

25

20

15

10

5

0Noise,

emissionsIndoor

environmentChemical

and material selection

Waste, incl.hazardous

waste

Energy

Relative distribution of proiritized environmental aspects



Skanska is currently gathering information on projects that have shownparticularly interesting results related to more sustainable construction.Two such cases, which have been submitted to the UN Global Compact,are bridge building in Honduras and a hydropower project in Sri Lanka.

HondurasOur activities have included special efforts to work with local communitiesand raise the bar on environmental management at projects in the develop-ing world. One of the clearest examples has been in Honduras. Skanska wascommissioned by the Swedish International Development CooperationAgency to build 11 bridges and 5 kilometres of road in that country follow-ing Hurricane Mitch in 1998. We began by rebuilding infrastructure in someof the worst hit areas. The project delivered most bridges several monthsahead of schedule; the key reason identified was effective cooperation andmutual respect between Skanska staff and local Honduran workers. Provid-ing good and clean working conditions resulted in low staff turnover. Skilledand motivated workers do a better job, have fewer accidents, need less super-vision and make better use of materials, vehicles and equipment. Commu-nities affected by the construction work were consulted, and some localsuppliers were supported with quality and environmental management. Evensmall initiatives like providing bank accounts for all employees can be impor-tant (this helped reduce the number of robberies on pay day).

Sri LankaSkanska was commissioned by the Ceylon Electricity Board to build a small“run of the river” dam for power generation in the Kukule Ganga river 70 kilo-metres southeast of Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka. Skanska’s involvementin the Kukule Ganga hydropower project (HPP) started in June 1999 andended in April 2003. It mainly entailed tunnel blasting and concreting. Onceconstruction work is completed, a certain amount of water will continue to bereleased to the original river channel to protect river fauna. Most of the water,however, will be diverted from the river channel, led through a long mountaintunnel to two turbines, and then discharged back to the river channel.

Surrounding the project is the Sinharaja Forest Reserve, a UNESCOWorld Heritage Site, which is one of Sri Lanka’s last untouched rainforests.This area is rich in biodiversity and highly vulnerable to human distur-bance. Farmers in the area cultivate rubber and tea.

Skanska’s work at Kukule Ganga HPP is pioneering, in the sense thatthis is the first international waterpower project completed within theframework of the ISO 140001 certified environmental management sys-tem, which covers a number of practical issues and activities such as wastemanagement and control of chemical products. The project has establishednew practices and served as a pilot for other projects. It has been external-ly evaluated by the Stockholm School of Economics for the UN GlobalCompact Learning Forum.

Healthy buildingsIn 2002 Skanska took the initiative to address moisture and mould in theconstruction sector in a special project. This is not a new problem for build-

ings in regions where temperature and moisture are at a level that allowsmould to grow. Already in the 1970s, “sick building syndrome” was rec-ognized as a health issue. Mould is one of the most important air qualityissues. Related health risks are allergic reactions and respiratory infection.In the project (ending in 2003) Skanska examines options to further min-imize risks associated with mould by assessing and developing construc-tion methods and material use.

Environmental performanceSkanska implements many projects whose environmental standards arebeyond legal requirements. A yearly analysis of all major construction pro-jects worth over USD 1 million indicates that Skanska and its clients aregradually raising environmental performance standards. Skanska’s analy-sis of order bookings in 2002 shows that 667 large construction projectsrepresenting about 45% of total order value, were being implemented withhigher environmental standards than legally required. In close cooperationwith the client, we assess options for improved environmental perfor-mance, costs and benefits of alternative designs or building materials, andcosts related to operation and maintenance. In this way we aim to influ-ence environmental performance throughout the value chain. In particu-lar, our Build-Operate-Transfer projects provide excellent opportunities toaim for improvements starting at the design stage, during construction,and while operating and maintaining infrastructure and buildings.

Evaluation of our environmental efforts indicates that the most com-mon priorities for Skanska and its clients are energy efficiency, waste man-agement, and local environmental impacts such as noise, dust andemissions to water and air. Figure 1 shows the relative distribution of Skan-ska and client priorities for environmental improvements in 2002. Skans-ka gave highest priority to waste, including hazardous waste (30%). Clientsgave highest priority to noise and emissions (29%).

The most important threat to the global environment is climate changeassociated with greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere. The mostimportant cause of these emissions is use of fossil fuels. The constructionsector therefore faces a major challenge since around one-third of the ener-gy used by humans is related to buildings and their utilization. A large pro-portion of this energy use can be avoided. Given today’s technology,Skanska has shown that it is possible to improve energy efficiency by over30% in new construction, for example by using adequate insulation, highperformance windows with tripple glazing, and efficient ventilation sys-tems with heat recovery.

Many hazardous substances are used in the construction sector. Toreduce use of the most hazardous, several Business Units have developedtheir own “black” and “grey” lists of substances not to be used, or to bephased out. One challenge is to obtain access to relevant information fromsuppliers of chemical products.

Skanska has published its Sustainability Report for 2002, which presents thecompany’s economic, social and environmental performance. For copies, con-tact www.skanska.com or [email protected].



It is generally agreed that sustainable develop-ment has three pillars: environmental, econom-ic and social. Environmental sustainability is

now broadly understood, and much attention hasfocused in recent years on economic sustainabili-ty. However, the concept of social sustainability ismuch more difficult to grasp. Responsibility seemsto make more sense in this context than sustain-ability. Indeed, many companies are adopting theprinciples of Corporate Social Responsibility(CSR). Yet there is still little agreement as to whatthis actually means in practice.

As a starting point, it might be assumed thatsocial responsibility is about minimizing the neg-ative and maximizing the positive effects eco-nomic activity has on people and society. Broadly,economic activity impacts on society in threeways. First, there is the impact on those involvedin the activity itself, notably the workforce. Sec-ond, there is the impact on the local communitywhere the activity takes place. Third, there mayalso be social implications for the wider globalcommunity.

The relative importance of these impacts varies

with the kind of activity. In the case of construc-tion, it may be assumed that global social impactsare minimal (although not entirely absent, due tointernational migration of labour for work in thissector). The impact on local communities can bequite significant. However, the biggest share of thisimpact stems from the investment decisions takenup-stream of the industry itself. With very fewexceptions, the construction industry responds todemands placed on it by investors, as opposed toplaying a major role in the investment decision-making process.

Of the decisions taken within the remit of theconstruction industry, the major social impact isundoubtedly on the workforce. Hence, a sociallyresponsible construction industry might bedefined as one that enhances the positive aspectsof employment in the industry and protects itsworkforce from negative ones.

It is that feature of social responsibility withwhich this article is concerned. The focus of atten-tion is the developing countries, where three-quarters of the world’s estimated 111 millionconstruction workers are found (ILO, 2001a).

The reality of work in constructionOn the positive side, the construction industryoffers much needed employment for a large num-ber of the world’s poorest people. In developingcountries construction work provides a tradition-al point of entry to the labour market for migrantworkers from the countryside. A job in construc-tion is often the only alternative to farm labour forthose who do not have much education or skill. Ithas special importance for the landless. Safe-guarding such employment opportunities must behigh on the social agenda of poor countries withsurplus labour. Responsible employers will guardagainst premature mechanization of tasks that canbe undertaken by labourers – as the example fromIndia in the box on the next page demonstrates.

However, there are many negative aspects towork in construction. The industry is notoriousas a dangerous place to work. Data from a numberof developed countries show that between 20 and40% of all occupational fatalities occur in the con-struction sector. This means construction work-ers are three to four times more likely to die fromaccidents at work than other workers (López-Val-cárcel, 2001). Many more die from occupationaldiseases arising from past exposure to dangeroussubstances such as asbestos. In the developingworld the risks associated with construction workare undoubtedly much higher (available data

Social aspects of sustainable construction:an ILO perspective

Jill Wells, Construction Specialist, Sectoral Activities Department, International Labour Office (ILO), 4, route des Morillons, CH-1211,

Geneva 22, Switzerland ([email protected])

SummaryThis article examines the social aspects of sustainable construction, particularly in the contextof developing countries. A socially responsible construction industry is one that enhances thepositive aspects of employment in construction while protecting the workforce from negativeones. This requires respect for labour standards, as set out in ILO Conventions and national leg-islation. Voluntary initiatives have made a positive contribution, but serious progress willrequire everyone to play by the same rules. Concerted action by all stakeholders is needed tobring this about. A new “Socially Responsible Construction Investment” initiative is beinglaunched by the ILO. It will bring together representatives of government, employers, workersand other major construction sector stakeholders, with the aim of developing a strategy andaction plan for improving implementation of key labour standards in construction projects, aswell as promoting productive employment in the construction sector.

RésuméL’article s’intéresse aux aspects sociaux du développement durable du secteur du bâtiment,en particulier dans le contexte des pays en développement. Un secteur du bâtiment sociale-ment responsable se doit de renforcer les aspects positifs de l’emploi dans le bâtiment, tout enprotégeant la main-d’œuvre contre ses aspects négatifs. Cela suppose le respect des normes detravail des Conventions de l’OIT et des législations nationales. Si les initiatives volontaires onteu un effet positif, pour réaliser des progrès significatifs il faut que tout le monde respecte lesmêmes règles du jeu. L’action concertée de tous les acteurs est nécessaire pour y parvenir. L’OITest en train de lancer une nouvelle initiative d’“ Investissement socialement responsable dansle bâtiment ”. Elle réunira des représentants de gouvernement, des employeurs, des ouvriers etautres acteurs majeurs du secteur du bâtiment dans le but d’élaborer une stratégie et un pland’action pour une meilleure mise en œuvre des principales normes de travail dans les projets deconstruction, mais aussi pour promouvoir un travail productif dans le bâtiment.

ResumenEl artículo examina los aspectos sociales de la construcción sostenible, particularmente en elcontexto de los países en desarrollo. La industria de la construcción que se preocupa por elbienestar social realza los aspectos positivos del empleo en la construcción y al mismo tiempoprotege a los trabajadores de sus aspectos negativos. Para ello, hay que observar las normasde trabajo establecidas por las convenciones de la OIT y las leyes de cada país. Varias iniciati-vas voluntarias han aportado una contribución positiva, pero el verdadero progreso requiereque todos respeten las mismas reglas, y para que esto ocurra se necesita una acción coordi-nada de todas las partes interesadas. La OIT prepara el lanzamiento de una nueva iniciativapara invertir en la construcción de manera responsable para la sociedad. La iniciativa reunirárepresentantes del gobierno, patronos, trabajadores y otras partes interesadas del sector de laconstrucción para desarrollar una estrategia y un plan de acción que permitan mejorar laimplementación de normas de trabajo clave en proyectos de construcción y promover elempleo productivo en el sector de la construcción.



would suggest from three to six times higher). Yetthe causes of construction accidents are wellknown, and almost all are preventable.

Construction work in developing countries isnot only unnecessarily dangerous, it is badly paidand insecure. The majority of workers are recruit-ed through intermediaries or labour agents on ashort-term (often daily) basis and dismissed whenthey are no longer required. They do not receiveholiday pay, sick leave, health care, pensions orother benefits. They work long hours and may beforced to work overtime without additional pay-ment (which may be interpreted as a form offorced labour). Wages paid are often below thenational minimum and inadequate to feed theworkers, let alone their families. Frequently a partof the wage is withheld, as the burden of the con-tractor’s retention (the part of the contract sumretained by the client against default by the con-tractor, usually 10%) is passed on to the workforce(ILO, 2001a).

These appalling terms and conditions of workowe their persistence, at least in part, to the exten-sive practice of “outsourcing” labour requirements

through labour contractors – a practice that cre-ates divisions within the workforce and preventsthe workers from uniting to defend their rights.There is also outright hostility from employersand their agents to unionisation. Workers whoparticipate in union action are often victimized.Trade union density in construction is less than1% in some countries (ILO, 2001a).

Discrimination in wages and working condi-tions between different groups is also rife. Womensuffer a double form of discrimination in thecountries of South Asia, where they constitute upto half the construction workforce. They are onlyallowed to perform tasks classified as unskilled,and they receive lower wages than men undertak-ing similar tasks (ILO, 2001a).

Labour standardsSuch practices contravene the “core” labour stan-dards of the International Labour Organization(ILO) – the United Nations agency with globalresponsibility for work, employment and labourissues. The core standards of the ILO, embodiedin its 1998 Declaration of Fundamental Princi-

ples and Rights at Work, are binding on all mem-ber states. They embrace four basic principles ofemployment:◆ Employment should be freely chosen (no forcedlabour);◆ There should be strict limitations on employ-ment of children; ◆ There should be equality in the terms and con-ditions of employment; ◆ Workers and employers have the right to orga-nize and bargain collectively.

These four principles are also included in theUN Global Compact and are widely regarded asfundamental human rights. Social responsibilityrequires that they be observed by the constructionindustry.

While the core standards apply to all sectors ofeconomic activity, other standards are specific toconstruction. Most important are Convention167 (1988), “Safety and Health in Construction”,and Convention 94, the “Labour Clauses (PublicContracts) Convention”. These Conventions,with the accompanying Recommendations andCodes of Practice, set out basic principles that

Two examples of social responsibility from India

A voluntary agreement topreserve jobsIn India women undertake most ofthe tasks involved in mixing and lay-ing concrete. The recent introduc-tion of ready-mix concrete by a largeconstruction company in Chennaihas thrown many women out ofwork. It is also threatening the jobsand livelihoods of many more. Aftermonths of protests and demonstra-tions, the company has voluntarilyagreed to restrict the use of ready-mixconcrete to large structures.

Using contracts to enhancelabour standards and theenvironment1

Engineers India Ltd. is a large publicsector consultancy operating chiefly inthe oil and gas sector. As a consultingengineering company, it is responsiblefor inviting tenders and quotationsfrom contractors, awarding contracts,and monitoring progress and compli-ance with contract conditions.

The general and specific condi-tions of contract are agreed with eachclient. Under the leadership of AnilLyall, the company is carrying outsystematic efforts to make these conditions much clearer and more visi-ble in the area of labour standards and the environment. Detailed speci-fications have been developed for health and safety provisions. Thecontractor’s obligations in this and other areas are spelled out in simpleand unambiguous terms. Proper inspection must then take place toensure that all obligations are met.

Anil Lyall believes that engineers are well placed to carry out theseinspections during their regular visits to sites. The conclusion of this workis that considerable improvement is feasible in the employment of labourby contractors on major national projects.

1. Examples from the Global Compact Database.



need to be observed to ensure the health and safe-ty of construction workers and to protect thoseworking on public contracts.

While these Conventions are only binding onthe countries that have ratified them, most coun-tries (even developing ones) have national legisla-tion in place that is broadly in conformity with theprinciples of these and other ILO Conventionsdesigned to offer some protection to the work-force.

Social responsibility clearly requires observanceby the construction industry of workers’ rightsenshrined in the ILO Declaration, as well as inother ILO Conventions and national legislation.Most important are the rights of workers to joinorganizations of their choice, to have a safe placeof work, and to be paid their wages on time andin full.

The importance and limitations ofvoluntary actionThe architecture, engineering and constructioncommunity can do much to promote these prin-ciples in the developing world. International con-tractors and consultants – predominantly firmsfrom developed countries – implement a highproportion of construction projects in developingcountries. When working in these countries, theyshould commit themselves to socially responsiblebusiness practices that protect and promote work-ers’ rights.

A number of international companies havealready made such a commitment. Germany’sHochtief, ranked as the worlds largest interna-tional contractor, has signed an agreement with

the International Federation of Building andWoodworkers (IFBWW), a global trade unionfederation representing 11 million constructionworkers in 124 countries. The agreement com-mits Hochtief to promote fair pay and decentworking conditions. Hochtief also requires com-pliance by all its subcontractors and joint venturepartners. Similar agreements have been signedbetween IFBWW and other international con-tractors, notably Sweden’s Skanska and BallastNedam of the Netherlands. Although such agree-ments are entirely voluntary, some monitoringprocedures are in place to ensure compliance andthe results so far have been positive.

There is no doubt that the “best practices” ofinternational companies operating in a develop-ing country can have a powerful demonstrationeffect, but the large international contractors thatsign such agreements (most of them European)handle only a small proportion of constructionprojects worldwide. The vast majority of largecompanies, and the long tail of small and microenterprises that characterize the constructionindustry around the world, are very far from sign-ing up to such principles and even further fromimplementing them. The result is a few smallislands of good practice in a sea of bad.

It is also of concern that social responsibility isnot costless. While it is possible that the addition-al costs incurred by employers through observinggood labour practices may be recouped in thelonger term through productivity gains, in theshort term there is a cost involved. Hence, firmsthat abide by internationally recognized standardsare penalized when others ignore them. Competi-

tion among international contractors for work indeveloping countries is cut-throat, with many newentrants to the field, and there is ample evidencethat “good employers” are no longer winning con-tracts. If socially responsible behaviour is to sur-vive and prosper, there has to be a “level playingfield”.

Governments have a heavy responsibility forthe creation of this level playing field throughadopting and enforcing appropriate legislation.This is not an easy task. The difficulties inherentin inspecting a large number of small and scat-tered construction sites are well known. These dif-ficulties are compounded in developing countriesby lack of resources for labour inspection. Indus-trialized countries now rely heavily on “self-regu-lation” to ensure the safety and health of theworkforce, which involves development of man-agement systems and, in particular, the establish-ment of safety committees with representationfrom the workforce. However, this approach isalso difficult to implement in developing coun-tries, where workers are unorganized and unawareof their rights and employers are ignorant con-cerning their obligations.

Making progress towards socialresponsibilityResponsible employers share a common interestwith workers’ organizations and with govern-ments in promoting widespread respect for labourstandards, so as to ensure a level playing field.They also recognize governments’ inability tobring this about through enforcement of labourlegislation through inspection. In the negotiated

Key principles of ILO Convention 167 concerning safety and health in construction ◆ There should be cooperation between em-ployers and workers in order to promote safe-ty and health at construction sites.◆ The most representative organizations ofemployers and workers shall be consulted onthe measures to be taken and all have a duty tocomply.◆ The principal contractor is responsible forcoordinating the prescribed safety and healthmeasures and for ensuring compliance withsuch measures.◆ Personal protective equipment and clothingshall be provided and maintained by theemployer without cost to the workers:employers must also provide first aid, drink-ing water and separate sanitary and washingfacilities.◆ Workers must be informed of potential safe-ty and health hazards to which they may beexposed and trained in their prevention andcontrol.◆ Workers have the right to remove them-selves from imminent danger and the duty toinform the supervisor.◆ Those concerned with design and planningof a project also have a duty to consider thehealth and safety of construction workers. The construction industry is a dangerous place to work



conclusions to a tripartite meeting convened bythe ILO in December 2001, it was proposed thatgovernments (as major clients of the constructionindustry) might use their procurement proceduresto ensure that contractors and subcontractorscomply with national legislation, including healthand safety legislation (ILO, 2001b). It was alsosuggested that these obligations on the contractorcould be written into contracts as “labour claus-es”. For those not fulfilling their obligations, therewould be an immediate sanction in the form ofexclusion from tender lists.

The meeting went further, proposing that notonly governments but also the internationalfinancing institutions that fund much public con-struction should “encourage socially responsiblebusiness practices that promote and protect work-ers rights in accordance with the ILO Declarationon Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work”(ILO, 2001b, p. 27). The ILO was asked to pro-vide a platform for social dialogue and for discus-sions with financial institutions such as the WorldBank to help bring this about. Joint pressure onthe World Bank – from the ILO and the industrypartners at global level (Confederation of Inter-national Contractors Associations (CICA) andthe IFBWW) – to strengthen the labour clauses incontracts and upgrade them from “recommend-ed” to “mandatory” has so far had little success.The Bank is reluctant to commit itself for fear itwill not be able to monitor the contractor’s com-pliance.

The UK Department for International Devel-opment (UK/DFID) has recently made a signifi-cant breakthrough in this respect. Through

careful research and action in a number of devel-oping countries, the Social Aspects of Construc-tion (SAC) project has not only shown thepossibility of inserting labour clauses into a varietyof different types of construction contract, but hasalso demonstrated how contract compliance canbe monitored and enforced from within, by thewhole project team, during the normal inspectionprocess (Ladbury et al., 2003). A further innova-tion demonstrated by the project is the calculationof additional costs of compliance and their inclu-sion as preliminary cost items in the Bill of Quan-tities. In this way the cost of observing labourstandards is taken out of competition.

Details of the DFID/SAC approach and howto apply it have been set out in a source book avail-able on the Internet (www.lboro.ac.uk/wedc/pro-jects/sac/index.htm). One great advantage of thisapproach is that it can be tested and applied onany scale, from a single contract to a whole coun-try programme. In the case of commercial con-tracts, the initiative to do so may come from thedonor, the client or the client’s representatives –the consultants of the construction industry(architects, engineers and quantity surveyors).

The support and involvement of consultants inthis approach would seem to be particularlyimportant, as they will have additional responsi-bilities in the pre-bidding and bidding processesas well as in monitoring contract compliance.Supervising architects and engineers make fre-quent visits to construction sites. They are wellplaced to observe working and living conditionsat these sites. Many have already registered con-cern at the widespread abuse of labour rights.

Some are already taking action on their own ini-tiative. The potential that the DFID/SACapproach presents for greater involvement of theconsulting industry in social responsibility issues istherefore generally to be welcomed.

The ILO is now launching a new initiative topromote “Socially Responsible ConstructionInvestment”. The initiative will bring together rep-resentatives of government, employers and workerswith other major stakeholders in the constructionsector. The aim will be to agree a strategy anddevelop an action plan to improve implementationof key labour standards in construction projects, aswell as to promote productive employment in theconstruction sector.

ReferencesILO (2001a) The Construction Industry in the Twenty-First Century: Its image, employment prospects and skillrequirements. ILO, Geneva.

ILO (2001b) Note on the Proceedings: Tripartite Meeting

on the Construction Industry in the 21st Century: Its image,employment prospects and skill requirements, Geneva, 10-14 December 2001. ILO, Geneva.

Ladbury, Sarah, Andrew Cotton and Mary Jennings(2003) Implementing Labour Standards in Construction:A Sourcebook. Water, Engineering and DevelopmentCentre, Loughborough University, 2003. This docu-ment can be downloaded at www.lboro.ac.uk/wedc/pub-lications/ilsic.htm.

López-Valcárcel, A. (2001) Occupational Safety andHealth in Construction Work, African Newsletter onOccupational Health and Safety, 11/1. Published by theFinnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuk-senkatu 41 a A, FIN-00250 Helsinki.

◆



Construction is one of the EU’s most impor-tant industries. It is responsible for pro-duction, assembly, disassembly, rehabilita-

tion and maintenance of residential buildings,non-residential buildings and the physical infra-structure, which provide the framework or basisfor many if not all of our activities. It enables – andis driven by – structural changes in the economy,as indicated by growth in non-residential con-struction (e.g. offices, commercial buildings) andthe decline of civil engineering since the mid-1990s.

Construction is a major factor in the EU’s driveto raise the level of potential (and sustainable)output. Concerning the latter, the constructionsector’s impact on society and the environmentshould not be overlooked. The process itself drawson the environment for its resources and (via itsoutput) contributes significantly to environmen-tal pollution. Its activities and output can and docontribute significantly to the existence and reso-lution of major social problems such as immigra-tion, social divisions and poverty.

Construction is an important activity in its own

right, providing income and employment tomany people. Its core activity (on-site work byspecialist builders, including assembly of mainframes and building envelopes, installation ofelectricity services and technical equipment, fin-ishing work) accounts for approximately 5% ofeconomic activity in the EU and employs 7% ofthe EU’s workforce.1

This activity is only part of the constructionprocess. The boundaries of the construction sectorare debatable, and the process clearly involvesmany activities that are not carried out by buildingfirms and therefore not accounted for by tradi-tional measures concerned with constructionactivity. These activities include design (architec-tural work, engineering, surveying), project man-agement, the manufacture and distribution ofmaterials, components and equipment, extractionand distribution of aggregates, sand and gravel,research and development, and various real estateactivities.

Physical and social conditionsConstruction and its final outputs are subject to anumber of unique physical and interrelated socialconditions. The product is spatially and tempo-rally fixed, and a large proportion of constructionwork takes place on-site – where it is subject to thevagaries of nature. It is further constrained by thenature of the product (or needs of the client) andthe level of technical development, in terms of thematerials, components, equipment and labouravailable to meet those needs.

On-site construction is mainly undertaken bysmall local firms. There are relatively few largefirms and relatively little export activity (i.e. littleinternational trade), although in the case of largeprojects intra- and extra-export activity has beenincreasing within the EU. The vast majority ofconstruction firms (90%) are small to medium-sized; of these, 93% are micro firms (fewer thanten employees). These firms employ 50% of thetotal construction workforce. Some 55% have noemployees (workers are self-employed); roughly25% of the labour force is self-employed.

This industry is labour intensive. Labour ismostly undertaken by males. The level of educa-tion is lower than average although this is highlyspread, ranging from tertiary (engineers) to lowersecondary (low-skilled labourers). Employment isrelatively insecure, with 19% of constructionworkers on temporary contracts.

Promoting innovation in construction SMEs:an EU case study

Alex Wharton, Research Fellow, School of Construction and Property Management, University of Salford, Salford M7 1NU, United Kingdom

([email protected])

David Payne, Senior Research Scientist, VTT Building & Transport, PO Box 1803, FIN-02044 VTT, Finland

SummaryConstruction is one of the oldest and most important industries. It provides shelter and a phys-ical framework or basis for many human activities. It enables us to live, socialize and exploit ourenvironment – in short, to realize our potential. However, it also constrains our potential inthat it imposes limits on enterprise, innovation, productivity and the ability to sustain growthby tackling poverty, social exclusion and climate change. This article describes the main fea-tures of the EU construction sector and addresses some problems related to promoting sus-tainable construction. The basic needs of construction SMEs in particular are described, as wellas measures being taken to address these needs. Europe and developed countries on othercontinents may have much to learn from the development approach and support systems ofprojects in developing countries.

RésuméLe bâtiment est l’un des secteurs d’activité les plus anciens et les plus importants. Il procureun refuge et un cadre ou une base physique à de nombreuses activités humaines. Il nous per-met de vivre, d’avoir des relations sociales et d’exploiter notre environnement, bref de réalisernotre potentiel. Mais il exerce aussi une contrainte sur notre potentiel du fait qu’il impose deslimites à l’esprit d’entreprise, à l’innovation, à la productivité et à notre capacité de lutter con-tre la pauvreté, l’exclusion sociale et le changement climatique. L’article décrit les principalescaractéristiques du secteur du bâtiment dans l’UE et aborde quelques-uns des problèmes quifreinent le développement durable du secteur. Il évoque en particulier les besoins fondamen-taux des PME du bâtiment, ainsi que les mesures actuellement prises pour y répondre. L’Europeet les pays développés d’autres continents auraient peut-être beaucoup à apprendre desmécanismes de développement et de soutien des projets des pays en développement.

ResumenLa construcción es una de nuestras industrias más antiguas y una de las más importantes.Provee protección y una base o contexto físico para muchas actividades del ser humano. Nospermite vivir, socializar y aprovechar nuestro medio ambiente: nos permite realizar nuestropotencial. Sin embargo, también limita nuestro potencial ya que impone límites a las empre-sas, la innovación, la productividad y a nuestra capacidad de contener la pobreza, la exclusiónsocial y el cambio climático. El artículo describe las características principales del sector de laconstrucción de la Unión Europea y trata sobre algunos problemas que conlleva el fomento dela construcción sostenible. Describe en particular las necesidades básicas de las PYMES de laconstrucción, así como las medidas que se toman para satisfacer dichas necesidades. Europay los países desarrollados en otros continentes tienen mucho que aprender del enfoque que sele da al desarrollo y a sistemas de apoyo de proyectos en los países en desarrollo.



Of course there is no general model for the con-struction process. Rather, there are a many con-struction processes that vary according to the typeof project: residential, non-residential or civil. Dif-ferences are associated with the organization of theproject and the general organization of the indus-try (e.g. contrast the organization of speculativehouse-building with the relatively complex formsof contracting used to organize many non-resi-dential projects). Processes vary according to theactivities directly associated with implementationor execution of specific building projects, such asdesign and assembly. They also vary with theactivities indirectly associated with the process,such as prefabrication. Differences may arise basedon the unique geographical and historical cir-cumstances that exist in different countries andregions.

Construction processes also change. They mayevolve according to economic and social develop-ments within and outside the industry. In the UK,for example, conflicts between large-scale capital-ist (i.e. for-profit) building firms and their clients,workforces, subcontractors and design profes-sionals have resulted in a significant shift towardsmarket-based organization of construction in theform of pyramidal subcontracting (i.e. market-based division of labour, with firms becominghighly specialized). The main contractor, usuallya large firm, manages the project or at least con-struction work. Subcontractors provide work tospecialist firms that undertake actual constructionwork and subcontract some work to other firms).

This has been accompanied by a considerablereduction in the management role of architects,abolition of fee scales for professional services, newtechniques in construction management (e.g. fast-tracking and design-and-build), increased use ofcompetitive tendering for public sector contracts,increased use of various professional services (ten-dering, surveying, legal), specialization in coreactivities and associated outsourcing of equip-ment, materials and components, and (morerecently) informal vertical and horizontal integra-tion as a means of better managing risks associat-ed with the contracting system.

The CONSTRINNONET projectThe physical and social conditions of construc-tion also have an important effect on the behav-iour and, therefore, the needs of individualconstruction firms. In the UK, large capitalistbuilding firms have accumulated capital by man-aging an evolving portfolio of projects and usingthe contracting system to source design, con-struction, materials, components and equipment.Their individual needs are predominantly man-agerial. By contrast, smaller specialist subcontrac-tors compete for work in a highly competitiveenvironment. They need to be flexible opera-tionally in terms of what they do and how they doit, which requires specific operational and man-agerial skills. Moreover, if they are to exercise morecontrol over their business environment and bet-ter manage their workload and cash flow as apotential basis for growth, they require other man-agerial skills including that of managing networks

of clients, suppliers and collaborators throughpartnerships, joint ventures, framework agree-ments and other organizational innovations.

The issue of needs is important to policy mak-ers throughout the EU. It helps answer seriousquestions about the performance of construction– i.e. about the quality of products, project delays,cost overruns, productivity, environmentalimpacts, social impacts and general economicimpacts. Construction firms will be relied uponto take action to remedy those problems.

However, the interests of the EU extend beyondthose of construction firms to the “collective inter-ests” of the industry, economy, society and envi-ronment. The goal of the EU’s Lisbon strategyand the ultimate goal of EU industrial policy is tomake the EU “the most competitive and dynam-ic knowledge-based economy in the world, capa-ble of sustainable growth and more and better jobsand greater social cohesion” by 2010.

From that perspective, construction firms needto provide better value-for-money for their imme-diate clients and for society in general. This canonly be done with some form of outside state-sponsored intervention. The question is: howshould the state intervene?

Industrial policy is one of the main policy areasaffecting construction. EU industrial policy hasthree main objectives: knowledge, innovation andentrepreneurship. This approach involves theframework conditions within which industry canfind its own solutions. These can be developedaccording to the specific needs and characteristicsof individual sectors, regions and countriestogether with other policies such as competition,regional, research and development, education,trade and sustainable development.

Against this backdrop, a project is currentlybeing undertaken to promote innovation in smalland medium-sized construction enterprises. TheCONSTRINNONET project is funded by theEU as part of its Fifth Framework Programme forRTD (research, technological development anddemonstration).2 This project has two mainobjectives: to explain the process of innovation inconstruction SMEs; and to show how nationaland EU-wide business support programmes canbe designed, organized and/or implemented topromote successful innovation in constructionSMEs. The 36-month project will be completedin May 2004.

Innovation has a dual meaning. It can refer to aprocess and/or to the outcome of the process, i.e.“successful innovation”. According to the EU,innovation involves activities intended to result oractually resulting in the use of new or improvedproducts or processes. This includes creation,development and implementation of new knowl-edge. The knowledge can be technological ororganizational. It can be new to the world, theindustry or the firm. It involves development anddiffusion of new science-based technologies andthe packaging or fusion of existing technologies.It also involves organizational change, which isoften combined with technological innovation.3

The construction industry has a long history ofsuccessful innovation. It has used new or

improved materials, components, tools and activ-ities, and new ways of organizing projects. Recentexamples of process innovations include fast-trackconstruction (simultaneous production of draw-ings and of the final building), design-and-build(e.g. in the case of small, standardized or propri-etary factories and warehouses), prefabrication,outsourcing of tools, automation (including useof robots), new communications technology(including e-business), and new and improvedplant technology (e.g. related to cranes, earth-moving equipment, drills, scaffolding). Recentexamples of product innovation include “intelli-gent” buildings (e.g. incorporating wireless tech-nology), new lighting technology (e.g. fibre-optics), new composites (including technicalimprovements to concrete and glass, use of recy-cled plastic and wood), improvements to steelframe technology, and new air-cooling systems.

Innovation in the constructionindustryThe nature and extent of innovation in construc-tion, like construction itself, is very different fromthat of other industries. Both depend critically onthe physical nature of construction and its socialand economic organization. In turn, these condi-tions depend on specific geographical and histor-ical circumstances. For example, it has beendifficult for individual building firms in the UKto gain market advantage over competitors inother countries through technical innovation,especially where this requires large amounts offixed capital, due to variable exchange conditionsand production conditions and the prevalence ofsub-contracting. Indeed, most of the UK’s largerbuilding firms prefer to outsource workforce,equipment and materials. Similarly, many of thesmaller specialist sub-contractors find that it ismore cost-effective to outsource materials andcomponents if not equipment. A fairly clear mar-ket-based division has therefore arisen betweendirect construction activities on one hand andproduction of building materials and tools on theother.

The economics of the industry in the UK andelsewhere mean that there is relatively little techni-cal innovation in construction. Manufacturersmust create and develop knowledge, either them-selves or in partnership with specialist R&D orga-nizations, which they must then sell to con-struction firms and design professionals. Thisproblem (selling materials, components andequipment) has in fact led to several organization-al and technical innovations. These are mostlyorganizational innovations. Some are ancillarytechnical innovations or innovations in theexchange sphere (e.g. e-business). Technical inno-vations in the production sphere (e.g. materialsand tools) appear to be shaped by, for example,standardization and inhibited (relatively little) bythe diversion of manufacturing and indeed theownership and maintenance of equipment fromcore construction (e.g. materials producers thatoperate as specialist sub-contractors or formalliances with specialist subcontractors; e-business;standardization of materials and components).



The ability to sell the knowledge often requiresthe development of operative skills, which indi-vidual construction firms are reluctant to finance,and the capacity to take risks, which tends to belacking among smaller, petty capitalist or pettycommodity producers operating in a highly com-petitive and uncertain environment.

The challenge for government and governmen-tal agencies is to correct these industrial failures:to identify and promote the use of superior pro-duction techniques, materials and components;identify and fill skills gaps; and encourage appro-priate risk-taking. Or, in other words, to reconcilethe interests of individual firms to the collectiveinterests of the industry, economy, society andenvironment.

But what should be done to help the industrydeal with and exploit the externalities and othertypes of industrial failure that inhibit its willing-ness and/or ability to create, develop, apply anddiffuse knowledge? What should be done toencourage and help SME building firms traintheir operatives? What should be done to promoteorganizational change in the design profession?What should be done to help building materialsfirms and engineers invest in new technology,bearing in mind the nature of the core process ofconstruction? What should be done to promoterisk-taking by design and construction SMEs?What should be done to improve the key inter-faces a) between universities, research organiza-tions and the industry; and b) within projects andbetween clients, users, building contractors,designers, manufacturers, and regulators?4

The EU, its Member States and its CandidateStates have established various mechanisms topromote “successful [sustainable] innovation”.They include direct innovation initiatives andindirect knowledge and enterprise initiatives.They also include financial support (subsidies,grants, loans) for individual and collective RTD;technology advice services; coordination mecha-nisms that raise awareness of, improve access to,and support the use of knowledge; “one-stopshops” or single contact points for innovation sup-port; specific help for seedling companies; variousnetworking initiatives; training programmes;business information for effective decision mak-ing; Business Angel networks to improve access toventure capital; and best practice programmes.

Existing mechanisms are predominantly hori-zontal in nature, with no specific targeting of par-ticular industries or sectors. However, some havebeen designed to promote successful innovationin construction. There are construction-specifictechnology advice services (e.g. in Belgium);national construction technology programmes (inFinland); applications of research and innovationprogrammes to construction (in France); pro-grammes to promote sustainable building (inGreece); construction industry training pro-grammes and various best practice initiatives (inthe UK).

Addressing the needs of SMEsAlthough there is little hard statistical data on theperformance of these initiatives, anecdotal evi-

dence suggests that few address the specific needsof individual construction SMEs. Many are moresuitable to the manufacturers of building materi-als, components and tools, rather than actual con-struction firms; those that are suited toconstruction firms, such as the Rethinking Con-struction programmes in the UK, are usually bestsuited to large firms. Thus very few constructionSMEs are aware of the mechanisms and evenfewer make use of them. Many simply do not havethe time to make use of these mechanisms orregard the investment as too risky or inappropri-ate. Many argue that the process of getting finan-cial support, for example, is too bureaucratic andtoo long, especially for businesses relying on short-term projects, flexibility and a rapid turnover ofcapital.

The CONSTRINNONET project is seekingto discover how these and other initiatives can ordo promote successful innovation in constructionSMEs. Case studies and pilot actions are beingdeveloped in each of the seven regions covered bythe project. Studies and actions reflect the differ-ent characteristics of project partners, the nation-al culture and the prevailing form of innovationsystem, as well as the perceived needs (individualand collective) of construction and construction-related SMEs in their different regions.

One partner is developing a single entry pointsystem that could give construction and con-struction related SMEs in its country immediatebasic access to EU and national services. Many ofthe existing single entry point systems are not tai-lored to fit the needs of construction firms, nevermind construction SMEs. And no such systemhas been designed for construction SMEs there.The process of developing and implementingsuch a system would provide a test case for its usein other countries and provide valuable data con-cerning the needs of construction SMEs and theperformance of various related business supportsystems which could be used to produce case stud-ies and develop other ideas for action. It couldcomplement similar but broader initiatives, suchas the EU’s B2Europe initiative, by actually fittingthose initiatives to the needs of constructionSMEs or showing how that could be done.5

In the UK, the government and its variousagencies (e.g. the Small Business Service, Region-al Development Agencies, the ConstructionIndustry Training Board, Rethinking Construc-tion, Learning and Skills Councils) are workingtogether in various combinations and with vari-ous members of the industry to develop new orimproved support programmes for constructionSMEs. They have established teams of advisors(e.g. the Manchester Construction Partnership)that work with construction SMEs to identify andsource appropriate support, some of which hasbeen designed for those construction SMEsspecifically as part of the service. They use exist-ing benchmarking tools to improve the advicethey give construction SMEs. They have estab-lished regional centers of innovation in construc-tion (e.g. the Centre for Construction Innovationin Manchester and the Centre for Knowledge andInnovation in Building Technologies in Stoke),

which offer concentrated support for various con-struction SMEs.

They also continue to develop strategies to pro-mote specific programmes that have been under-utilized by construction SMEs. Most of theseinitiatives are only recently underway, so it willtake time to report on the results. However, theManchester Construction Partnership has beensuccessful in increasing use of SBS support byconstruction SMEs.

Another partner is working with a network ofconstruction SMEs, regional development centresand national bodies to promote constructionrelated aspects of sustainable development such aseco-efficient housing and environmental consid-erations. Other actions by the various partners areplanned. They include, among others, a guide togood practice in promoting innovation in con-struction SMEs and a guide to EU support in thissector that would be written for constructionSMEs.

Such guides might include examples of suc-cessful innovation, knowledge and/or enterpriseinitiatives. The initiatives may be regional,national and/or EU-wide. Some may have beendesigned to support construction or construction-related SMEs. The rest will have been adaptedaccording to specific needs and characteristics ofthose firms. In either case, the main objective willbe to show how governments have promotedinnovation in construction SMEs (e.g. casesmight explain the needs of the targeted SMEs,how initiatives were designed, adapted and/orapplied to fit those needs, and the performance ofthe initiatives in terms of their efficiency and effec-tiveness in promoting innovation in constructionSMEs). There are other guides to best practice,such as the EU’s Top Class Business Support Ser-vices,6 but they do not explain the problems ofpromoting innovation in construction SMEs oractions that have or can be taken to resolve them.

Exchange events have been planned in a num-ber of regions. These events will bring togetherbusiness support organizations, representatives ofconstruction SMEs, and case SMEs to exchangeinformation about business support. More impor-tant, they will provide opportunities for businesssupport organizations to learn from one anotherand to work together to improve their services toconstruction SMEs.

Some wider considerations with respect to SMEbehaviour in other countries might be raised,although the CONSTRINNONET project (deal-ing primarily with Europe) is only partly throughits work. Construction activity, including its asso-ciated industrial branches and the SMEs that pre-dominate within it, is clearly present andcharacterized by similar traits, as outlined previ-ously, in many other countries outside Europe.The project’s current involvement in other inter-national study initiatives on innovation in con-struction point to such a situation. This is not tosuggest that blueprint solutions can be appliedindiscriminately to constraints facing SMEs in thesector. The very fact that there is a strong culturalelement in buildings and construction, togetherwith the localization of activity, warn against such



a notion. In addition, systems and structures thatsupport innovation in general are of course verydifferent across countries of the world.

Developing countries are no exception in dis-playing many of the features and issues related toconstruction that the project has studied. Whilesome cultural dimensions may predominate, andbasic needs for housing and infrastructure takepriority over the need for innovation, the sector’sSMEs still face corresponding issues (e.g. infor-mation, time and skills, contracts). However,there may be more for Europe and the largerdeveloped countries to learn from the develop-ment approach and support systems of projects indeveloping countries. Here there may be furtherclues to best practice in support of constructionSMEs, where effectiveness of programmes and

impact measurement are key ingredients.

Notes1. Eurostat (2000) Panorama of European Business.This publication is the source of statistical datacited elsewhere in this article. The classification ofconstruction is part of the NACE Rev. 1 classifica-tion of economic activities published by Eurostat. 2. EC-funded project IPS-2000-00002, with Uni-versity of Salford (UK), Carsa (Spain), BelgianBuilding Research Institute, Centre Scientifique etTechnique du Bâtiment (France), Paragon Ltd.(Estonia), Vilnius Gediminas Technical Universi-ty (Latvia), VTT (Technical Research Centre ofFinland) Building and Transport (Coordinator,Finland).3. See, for example, Innovation and Technology

Transfer, February 2003 (special issue), EuropeanTrend Chart on Innovation: Reviewing Europe’sProgress in 2002.4. On the problem of organization see, for exam-ple, B. Atkin, Innovation in the Construction Sector,ECCREDI, 1999, and L. Koskela, How can con-struction research be organized? An overseas com-ment on the Fairclough Review, Building Researchand Information 30:5, 2002, pp. 305-11.5. For more information on the B2Europe initia-tive, see European Commission press releaseIP/03/317 (http://europa.eu.int/rapid/start/cgi/guesten.ksh?p_action.gettxt=gt&doc=IP/03/317|0|RAPID&lg=EN).6. http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/entre-preneurship/support_measures/top-class/best-proc.htm. ◆



CIB W100, the Working Group on Envi-ronmental Assessment of Buildings of theNetherlands-based International Council

for Research and Innovation in buildings and con-struction (of which the authors are joint coordi-nators), recently undertook the updating of areview of environmental assessment methods car-ried out between 1996 and 1999 under the aus-pices of the International Energy Agency (IEA).Here we report some of the latest developments.

The IEA project (“Annex 31: Energy-RelatedEnvironmental Impact of Buildings”) producedan overview of methods and tools in 14 countries.All the countries whose latest approaches are dis-cussed below were part of the Annex 31 group.

The CIB W100 review found that the numberof countries developing and implementing envi-ronmental assessment methods and tools forbuildings is increasing. The latest tools addressenvironmental issues – not only during particular

design stages but also in building operation, as theagenda for environmental assessment becomesmore targeted to daily design and managementdecisions.

The first four approaches discussed here aretools intended for assessment of existing buildings.The last two are, in effect, frameworks that includesuch tools. Most of these tools combine self-assess-ment with some type of external verification,which is often related to certification. This processguarantees quality while allowing the parties mostclosely involved to work directly with the method.

The intended users of most environmentalassessment tools for buildings are property own-ers and managers. However, at least two of themethods reviewed below have (or will have) acomponent for use by tenants and other buildingusers. In general, office buildings and commercialproperties form the main target market. At leasttwo of the methods include a version specificallygeared for single-family houses; one of themappears to have encountered administrative prob-lems.

NABERS (Australia)The National Australian Building EnvironmentalRating System (NABERS) project, begun in2001, aims to develop Australia’s first compre-hensive rating system for existing, operationalbuildings. This system, a pilot version of whichwas due to be launched in 2003, will be capableof rating both office buildings and homes. Otherbuilding types may be added later.

NABERS is being designed as a performance-based rating system measuring a building’s actualenvironmental impact during operation, usingreal measurements rather than simulations, pre-dictions or estimates. A NABERS assessment willtake into account both building and user consid-erations.

NABERS will be a voluntary rating system, andself-assessment will be possible. However, formalcertified ratings will be encouraged, especiallywhere a NABERS rating is to be made public. Itwill be possible for an assessment to be conductedonly once, but it is planned to have ratings madeannually to encourage continued improvement.

NABERS assesses only those environmentalfactors relevant for existing buildings, includingenergy use, water use, storm water volume andpollution, sewage outfall, site ecology/biodiversi-ty, transport, waste, indoor air quality, comfortand toxic materials.

SummaryMany countries have adopted environmental assessment methods that can support decisionmaking in building management. Working Group 100 of the International Council for Researchand Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB W100) has been reviewing implementationof several such methods. The Australian, Swedish, Norwegian and Canadian tools presentedin this article are intended for assessment of existing buildings. The French and Japaneseapproaches include tools for existing buildings. Strengths and weaknesses of each method arebriefly discussed. Most combine self-assessment with some type of external verification (oftenrelated to certification), which guarantees quality while allowing the parties most closelyinvolved to work directly with the method. Environmental assessment methods and tools forbuildings are being developed and implemented in a growing number of countries. The mostrecent approaches address environmental issues not only at various design stages but alsoduring building operation.

RésuméDe nombreux pays ont adopté des méthodes d’évaluation environnementale à même d’appuy-er le processus décisionnel dans la gestion des bâtiments. Le groupe de travail 100 du Conseilinternational pour la recherche et l’innovation dans le bâtiment (CIB W100) a fait le point surla mise en œuvre de plusieurs de ces méthodes. Les outils australiens, suédois, norvégiens etcanadiens présentés dans cet article sont destinés à l’évaluation des édifices existants. Ceux dela France et du Japon comportent des outils pour les édifices existants. L’auteur mentionnebrièvement les atouts et les points faibles de chaque outil. La plupart combinent une autoé-valuation et une certaine forme de contrôle externe (souvent liée à la certification) qui garan-tit la qualité, tout en permettant aux parties les plus directement concernées d’utiliserdirectement la méthode. De plus en plus de pays entreprennent d’élaborer et de mettre enœuvre des méthodes et outils d’évaluation environnementale pour le bâtiment. La tendancerécente est d’aborder les questions d’environnement non seulement aux diverses étapes de laconception, mais aussi pendant la phase de construction.

ResumenMuchos países han adoptado métodos de evaluación medioambiental que pueden apoyar latoma de decisiones en la gestión de los edificios. El Grupo de Trabajo 100 del Consejo Inter-nacional para la Investigación e Innovación en Edificios y en la Construcción (CIB W100) haestudiado la implementación de varios de estos métodos. Las herramientas utilizadas en Aus-tralia, Suecia, Noruega y Canadá presentadas en el artículo están destinadas a la evaluaciónde edificios existentes. Las de Francia y Japón incluyen herramientas para edificios existentes.Los autores reseñan las ventajas y desventajas de cada una de las herramientas. La mayoríacombina la autoevaluación con otro tipo de verificación externa (a menudo relacionada con lacertificación) que ofrece garantías de calidad y permite que las partes más implicadas traba-jen directamente con el método. Cada vez más países desarrollan e implementan métodos yherramientas de evaluación ambiental para edificios. Los enfoques más recientes tratan lascuestiones medioambientales en varias etapas del diseño y también mientras el edificio está enfuncionamiento.

Tools for environmental assessment of existing buildings

Chiel Boonstra, DHV Building and Environment, PO Box 80007, 5600 JZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands ([email protected])

Trine Dyrstad Pettersen, Norwegian Building Research Institute, Post Box 123, Blindern, 0314 Oslo, Norway ([email protected])



StrengthsThe existing building stock, for which NABERSis designed, is always going to be the vast majori-ty of buildings.

NABERS aims to promote continued improve-ment in the design profession and in user behaviour.

Because NABERS uses real measurements andis intended to serve as a reporting and perfor-mance management tool, it should help bridgethe gap between design intention and actual envi-ronmental outcomes.

WeaknessesBecause NABERS does not address other phasesof a building’s life cycle (though it clearly hasstrong implications for design as well), it mustalways be seen as just one part of a holisticapproach to a sustainable built environment.

Environmental Status (Miljöstatus)(Sweden)Environmental Status is a system for inspectionand assessment of buildings. It covers about 90environmental aspects, divided into four maingroups: indoor environment, outdoor environ-ment, energy, and natural resources. Each aspect isgraded on a five-point scale: 5 is “sound through-out” and 1 is “bad.” The inspection is primarilyvisual, but it can include simple measurements ofVOCs, formaldehyde, air circulation effectivenessand radon. It may be supplemented by question-naires and further tests if necessary.

The Association for the Environmental Statusof Buildings, grouping about 40 member organi-zations (mostly building owners), administers thesystem. The association began developing theEnvironmental Status Model in 1995. The systemwent into operation as a practical tool for facilitymanagement in April 1997. Version 4 waslaunched in January 2002.

The results of the environmental inspection areprocessed as a report, including a series of graphsknown as “environmental status roses” (Figure 1).

Some 2000 buildings, totalling around 15 mil-lion square metres, have been inspected. About600 people have been trained and licensed to usethe system, which is widely accepted in the realestate sector.

Property owners can use the system as part ofthe inventory procedure before introducing anenvironmental management system. Buildingmanagers use it to aid in operations and mainte-nance planning. With the introduction of Version4, tenants can also now use the system to docu-ment their own environmental steps and workwith owners on finding solutions (e.g. regardingenergy and water use). It is also aimed at financingbodies, insurers and prospective buyers.

StrengthsThe system was developed on the basis of mem-ber organizations’ requirements.

A large member group supports and uses thesystem.

The method is simple enough to keep costsacceptable, but this simplicity is not at the expenseof reliability.

WeaknessesNone reported.

Ecoprofile (Norway)Ecoprofile is an official, voluntary environmentalclassification method for buildings. It is based onthe classification of about 80 performance para-meters in three areas: external environment,resources, and indoor climate. The parametersdescribe the building itself as well as maintenance,operation and use. A single index is presented foreach of the three areas.

Self-assessment is possible for internal use, buta formal, certified rating is needed if the assess-ment is to be made public.

Ecoprofile was developed by a group of buildingowners, experts and researchers to assess existingcommercial buildings. Later versions exist for eval-uating existing houses and as a planning tool forhouses. The method, begun in 1994 and original-ly called Environmental Profile, was merged withanother Norwegian building assessment methodand launched in its current form in late 1999.

About 60 official assessments of commercialbuildings were carried out in 2000-01. Some 60houses were evaluated during the assessor trainingperiod. About 100 assessors have been trained.

During its two first years the programme wasorganized and marketed by the EcoBuild pro-gramme. Since 2002 the Ecoprofile method hasbeen owned by Byggforsk, the Norwegian Build-ing Research Institute. The method was not mar-keted in 2002 due to funding limitations, and nobuildings were assessed. So far Ecoprofile cannot

be said to have been a success.To establish the method on the market, it may

be necessary to change the concept, for exampleby producing one index instead of three, reducingthe number of parameters, and improving theweighting of parameters.

Green Globes (Canada)Green Globes, an on-line energy and environ-mental assessment method, is part of theBREEAM/Green Leaf suite of assessment toolsfor buildings. It uses an interactive, Web-enabled,confidential questionnaire from which it gener-ates a report. Separate versions address operationand management of existing buildings and designof new buildings.

The method is simple. Registered users com-plete the questionnaire, which seeks to determinehow well the building and its management mea-sure up against the best in areas such as energy,water, hazardous materials, waste managementand indoor environment. Most questions can beanswered “yes” or “no.” The process takes abouttwo hours.

Once the questionnaire is completed, an on-line report is generated highlighting the building’sachievements, quantifying its energy performanceand greenhouse gas emissions, and recommend-ing areas for improvement, with the order of mag-nitude of potential cost savings.

In Canada, BREEAM/Green Leaf tools wereoriginally developed for building users, who want-ed an affordable, streamlined method. Governmentorganizations, a federation of municipalities, a hotel

Figure 1 Environmental status (Miljöstatus) system: a rose graph

The larger the environmental rose, the better the environmental status

LightIndoor air

Radon

Cleanability

Thermal climate

Noise

Legionnaires' disease

Moisture

Electric and magnetic fields5

4

3

2

1

0



association and major property man-agement firms have used the tools. AUK version of Green Globes, calledGEM, was launched in 2002.

Green Globes is a self-assessmentmethod, used chiefly by propertyowners and managers. Third-partyverification, resulting in certifica-tion, is being put in place. Certifiedbuildings will be able to display aplaque publicizing their perfor-mance. Certification will also allowcomparison of buildings that havehad their data verified.

The method’s first year of opera-tion was 2002, during which morethan 100 users registered for existing buildingassessments.

StrengthsThe Green Globes report uses the same headingsrecommended for preparing a submission for theEarth Awards administered by the Building Own-ers and Managers Association. BOMA reportedthat, as a result:◆ the number of Earth Award submissions dou-bled from the previous year;◆ entrants said it was easier to prepare submis-sions, most of which reportedly took less than aweek;◆ the quality and appearance of the submissionsimproved;◆ third-party verification by the BOMA awardscommittee confirmed the ratings generated byGreen Globes;◆ submissions’ high level of accuracy indicates thatthe questions are specific, clear and not open tomisinterpretation.

WeaknessesFunding is inadequate, particularly for rapid com-mercialization.

HQE (France)HQE is short for haute qualité environnementale(“high environmental quality”). It is a national cer-tification system for non-residential buildings suchas offices, schools, hotels andshopping centres. The namerecently became a registeredtrademark. In 2002 the methodentered a two-year test period,during which it is being appliedto controlled pilot projects. It isthen expected to become officialafter formal approval by an adhoc committee.

The system identifies 14 envi-ronmental issues and covers twoaspects: environmental qualityof the building, and environ-mental management of theentire project. The two aspectshave been translated into linkedreference frameworks, with per-formance criteria in the first andmanagement requirements in

the second. This “two-in-one” concept is HUE’smost original aspect.

The HQE Association, whose members rangefrom French ministries and other governmentagencies to engineering firms, architects and con-struction material manufacturers, was founded in1996. The following year it defined the 14 envi-ronmental issues. These fall into four main areas,the first two having to do with the exterior envi-ronment and the second two with the interior(Table 1).

Three levels of performance were set: “basic,”corresponding to current regulations or normalpractice; “good”; and “very good”.

Certification will be granted upon achievementof a “minimum environmental profile” (Figure 2)comprising a “very good” rating for at least threeissues, “good” for at least four and “basic” for nomore than seven.

For the “good” and “very good” rankings, a“principle of equivalence” is allowed. That is, theapplicant can suggest an alternative assessmentapproach to that described in the HQE referenceframework in the case of any of the 14 issues.

Assessment is voluntary, but certification willrequire verification by an independent body. Latera further stage is to be developed, covering opera-tion and maintenance of the building.

The main users of the HQE approach thus far,both before its formalization in 2002 and duringthe test period, have been public authorities. The

method is geared particularlyto use by building owners andmanagers.

StrengthsThe technical part of the sys-tem is structured along a set of14 issues that is now wellknown by French profession-als, having been disseminatedthrough conferences, trainingprogrammes, written publica-tions, etc. for five years.

WeaknessesThe system still meets opposi-

tion and criticism among some designers. Thesecritics think the HQE approach should remain a“free movement” used voluntarily. They fear stan-dardization of the approach will lead to buildingdesign driven by certification requirements.

CASBEE (Japan)The Comprehensive Assessment System forBuilding Environmental Efficiency (CASBEE)was introduced in 2002. It involves environmen-tal assessment of buildings using categorieslabelled “Q, Building Environmental Quality andPerformance” and “L, Building EnvironmentalLoadings”. The categories are defined in accor-dance with hypothetical boundaries around abuilding site. Once assessment results are foundfor each category, Building Environmental Effi-ciency (BEE) can be determined: BEE = Q/L.

A graphical expression based on BEE suggestshow it can be applied to a building’s environmen-tal labelling. If Q is plotted on the vertical axis andL on the horizontal axis, the BEE values can bedisplayed as the gradients of lines connecting theassessment results and the origin (0,0) (Figure 3).The assessment results can thus be presented inthe following classes, in order of increasing BEEvalues: C (less sustainable), B-, B+, A and S (moresustainable).

CASBEE was developed by representatives ofgovernment, academia and industry as a joint pro-ject. It covers four assessment aspects: energy con-

sumption, resource productivity,local environments, and indoorenvironments.

It will comprise four assess-ment tools and a design process.Among the tools, only the“design for environment” (DfE)tool has been completed thus far.The others concern pre-designassessment, eco-labelling, andsustainable operations and reno-vation. Software and user manu-als are being developed forapplication of the DfE tool andapplied in various types of build-ings. The results of these assess-ments are under review.

CASBEE is expected to beused initially by designers andbuilding engineers, with later

Figure 2HQE: minimum environmental profile

Environmental profile based on 14 environmental targets

Very good

Good

Basic

At least

3 targets met At

least 4 targets

met7 targets or more met

Figure 3Graphical expression of environmental labelling based on BEE

L (building environmental loadings)0

0

50

50 100

BEE = 3.0 BEE = 1.5 BEE = 1.0

BEE = 0.5standard

100S A

B

B-

C

(mor

e su

stai

nabl

e)

(less sustainable)

Q (

build

ing

envi

ronm

enta

l qu

ality

and

per

form

ance

)

ordinary buildingenvironmentally well designed building (model case)



use extending to the entireconstruction sector and toclients.

ConclusionsPrinciples of sustainabilityneed to be integrated into themaintenance and manage-ment of buildings, addressingenvironmental targets ofglobal, national, regional andlocal relevance for the short,medium and long term.

A clear link between envi-ronmental issues and theimpact caused by a buildingmust be established and com-municated. The need is for environmental assess-ment methods that respond to environmentalissues and define sustainable levels in the existinglanguage and parameters of the sector.

Although the issues raised in the methods over-lap, each country launching a method developsindicators for its own market. The developmentof environmental assessment tools has been mostsuccessful in countries where government, indus-try, developers, architects and life-cycle specialists

develop a common language and indicators.There is a trend to address environmental issues

in relation to decision making steps. Most toolshave started from completed design assessments.The latest developments demonstrate that otherrelevant stages are now also being addressed, suchas early design and building management and theoperation of existing buildings.

Many of the current assessment methods applycredit systems and weighting methods that are

unique to the method and result in unique units.There is a risk that communication about suchunits, or about a certain rating, will become a tar-get in itself, rather than the relevant environmen-tal issues.

The concept of assessment leading to certifica-tion seems successful, and consistent with theworking methods of building managers. Somearchitects and designers, however, reportedlyobject that this process does not always challengedesigners.

Most tools are based on the application of goodpractice approaches. This limits the assessment toknown solutions. The trend towards perfor-mance-based assessment may help overcome thisdrawback, and challenge both designers andbuilding managers to invent innovative solutions.

Referenceswww.miljostatus.com.

www.greenglobes.com.

www.cstb.fr (for the French HQE system).

Murakami, S., et al. (2002) Comprehensive AssessmentSystem of Building Environmental Efficiency in Japan(CASBEE-J), proceedings of the international SB2002conference in Oslo and of the fifth international EcoBal-ance conference. ◆

Table 1HQE-defined environmental issues

Eco-construction

1. Harmonious relationship betweenbuildings and their immediateenvironment

2. Integrated choices of constructionprocesses and materials

3. Low-nuisance construction sites

Eco-management

4. Energy management

5. Water management

6. Waste management

7. Repair and maintenance management

Comfort

8. Hygrothermic comfort

9. Acoustic comfort

10. Visual comfort

11. Olfactory comfort

Health

12. Sanitary conditions of indoor spaces

13. Air sanitary quality

14. Water sanitary quality



The materials behaviour of the constructionsector of the economy must be character-ized as poor during all phases of the building

materials cycle – from extraction to constructionto final disposal of buildings at the end of theiruseful lives. Changing this situation will be quitedifficult. However, the first steps in the process areunder way in at least a dozen countries worldwide.Buildings are being disassembled rather thandemolished, and building components and mate-rials are being recovered or recycled for reuse inexisting or new buildings. In the Netherlands, for

example, at least a dozen different precast rein-forced concrete systems have been developed toallow buildings to be disassembled, moved andreconfigured. One of these is the MXB-5 dry-assembly system, in which columns with steelplates at each end are connected to floor elementsthat have anchor bushings embedded in the con-crete. The elements can be connected simply bytightening the connecting bolts. Serious efforts arealso being made in several other countries todesign buildings for eventual deconstruction.

Initial economic analysis indicates that resale of

valuable recovered materials can far offset theadditional labour costs associated with buildingdismantling. New industries to disassemble build-ings, process used building components, and resellcomponents and recovered materials can resultfrom implementing deconstruction practices ona large scale. These outcomes make deconstruc-tion an approach well worth considering for coun-tries in which there is significant waste fromdemolition activities, as well as from natural haz-ards such has earthquakes and hurricanes.

Deconstruction has several advantages overconventional demolition. It also faces several chal-lenges. Some of the advantages are:◆ an increased rate of diversion of demolitionwaste from landfills;◆ potential reuse of building components;◆ increased ease of materials recycling; ◆ enhanced environmental protection, both local-ly and globally.

Deconstruction preserves the invested embod-ied energy of materials, thus reducing the input ofnew embodied energy in reprocessing or reman-ufacturing materials. A significant reduction oflandfill space can also be a consequence. In theUnited States, where construction and demolitionwaste represents about one-third of the total vol-ume of materials entering landfills, a diversion rateof 80% is being experienced for deconstructedbuildings. In the Netherlands increasingly scarceland is being preserved for other uses. In somecountries, businesses have developed the technol-ogy and techniques to turn former demolitiondebris into useful aggregate. The clean, sizedaggregate in the photo on the next page is pro-cessed concrete, masonry and ceramic waste thatcan be used as a partial aggregate replacement innew concrete or for road sub-base.

The challenges faced by deconstruction are sig-nificant, but they can readily be overcome ifchanges in design and policy occur. They include:◆ Existing buildings have not been designed fordismantling; ◆ Building components have not been designedfor disassembly;◆ Tools for deconstructing existing buildingsoften do not exist;◆ Disposal costs for demolition waste are fre-quently low;◆ Dismantling buildings requires additional time;◆ Re-certification of used components is not oftenpossible; ◆ Building codes often do not address the reuse ofbuilding components; ◆ Economic and environmental benefits are not

Deconstruction: the start of a sustainablematerials strategy for the built environment

Charles J. Kibert, Director, Powell Center for Construction and Environment, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 32611-5703 USA ([email protected])

SummaryDisposal of buildings in most industrial and emerging industrial countries is wasteful and prob-lematic. Waste from building demolition (partial demolition for renovation, or total demoli-tion for building removal) represents 30-50% of total waste in most of these countries.Deconstruction is an alternative to demolition. It calls for buildings to be dismantled or disas-sembled, and for the components to be reused or recycled. A number of economic and socialbenefits can be realized by shifting towards better materials recovery practices in the con-struction sector. Deconstruction preserves the invested embodied energy of materials, thusreducing inputs of new embodied energy during materials reprocessing or remanufacturing.The concept of design for disassembly (DfD) of buildings emerged in the early 1990s. Closingconstruction materials loops will require including both product design and deconstruction ina process that might be called “design for deconstruction and disassembly” (DfDD).

RésuméDans la plupart des pays industriels ou émergeants, le démantèlement des bâtiments est unesource de gaspillage et de problèmes. Les déchets de démolition (qu’il s’agisse de démolitionpartielle avant rénovation ou de démolition totale et définitive) représentent 30 à 50 % duvolume global des déchets dans la plupart de ces pays. Or, il existe une alternative à la démo-lition : “ la déconstruction ”. Elle consiste à démonter les bâtiments et à réutiliser ou recyclerleurs différents éléments. L’adoption de meilleures pratiques de valorisation des matériauxdans le secteur du bâtiment présente un certain nombre d’avantages économiques et sociaux.La “ déconstruction ” préserve le contenu énergétique des matériaux, réduisant ainsi l’apportde nouveau contenu énergétique lors du retraitement ou du reconditionnement des matéri-aux. Le concept de bâtiments conçus pour leur démontage a été introduit au début des années1990. Pour pouvoir boucler la boucle des matériaux de construction, il faut intégrer la con-ception des produits et le démontage au sein d’un processus que l’on pourrait qualifier de “ con-ception pour la déconstruction et le démontage ”.

ResumenLa supresión de edificios en la mayoría de los países industriales e industriales emergentes gen-era desechos y problemas. Los desechos de la demolición de edificios (demolición parcial pararenovación o demolición total para remover el edificio) representan 30 a 50% del total de dese-chos en la mayoría de estos países. La deconstrucción es una alternativa a la demolición. Paraello, los edificios deben ser desmantelados o desarmados y sus componentes reutilizados oreciclados. Se pueden obtener beneficios sociales y económicos adoptando mejores prácticasde recuperación de materiales en el sector de la construcción. La deconstrucción preserva laenergía invertida e incorporada en los materiales reduciendo así la introducción de nuevaenergía incorporada al procesar o manufacturar nuevamente los materiales. El concepto de“diseñar edificios para su desmantelamiento” surgió a principio de los años 1990. Para lograrcerrar el ciclo de los materiales de construcción será necesario incluir el diseño y la decon-strucción del producto en un proceso que podría llamarse “diseñar para la deconstrucción y eldesmantelamiento”.

well established.These challenges generally fit into

the categories of design or policy.1

Changing attitudes to building reuseand disposal can increase the materialsrecycling rate from 10-20% of materi-als removed from the built environ-ment each year to the 60-70% rangeand cut demolition waste in half. Thiscan be accomplished by:◆ designing building products that canbe disassembled and recycled;◆ designing buildings that can bedeconstructed at times of major reno-vation and at the end of their usefullives; ◆ providing incentives for buildingreuse instead of new building.

The economic and environmentalbenefits of success would be profound,providing a potentially cheap source ofhigh-quality materials for buildingproducts and enormously reducingmaterials extraction. In an environmen-tal sense, success in closing materialsloops even partially in the constructionindustry would have benefits an order ofmagnitude or more greater than in anyother industry due to the sheer scale ofits materials consumption.

Materials flows in theconstruction sectorFlows of construction materials domi-nate materials flows in mosteconomies. In the United States, as ofNovember 2002, the annualized valueof construction was US$ 843 billion.In an economy of about US$ 10 tril-lion, the construction industry repre-sents about 8.4% of GDP. When thebuilding product sector is included, an addition-al estimated US$ 400 billion of GDP can beattributed to construction – a total of US$ 1.2 tril-lion, or about 12% of GDP.

The materials and waste impacts of these activ-ities are even more significant. The constructionsector uses more materials than any other indus-trial sector by far. Of the 1.9 billion metric tonnesthat ended up as domestic stocks in 1996,about 1.6 billion metric tonnes becamepart of buildings or infrastructure. Extrap-olating back up the supply chain, and not-ing the factor of 8 relationship betweentotal materials extracted and the resultingdomestic stocks, it is probable that 13-14billion metric tonnes of total domesticoutput was associated with building con-struction.2

With respect to domestic stocks, that is,materials that end up in the economy insome fashion, buildings differ significant-ly from durable goods. Buildings areunique industrial products compared toother human artifacts due to their indi-viduality, longevity and method of assem-bly. Unfortunately, it is these same

characteristics of buildings that make their mate-rials cycle performance very poor. Buildings andtheir components, building products, have nothistorically been designed to be recycled or reused,much less disassembled. The building, which rep-resents the “macro” scale of the problem, is assem-bled from building products using mechanical,thermal and chemical fastening methods and

techniques. The products, representingthe “meso” scale of the materials cycle,are assembled without regard to theirfate. Most are composite materials thatare challenging if not impossible to dis-assemble. The materials used in build-ing products (the “micro” level) areselected for their performance but alsofor least cost.

Building materials are overwhelm-ingly the largest constituent of net addi-tions to the domestic stock in mostcountries. In the US durable goodssuch as cars, electronic goods andhousehold appliances account for, atmost, 1-2 metric tonnes per capita ofmaterials added to stock each year,while the built environment con-tributes perhaps as much as 20 metrictonnes of stock per capita each year.The decision whether to shift to decon-struction is a very important nationalconsideration, given the huge quanti-ties of materials involved.

The residence time or useful lifetimeof construction materials is long com-pared with the relatively short residencetime of other durable goods. Buildingsundergo major renovations on 20-yearcycles (about the outer limit of the life-time of automobiles). They can haveuseful lives of several hundred years.Even in mature industrial economieswith significant road, rail and housinginfrastructure, there is not yet any signof significant reductions in the quanti-ties of new construction materialsrequired each year. Annual enlarge-ments of stock of materials haveremained remarkably constant over thepast 25 years, rising broadly in line with

population growth. These small increases are dueto growing demand for transport infrastructure,and to the demand for new housing associatedwith changing demographic structures and afflu-ence. For example, the number of households isincreasing faster than population, as more peoplelive alone or in smaller family groupings. Increas-ing affluence has encouraged a taste for very large,

low-density residences. If this trend con-tinues, many millions of tonnes of miner-als will continue to be extracted from theland for the foreseeable future. The mostdamaging aspects of this trend will be theongoing loss of productive land, degrada-tion of scenic beauty, fragmentation anddisturbance of habitats, and increasedpressure on biodiversity.

A variety of economic, technologicaland cultural factors affect the flow of con-struction materials. When tracked overtime, net additions to stock closely followeconomic cycles. Recessions, bull markets,levels of public investment and major con-struction programmes affect constructionmaterials flows. National building stan-dards and traditions also appear to influ-



Table 1Factors that increase the difficulty of closing materials

loops for the built environment

1. Buildings are custom designed and custom built by a wide array of actors

2. A single “manufacturer” is not associated with the end product

3. Aggregate (for use in sub-base and concrete), brick clay block, fill and otherproducts derived from rock and earth are commonly used in building projects

4. The connections of building components are defined by building codes tomeet specific objectives (wind load, seismic requirements) and not for ease ofdisassembly

5. Building products have not historically been designed for disassembly andrecycling

6. Buildings can have a very long lifetime that exceeds that of other industrialproducts; consequently, materials have a long residence time

7. Building systems are updated or replaced at intervals during the building’slifetime: finishes at five-year intervals; lighting at 10-year intervals; heating,ventilation and air-conditioning (HVAC) systems at 20-year intervals

Dutch MXB-5 system: reinforced concrete buildings canbe dismantled and reassembled at new locations, as

dictated by government policy and economics

Clean, sized aggregate processed from buildingdemolition waste at the POWSUS plant in

the Netherlands

ence flows to stock signifi-cantly, although it is difficultto interpret the data. Thelarge mass of materials flowinginto construction in someEuropean countries probablyreflects a preference for ma-sonry and stone in construc-tion, rather than the lighterwood and steel techniquesfavoured in some other coun-tries.

The construction industryalso differs from other indus-trial sectors in that the endproducts – buildings andinfrastructure – are not facto-ry produced with great preci-sion but are generally one-offproducts where precision isless of a concern, designed bywidely varying teams of architects and engineersand assembled at the site using significant quanti-ties of labour from a wide array of subcontractorsand craftspeople. The end products are generallynot subject to extensive quality checks and test-ing, nor are they generally identified with theirproducers, unlike, say, automobiles and refrigera-tors. In the German automobile industry, appli-cation of extended producer responsibility (EPR)is resulting in near closed-loop behaviour; build-ings, by contrast, are far less likely to have theircomponents returned to their original producersfor take-back at the end of their life cycle.Arguably, EPR could be applied to componentsthat are routinely replaced during the building lifecycle and can readily be decoupled from the build-ing structure (chillers, plumbing fixtures, eleva-tors). However, the bulk of a building’s mass is noteasily disassembled. At present little thought is

given in the design process to the fate of buildingmaterials at the end of a structure’s useful life.3

Most industrial products have an associated life-time that is a function of their design, the materi-als comprising them and the character of theirservice life. The design life of buildings in thedeveloped world is typically specified at around 50to 100 years. However, the service lives of build-ings are unpredictable because the major compo-nent parts of the built environment wear out atdifferent rates, complicating replacement andrepair schedules. These variable decay rates havebeen referred to as “shearing layers of change”,which create a constant temporal tension in build-ings. Faster-cycling components, such as elementscomprising the space plan, are in conflict with“slower materials” such as the structure and thesite. For example, electrical and electronic compo-nents in a typical office building wear out or

become obsolete at a fairlyhigh rate compared with thelong-lived building structure.At some critical threshold themotivation to maintain theoverall building ebbs and thebuilding rapidly falls into dis-use and disrepair simply due tothe degradation of the faster,more technology dependentcomponents.4

A new paradigm:design fordeconstruction anddisassemblyIt is clear that the current stateof construction is wasteful andwill be difficult to change. Ofall the issues facing the rapidlygrowing high-performance

green building movement, the choice of buildingmaterials and products is by far the most difficult.Criteria for materials and products for the builtenvironment should be similar to those for indus-trial products in general. Many materials used inbuildings are the same as those used in otherindustries, most notably metals. But buildingshave a distinct character compared to other indus-trial products. The major differences that makethe closing of materials loops in this segment ofthe economy particularly difficult are indicated inTable 1. The vision of a closed loop system for theconstruction industry is, of course, one that isintegrated with other industries to the maximumextent possible. Many materials, such as metals,can flow back and forth for numerous uses. Oth-ers, such as aggregates and gypsum drywall, areunique to construction and their reuse or recy-cling would stay within construction. Closingmaterials loops for the built environment will besignificantly more difficult due to the factors thatmake its materials cycles differ significantly fromthose of other industries.

The notion of design for disassembly (DfD) ofbuildings emerged in the early 1990s. DfD mustbe considered at the design stage to be effective. Ithas also been noted that DfD can reduce long-term waste generation. Experiments concernedwith DfD conducted at Robert Gordon Universi-ty in Aberdeen, Scotland, included a wide range ofissues that were considered to facilitate a greatlyimproved materials cycle: handling, materials iden-tification, simplicity of construction techniques,exposure or mechanical connections, indepen-dence of structure and partitioning, and makingshort life-cycle components most accessible.

Research indicates that DfD must considerthree levels of the entire materials system in build-ings to produce sound product design and con-struction strategies: systems level, product level,and materials level. Several DfD examples do existthat test various ideas that are part of this concept.A multi-storey residential housing project inOsaka, Japan, uses a reinforced concrete frame tosupport independently constructed dwellings thatcan be replaced without removing the supporting



Demolition of Hume Hall, University of Florida, demonstrates a lack ofcapacity for recovering potentially valuable brick due to inadequate

foresight in design and planning

Progress in deconstruction of one of several 100-year-old houses in Portland, Oregon, by a non-profit company

frame on 15-year cycles. Task Group 39 (Decon-struction) of the Conseil International du Bâti-ment has been examining the issues of DfD anddeconstruction through collaboration of countriesthroughout the world. Closing constructionmaterials loops will necessitate the inclusion ofproduct design and deconstruction together in aprocess that might be labelled design for decon-struction and disassembly, or DfDD.

Philip Crowther of QueenslandTechnical University suggests princi-ples for building DfD. This compre-hensive list covers a wide range ofthinking about materials selection,product design, and deconstruction(Table 2).5

Crowther’s work serves as an excel-lent starting point for considering howto begin the discussion of a compre-hensive approach to developing aseamless framework for closing con-struction materials loops. These prin-ciples, although thorough, perhapsgenerate as many questions as theyanswer. An example is Principle 4, call-ing for avoiding composite materials.In the context of materials, “compos-ite” can have many meanings, such asmixed materials (concrete, steel) orhomogeneous layered materials (PVCpipe, laminated wood products).Composites may, in fact, be veryacceptable under certain conditionswhere recycling the composite mixtureis feasible or where the ability to readi-ly disassemble the layers has beendesigned into the product. The ques-tion is how to develop a systematicapproach to deciding the acceptabilityof composites as building materialswithin the context of attempting toincrease reuse and recycling.

The deconstruction or disassembly

of buildings, and materials reuse, is one area ofendeavour in which there has been a greatupswing in activity and interest in the past fewyears. For example, in the US several crewsemployed on a full-time basis by a non-profit cor-poration in Portland, Oregon, are engaged in tak-ing apart houses and recovering materials forresale in the do-it-yourself market. In a number of

countries similar efforts are under way to includebuilding systems that can be disassembled andreused.

Developing country issuesPerhaps surprisingly, developing countries are ina sense better equipped to deal with deconstruc-tion and materials reuse compared with developedcountries. These countries tend to use local mate-rials and vernacular architecture, often creatingbuildings with the inherent capacity to be dis-mantled and the components reused. For exam-ple, use of timber from sustainably managedforests is another effective use of materials in thatthese forests are protected to the maximum extentpossible and the wood can easily be extracted andreused when the building’s useful life has beenreached. Agenda 21 for Construction in DevelopingCountries provides a detailed framework for con-sidering deconstruction and other sustainablemeasures for the construction industries of devel-oping countries.6 It points out that use of tradi-tional measures and building can be a startingpoint for research into sustainable technologies.Consequently, the experience of developing coun-tries can serve as valuable input for developedcountries as they seek to redesign buildings toaccommodate deconstruction and materials reuse.Developed countries will have to consider thetechniques and materials being used in develop-ing countries in order to successfully close materi-als loops in their construction industries.

Lack of modern construction mate-rials in developing countries forcesinnovation. One major success story indeveloping country sustainable con-struction efforts is the development ofmodern versions of earth block. Theemployment of earth block, madefrom local soils and sometimes with arelatively small amount of cement as abinder, has been a highly successfulenterprise in several developing coun-tries. The New Gourna mosque inLuxor, Egypt, was built with sun driedearth blocks. Several pilot projects inSouth Africa have used earth blockmade with simple machinery that canuse human or motor power to producehigh-quality, stabilized earth block.Both traditional houses and modernhouses are being built from earthblocks in South Africa. This “technol-ogy” is attracting significant attentionfrom developed country sustainablebuilding movements, which areattempting to find more natural, eco-logically friendly building materialsand methods.

Policy implicationsNational and local government policycan contribute to the implementationof deconstruction as standard practice.Economic instruments are by far theeasiest means of fostering the im-proved materials practice of disassem-



Table 2Principles of design for disassembly (DfD)

as applied to buildings

1. Use recycled and recyclable materials

2. Minimize the number of types of materials

3. Avoid toxic and hazardous materials

4. Avoid composite materials and make inseparable products from the same material

5. Avoid secondary finishes to materials

6. Provide standard and permanent identification of material types

7. Minimize the number of different types of components

8. Use mechanical rather than chemical connections

9. Use an open building system with interchangeable parts

10. Use modular design

11. Use assembly technologies compatible with standard building practice

12. Separate the structure from the cladding

13. Provide access to all building components

14. Design components sized to suit handling at all stages

15. Provide for handling components during assembly and disassembly

16. Provide adequate tolerance to allow for disassembly

17. Minimize numbers of fasteners and connectors

18. Minimize types of connectors

19. Design joints and connectors to withstand repeated assembly and disassembly

20. Allow for parallel disassembly

21. Provide permanent identification for each component

22. Use a standard structural grid

23. Use prefabricated sub-assemblies

24. Use lightweight materials and components

25. Identify point of disassembly permanently

26. Provide spare parts and storage for them

27. Retain information on the building and its assembly process

South African workers making stabilized earth block using local soils (twoAgrément Certificates have been issued for different types of earth block

produced during pilot projects in South Africa)



bling buildings to recover materials. In particular,government can assist this shift by increasingwaste disposal costs and providing tax advantagesfor recovered materials. The cost of land disposalof demolition waste is very cheap and is, in effect,subsidized by governments. Through significantincreases in disposal costs, the rates of recyclingand reuse of demolition waste also increase. Forexample, in Portland, when disposal costs wereraised to over US$ 50 per metric tonne, the recy-cling rate of demolition waste jumped from about20% to more than 50%.

Portland is also the location of a non-profitcompany, DeConstruction Services, which pro-vides building owners with evidence of the valueof materials recovered during their deconstructionactivities. The materials are donated to anothernon-profit company that uses the materials to aidlocal charities in home construction; the owner,with this evidence in hand, can deduct a percent-age of the value of the materials from incometaxes. This provides a tremendous incentive forbuilding owners to specify deconstruction ratherthan demolition for disposing of buildings.

The key non-economic instrument local gov-ernments can offer is to legislate that time must beprovided for deconstruction when an organiza-tion applies for a demolition permit. Because time

is the crucial factor needed for deconstruction,mandating that time be provided in the overallschedule for a new project involving demolitionis of enormous assistance to businesses engaged indeconstruction and materials recovery.

ConclusionsDeconstruction offers an alternative to demolitionthat is not only an improved environmentalchoice but can create new businesses engaged indismantling buildings, transporting recoveredcomponents and materials, remanufacturing orreprocessing components, and reselling used com-ponents and materials. Existing buildings, thoughnot designed to be taken apart, are in fact beingdisassembled to recover materials. The benefits ofincreasing the recycling rates of materials frombuildings from the 20% range to in excess of 70%are enormous, as waste from demolition and ren-ovation activities can comprise up to 50% ofnational waste streams. Economic and non-eco-nomic policy instruments can assist in the shiftfrom demolition to deconstruction by providingfinancial incentives and aiding in providing thetime needed for deconstruction. In the develop-ing world, building deconstruction practices offera source of high-quality materials to assist inimproving the quality of life and also the poten-

tial for new businesses that may provide econom-ic opportunity for their citizens.

Notes1. Kibert, Charles (2002) Deconstruction as anEssential Component of Construction Ecology.In: Proceedings of Task Group 39 Conference onDeconstruction, Karlsruhe, Germany, 7-8 April.Can be found at www.cce.ufl.edu2. Matthews, E., et al. (2000) The Weight ofNations: Materials Outflows from IndustrialEconomies. World Resources Institute, Washing-ton, D.C.3. Kibert, C., J. Sendzimir and G. Guy (eds.)(2002) Construction Ecology: Nature as the Basis forGreen Buildings. Spon, London. 4. Brand, Stewart (1994) How Buildings Learn:What Happens After They’re Built. Penguin, NewYork.5. Crowther, P. (2002) Design for Disassembly: AnArchitectural Strategy for Sustainability. DoctoralDissertation, School of Design and Built Envi-ronment, Queensland University of Technology,Brisbane, Australia.6. Du Plessis, C. (2002) Agenda 21 for SustainableConstruction in Developing Countries. CSIR Build-ing and Technology, Pretoria, South Africa. Canbe found at www.unep.or.jp (“Focus” section).◆

Other topics


Offshore production is a significant sourceof crude oil and gas supply in several oil-producing countries. However, offshore

oil and gas exploration and production has seri-ous environmental impacts. These include pollu-tion from oil spills, accidents and fires (some ofwhich have been intensely publicized) and thecontinuing impacts of operational discharges,atmospheric emissions and negative social pres-sures in coastal areas.

The challenge posed by sustainable develop-ment is to meet world energy demands with min-imum impacts on the environment. National lawsremain the means by which countries meet their

international environmental obligations and reg-ulate the conduct of companies and individualswithin their borders. National regulation has tra-ditionally been prescriptive, based on “commandand control” legislation that specifies permits, pro-hibitions, emission standards, monitoring mech-anisms, and, occasionally, environmental impactassessment (EIA). Such systems often prescribefixed minimum standards applicable to existingproblems. Thus they are not readily adaptable tonewer environmental approaches such as the pre-cautionary principle.

Prescriptive legislation does not usually aim toachieve compliance and environmental perfor-

mance beyond required minimal standards. Thesignificance of environmental management sys-tems and standards is that they encourage envi-ronmental performance beyond minimalstandards. This proactive response has beenprompted by the modern drivers of environmen-tal compliance: public disclosure, market pressureand self-interest. Regulatory controls independentof EMS will not create sufficient incentive for theintroduction of cleaner technologies or environ-mentally friendly innovations.

Standardized environmental management sys-tems such as the International Organization forStandardization’s ISO 14000 series and the EU’sEco-management and Audit System (EMAS)make use of registration and certification proce-dures to ensure uniform reliable and verifiableapplication. Within this framework, other man-agement tools employed to improve performanceinclude environmental assessment (involvingstrategic and risk assessment), environmentalauditing and public corporate environmentalreporting. These systems and tools have resultedin a number of actions and procedures that couldbe effectively “captured” by regulation to achieveimproved environmental performance.

This article presents a brief overview of regula-tory mechanisms. It examines the mode of – andthe extent of integration between – such mecha-nisms within the given examples of national regu-latory frameworks for environmental regulationof offshore oil and gas production. It concludeswith some thoughts on the necessity for an inte-grated approach.

Environmental issues relevant to regulation of theoffshore oil and gas industry are listed in Table 1.

Types of regulatory mechanismsTraditional command and control (C&C)Several governments, when confronted with thetask of providing a national environmentalframework that will reflect their internationalcommitments and effectively improve environ-mental performance in the industrial sector, havechosen prescriptive legislation (traditional com-mand and control) involving some of the follow-ing instruments:◆ permits;◆ prohibitions;◆ emission standards;◆ monitoring;◆ environmental impact assessment (EIA).

Integration of EMS into national regulatory frameworks for offshore oil and gas production

Adaeze Ifesi, Distance Learning Department, Centre for Energy Petroleum and Mineral Law Policy (CEPMLP), University of Dundee, DD1 4HN, UK

([email protected])

SummaryDriven by pressures from the public, market pressures and their own self-interest, companies(e.g. in the offshore oil and gas sector) rely on environmental management systems to effectsubstantial improvements in environmental performance. Models of these systems have beenstandardized, including by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO standards)and the European Union (EMAS). To ascertain whether (and how) governments integrate EMSinto prescriptive regulations for better environmental performance, profiles of six national envi-ronmental regulatory frameworks are compared and analyzed in this article. Successful EMSadoption by governments, within a regulatory framework, can increase the efficiency and effec-tiveness of regulatory mechanisms.

ResuméSous la pression du public et du marché, mais aussi dans leur propre intérêt, les entreprises(par exemple l’industrie pétrolière et gazière offshore) s’appuient sur des systèmes de gestionenvironnementale pour améliorer de façon substantielle leurs performances. Des modèles deces systèmes ont été normalisés, notamment par l’Organisation internationale de normalisa-tion (normes ISO) et par l’Union européenne (EMAS). Pour savoir si (et comment) les gou-vernements intègrent les systèmes de gestion environnementale dans les réglementationscontraignantes visant à améliorer les performances environnementales, l’auteur a analysé etcomparé les profils de six cadres réglementaires nationaux sur l’environnement. Il sembleraitque, bien menée, l’adoption de systèmes de gestion environnementale au sein d’un cadre régle-mentaire augmente l’efficacité et les performances des mécanismes réglementaires.

ResumenMotivadas por presiones del público, presiones del mercado y su interés propio, las empresas(en el sector del petróleo offshore y del gas, por ejemplo) utilizan sistemas de gestión medioam-biental para mejorar significativamente su actuación medioambiental. Algunos modelos deestos sistemas han sido normalizados por la Organización Internacional de Normalización(normas ISO) y por la Unión Europea (EMAS). Para determinar en qué medida (y cómo) losgobiernos integran sistemas de gestión medioambiental en las reglamentaciones para unamejor actuación medioambiental, se comparan y analizan los perfiles de seis marcosnacionales de reglamentaciones ambientales. El éxito en la adopción de sistemas de gestiónmedioambienal por parte de los gobiernos, dentro de un marco reglamentario, puede aumen-tar la eficiencia y eficacia de los mecanismos reglamentarios.

Other topics


Prescriptive environmental regulation isgenerally found in a variety of national laws.These include general petroleum or plan-ning laws and regulations developed to dealwith specific environmental issues (Table 2).

Environmental management systems and toolsEMS typesEnvironmental management systems can bedefined as “the organizational structure,responsibilities, practices, procedures, pro-cesses and resources for implementing andmaintaining environmental management.”EMS also takes account of those aspects ofmanagement that plan, develop, achieve,implement, control and improve the enter-prise’s environmental policy, objectives andtargets.

The use of environmental managementsystems is still in its early stages and will con-tinue to develop. The following types haveemerged:◆ company in-house EMS systems;◆ association framework EMS;◆ standardized models of EMS.

Five standards in the International Organizationfor Standardization (ISO) 14000 series were pub-lished in 1996, creating a framework for environ-mental management systems. In this seriescompanies are registered only with respect to ISO14001. The other standards are guidance docu-ments. Companies that intend to be certifiedunder this series must meet the specific require-ments of ISO 14001, which requires:◆ formation of an environmental policy; ◆ planning of environmental objectives and tar-gets; ◆ implementation and operation; ◆ checking and corrective action involving inter-nal auditing; ◆ management review.

The ISO 14001 standards focus on structuralrequirements in any organization desiring toimplement, maintain and improve an environ-mental management system. Such an organiza-tion must provide a framework for setting andreviewing environmental objectives and targets,and this should be properly documented andcommunicated to all employees and made avail-able to the public.

The Eco-management and Audit Scheme(EMAS) was set up by the European Union forestablishment and implementation by companieswithin the Community engaged in industrialactivities. To participate in EMAS, these compa-nies must: ◆ adopt a company environmental policy;◆ conduct an environmental review of the site; ◆ introduce an environmental programme on thebasis of review; ◆ carry out environmental audits;◆ set objectives for continuous improvementof their environmental performance.

The company is to prepare an environmentalstatement designed for the public, and verified byan accredited environmental verifier.

EMS toolsEMS provides a comprehensive set of tools for usewithin the environmental management system.These tools are structured instruments forimproving decision making or information man-agement (or for effecting changes in the behaviourof others), with the overall aim of improving theindustry’s environmental performance. All the keyactors (e.g. companies, governments) can useenvironmental management tools to monitor andimprove environmental performance. These toolsinclude: ◆ public corporate environmental reporting;◆ voluntary codes;◆ environmental assessment (EA) (risk and strate-gic);◆ environmental auditing;◆ voluntary/negotiated agreements.

Economic and tax instrumentsThese instruments are based on a differentapproach to influencing pollution activities, aim-ing for an indirect effect by internalizing external-ities where financial tools (e.g. a carbon tax) canreflect the cost of such externalities. An acceptable

classification has been set out by the Organ-isation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment (OECD). It proposes fivegroups: ◆ charges; ◆ subsidies; ◆ deposit-refund systems; ◆ market creation; ◆ financial enforcement incentives.

Comparative analysisA comparative analysis of instrumentsapplicable in six countries is presented inTables 3-6. Each country has significant off-shore oil and gas production. These tablesallow an overview of the use of similar mech-anisms in different countries.

The following is a summary of nationalprofiles. The complete text of these profilesis available on the Offshore Oil and GasEnvironment Forum (OEF) Website (www.

oilandgasforum.net/ management/regula/nation-alprofiles.htm). Profiles were compiled with theassistance of the appropriate national authorities.

Abu DhabiAbu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, has alegislative framework with a de facto regulator,ADNOC (the national oil company). ADNOCshares this responsibility with the UAE FederalEnvironmental Agency. While ADNOC has nooperations of its own, it controls operating com-panies and reports to the Abu Dhabi SupremePetroleum Council. The fundamental environ-mental legislation is the Federal EnvironmentalLaw, which requires permitting of the offshore oiland gas industry, environmental impact assess-ment of development projects, and developmentof environmental guidelines by the UAE FederalEnvironmental Agency (FEA). Managementinstruments exist but are not required by regula-tions.

AustraliaThe approach used in Australia is similar to thatin the UK (below). Australia has a federal struc-ture. State and territorial legislation is applicableto offshore activities within three nautical miles ofthe shore. Two basic pieces of environmental leg-islation are applicable to offshore activity: thePetroleum (Submerged Lands) Act (PSLA) andthe Environmental Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act (EPBC). The EPBC is triggeredonly where the proposed activity would affectmatters of environmental significance. Thisincludes impacts on World Heritage sites, Ram-sar wetlands, nationally threatened species andecological communities, migratory species, com-monwealth marine areas and nuclear activity. The1999 Regulations for management under thePSLA require an extensive environmental planbefore petroleum activity is undertaken; theEPBC (where triggered) requires extensive envi-ronmental assessment, public environmentalreports, public enquiry and approval of the Min-ister of Environment and Heritage. In Australiathere is also active cooperation among regulators,

Table 1Environmental issues relevant to the offshore oil

and gas industry

Environmental issues Potential impact areas

direct environmental impact • atmosphericof activities. • aquatic

• biosphere• potential accidents

waste management • aqueous discharges• solid waste• mud & cuttings• atmospheric emission/noise/light

decommissioning and • removalrehabilitation • restoration

health & safety • impact of chemical use & exposure• fire risk• impact on workforce

human & social impact • impact on local population• change in water use patterns• effect on socio-economic systems

Source: Details collated from several sources, including Z. Gao (ed.), Environmental Regulation of Oil and Gas,1998, and UNEP.

Table 2Types of environmental legislation

Environmental protection

Health and safety

Environmental impact assessment

Clean air and water

Water catchment protection

Integrated pollution prevention and control

Discharge and management of waste

Waste disposal

Prohibited chemicals

Transport of dangerous substances

Marine pollution

Marine navigation and safety

Fishery protection

Protected areas

Protection of cultural heritage

Other topics


Table 3Command and control mechanisms1

Issues

Climate change

Ozone protection

Waterpollution

Waste disposal

Impacts on oceanecology

Coastal zonemanagement

Decommissioning

Chemical safetycontamination

Overallenvironment

Abu Dhabi

Vienna Convention forthe Protection of theOzone Layer.

Montreal Protocol onSubstances thatDeplete the OzoneLayer

Regional Conventionfor the MarineEnvironment Marine PollutionConvention (SpecialAreas)

Basel ConventionLondon (dumping)Convention

Federal Law No. 24 for1999 for the Protectionand Development ofthe Environment(Federal EnvironmentLaw)

Australia

Ozone Protection Act

Petroleum (SubmergedLands) Act

Protection of Sea(Pollution from Ships)Act

PSL Act

EPBC Act

Fisheries ManagementAct

PSL Act

EnvironmentalProtection (SeaDumping) Act

PSL Act

Industrial Chemicals(Notification/Assessment) ActPSL Act

Exploration Permit

Pipeline andProduction License

PSL Act

EBPC Act

Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander HeritageProtection Act

Australian HeritageCommission Act

Historic Shipwrecks Act

Navigation Act

Malaysia

Vienna Convention forthe Protection of theOzone Layer

Montreal Protocol onSubstances thatDeplete the OzoneLayer

EEZ Act

Merchant Shipping(Oil Pollution) Act

Environment QualityAct

Basel Convention

Petroleum (SafetyMeasures) Act

EQA 1974 and itsregulations

EEZ Act 1984

Norway

Pollution Control Act,not yet permitsregarding specificemissions

Pollution Control Act,permits

Pollution Control Act,Regulations on OilDischarges from DrillCuttings, permits

Pollution Control Act,Petroleum Act, permits

Petroleum Act

Pollution Control Act, Petroleum Act, permits

Plan required in thePetroleum Act, permits

Permits for the use anddischarge of chemicals

Regulations relating to:• managementsystems,• risk analysis,• emergencypreparedness.Permits are issued forthe exploration andproduction phases.Punitive measures inplace for non-compliance

United Kingdom

Petroleum ProductionAct

Prevention of OilPollution Act (used toregulate flaring/venting)

Montreal Protocol1987

EU regulations onozone depletingsubstances 92/3952EEC

MARPOL incorporatedin the MerchantShipping Acts.Prevention of OilPollution Act-oil spillplans required.

Oil PollutionPreparedness ResponseRegulation

Radioactive SubstancesAct

Waste ManagementLicensing Regulations

Special WasteRegulations

Food and EnvironmentProtection Act

Draft OffshorePetroleum Activities(Conservation) ofHabitats Regulations2001

Coastal Protection Act

Operators submitabandonmentprogrammes or DTIapproval.

Draft OffshoreChemicals regulations2001

IPPC- The OffshoreCombustionInstallations(Prevention andControl of Pollution)Regulations 2001Offshore PetroleumProduction and Pipe-line (Assessment ofEnvironmental Effects)Regulations1999

Submarine PipelinesAct

Licences required forexploration andproduction stages.Discharge permitsrequired.

United States

Clean Air Act

Federal WaterPollution Act(Clean Water Act)

Oil Pollution Act

Resource Conservationand Recovery Act

Endangered SpeciesAct

Marine MammalProtection Act

Coastal ZoneManagement Act

Permit required.

OHS

EIS

Ports/Waterways Safety Act

National HistoricPreservation Act

Permits required atvarious stages of theexploration andproduction cycle.

Punitive measures inuse.

1. Command and control: permits, approvals,licenses, release standards

Other topics


the Department of Industry, Science andResources (DISR), Environment Australia (EA)and the industry. The industry association, theAustralian Petroleum Production and ExplorationAssociation (APPEA), has a Voluntary Green-house Challenge Agreement with the federal gov-ernment to report annually on emissions. EA andAPPEA have also signed a Memorandum ofUnderstanding that aims to increase cooperationon conservation of the marine environment.

MalaysiaIn Malaysia there is an emphasis on legislation,with the Malaysian Department of Environmentas main regulator. It shares this task with othergovernment agencies and the national oil compa-ny, PETRONAS. The Petroleum Mining Act1966 designates PETRONAS as the petroleumauthority within the offshore areas. The twomajor pieces of environmental legislation applic-able to Malaysian offshore activities are the Envi-ronmental Quality Act and that concerningMalaysia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),which require environmental impact assessment,environmental quality monitoring and reporting.

NorwayNorway has a legislative framework in place, com-plemented by voluntary measures such as formalalliances between government and industry and aconsultative forum. The coordinating regulator,

the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD),issues licenses for offshore activity. Licenses mustcontain information on planned activities, tech-nical solutions, and implementation and use ofmanagement systems. The Norwegian PollutionControl Authority (SFT) is a specific regulatoryauthority for matters concerning oil pollutionresponse and oil and chemical discharges to thesea. The industry association (OLF) produces theannual Norwegian Oil Industry Association Envi-ronmental Report and encourages voluntary useof ISO 14000 and EMAS. Norway taxes CO2emissions from petroleum activity on the conti-nental shelf.

United KingdomA fundamentally prescriptive environmentalframework applies to the offshore industry in theUK. The Department of Trade and Industry(DTI) is the lead regulator. Other agencies (e.g. theEnvironment Agency, the Scottish EnvironmentalProtection Agency) regulate offshore activitieswithin a three-mile coastal limit. DTI requirescompanies operating in offshore areas to obtainlicenses at the exploration and production stages.These licenses include conditions relating to envi-ronmental protection. DTI also carries out regu-lar monitoring and surveillance flights. The UKregulatory picture features an active relationshipwith the industry association, the United King-dom Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA).

DTI works with UKOOA to obtain data fromindustry; in areas where legislation does not exist,agreements are negotiated. The EU regulation onvoluntary use of EMAS is applicable.

United StatesThe US implements offshore policy on naturalenergy through the Minerals Management Service(MMS). In this task it shares some responsibilitywith the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), which regulates air and water quality. In the US the emphasis is on legislation and pro-grammes to regulate industry and improve en-vironmental performance. The Safety and En-vironmental Management Programme (SEMP) isa process for coordinating outer continental shelf(OCS) oil and gas operations, focusing on work-er safety and pollution control. The NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires envi-ronmental assessment and environmental impactstatements. The MMS requires permits for off-shore operators. While there is a strong industryassociation, the American Petroleum Institute(API), with several voluntary standards and anannual environmental performance report, theUS’s profile does not indicate serious cooperativeefforts between industry association and govern-ment. Environmental auditing is carried out byoperating companies without government partic-ipation, except on request. The MMS is requiredto give environmental reports to Congress every

Table 4EMS and tools1

Issues

Climate change

Ozone protection

Waterpollution

Waste disposal



Decommissioning


Overallenvironment

Abu Dhabi

ADNOCCleaner SeasCampaign

ADNOC HSEMS basedon E & P ForumHSEMS model and ISO9001 and 14001compliant

Australia

APPEA GreenhouseChallenge reporting

DISR EnvironmentalPlan

EPBC environmentassessment andapprovals

APPEA Code of Practice- ISO 14000

Malaysia

DOE E IA, EMP Format,Proposed audit scheme

Norway

*

*

OLF collects data onchemicals

Environmentalreporting required bygovt. & Industry on airemissions and seadischarges. *Industry monitorsoperators in theseissues.

* Reporting andmonitoring is required.The authorities auditthe industry on aregular basis

United Kingdom

Offshore chemicalsnotification scheme

EIA for new projects.Environmentalstatement for newprojects.Voluntary EMAS by theEU.

United States

Environmentalreporting for oil spills

SEMP

SEMP

SEMP

Govt. performancereporting programmes

Industry reporting via SEMP

Industry also gathersdata throughout US forenvironmentalperformance reporting

1. Management instruments: reporting,auditing, monitoring


Table 6Economic instruments1

Issues

Climate change

Ozone protection

Waterpollution

Waste disposal



Decommissioning


Overallenvironment

Abu Dhabi

Economic incentivesnot used

Australia


Punitive measures inplace

Malaysia


Norway

CO2 Tax

United Kingdom

No economicinstruments in place

United States

Oil Pollution Act-penalties for liabilities


1. Economic instruments: taxes,fees, liabilities, incentives

Table 5Negotiated agreements for joint actions

Issues

Climate change

Ozone protection

Waterpollution

Waste disposal



Decommissioning


Overallenvironment

Abu Dhabi Australia

APPEA Code of Practice

EA + APPEA Agreement

Malaysia

No negotiatedagreements

Norway

OLF has EnvironmentProgramme andincludes• research,coordination, analyticalreportsMILJØSOK• consultative forum

United Kingdom

Voluntary Code onAtmosphericEmissions-UKOOA

Guidelines forReducing AtmosphericEmissions from Oil/GasFacilities-UKOOA

Code on SyntheticDrilling Fluids-UKOOA

Code on SeismicActivity-UKOOA

Guidelines onExploration Operationsin Nearshore/Sensitive Areas-UKOOA

Atlantic FrontierEnvironment Network

Joint NatureConservation Committee

UKOOA have produced• Statement ofGuidelines for OffshoreEnvironment• Guidelines onInternal Audit andTraining• Guidelines on EMS

United States

SEMP

Other topics


three years on the cumulative environmentaleffects of these activities. MMS works closely withouter continental shelf (OCS) operators to vol-untarily incorporate the Safety and Environmen-tal Management Program (SEMP) into theiroperations for worker safety and pollution con-trol. The regulatory framework does not acknowl-edge use of environmental management systemsor ISO 14001.

ConclusionThese profiles indicate a traditional command andcontrol framework, with slight references to EMS.The Norwegian profile reflects the best advancesmade towards integration. The recommendedintegrated approach refers to the effective “capture”of standardized EMS certification processes andtools in a legislative framework. Such a system,when in place, creates an incentive for companiesthat adopt and practise association or standardizedenvironmental management systems. In otherwords, there is a benefit in place for achieving high-er standards than what would otherwise be

required by law. This would imply an integratedframework relying on the EMS certificationprocesses. External verification by accredited third-party agencies is strongly recommended for thesake of transparency. The enabling prescriptive leg-islation within such framework would focus ondefaulters and accreditation procedures for suchthird- party verifying bodies.

Efficient use of the certification and verificationprocedures of standardized systems such ISO14000 and as EMAS would also lead to practicaluse of human and financial resources. It wouldcreate added incentive for improvements, as beingseen as “certified and green” becomes important.

The need for such incentives in the offshore oiland gas industry is highlighted by the call forinvestment in several developing countries. Thesecountries are tempted to lower environmentalstandards as a bargaining chip. However, withsuch integration compliance becomes a competi-tive advantage.

Within developed countries, where govern-ments seek to encourage investment in marginal

and unexplored fields, these lower costs can beobtained using an integrated approach.

The application of international EMS and toolswould internationalize these standards in eachcountry, so that companies could no longer com-plain of oppressive environmental standards. Con-versely, these standards themselves will provide forcompliance with legislation applicable within suchcountries and can be adapted to suit any individualcountry requirements. This flexibility would makeit possible to include disclosure and verificationrequirements, as well as lists of accredited third-party verifiers. Countries with such a programmeof integration could strike a balance between EMSregulated activity and legislation.

Given the complex nature of the environmentand the multifaceted impact of offshore oil andgas exploration and production activities, theactions indicated in the profiles are inadequate.There is room for additional improvements,which could be achieved through the integratedapproach and with greater cooperation fromindustry. ◆

Other topics

Other topics


IPIECA, the International Petroleum IndustryEnvironmental Conservation Association, wasfounded in 1974 following the establishment of

UNEP in 1972. IPIECA is the petroleum indus-try’s principal channel of communication with theUN. It is accredited with the UN Economic andSocial Council (ECOSOC) as an ECOSOC Cat-egory II non-governmental organization, whichprovides IPIECA with formal observer status inUN programmes. The IPIECA membership con-sists of both petroleum companies and associa-

tions at the national, regional and internationallevels. It is the single global association represent-ing the petroleum industry on key environmentaland social issues, including: ◆ global climate change;◆ biodiversity; ◆ social responsibility;◆ fuel quality and vehicle emissions;◆ human health; and ◆ oil spill preparedness and response.

IPIECA promotes scientifically sound, cost-

effective, practical, socially and economicallyacceptable solutions to these global issues. In pur-suing this mission, IPIECA works in cooperationwith industry, government, regulatory bodies,international agencies, academia and NGOs.

Climate change is a global environmental con-cern with potentially significant consequences forsociety, with respect to the possible future impactsof climate change and to the socio-economic con-sequences of policies proposed to respond to it.Formed in 1988, the IPIECA Climate ChangeWorking Group (CCWG) monitors, analyzes andinforms its membership about key developmentsconcerning this issue, especially those taking placeat the United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergov-ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). TheCCWG encourages the development of policyoptions that strike a balance between the project-ed consequences of potential climate change andthe estimated costs of response options to mitigateor adapt to climate change. The IPIECA CCWGsponsors dialogues and workshops addressing keyaspects of the ongoing negotiations. It provides atechnical publication series as a form of construc-tive input to the process.

IPIECA held two high-level regional work-shops in 2002 addressing the issues of energy,development and climate change. Each of theseevents brought together about 100 experts fromacademia, business, governments, internationalinstitutions (e.g. the UN Development Pro-gramme, UNEP and the World Bank), emissionstrading groups, and oil and gas industry climatechange experts. The first workshop at KualaLumpur, Malaysia, aimed to increase understand-ing of Asian development and climate changeissues, and to identify opportunities for effectivenear and long-term actions, particularly throughthe Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The second event, organized jointly with theRegional Association of Oil and Natural GasCompanies in Latin America and the Caribbean(ARPEL) and UNEP, was held at San Jose, CostaRica. This workshop aimed to address more prac-tical issues associated with the opportunities forand barriers to developing CDM projects in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean. This article summa-rizes the main findings of the two workshops. Thekey messages of the two workshops are presentedin Table 1.

Background to the workshopsA driving goal for developing nations is to achieve

Energy, development and climate change:considerations in Asia and Latin America

IPIECA Climate Change Working Group, IPIECA, 5th Floor, 209-215 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8NL, UK ([email protected])

SummaryThe main findings of two high-level regional workshops organized in 2002 – by the Interna-tional Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) in Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia, and by the Regional Association of Oil and Natural Gas Companies in Latin Ameri-ca and the Caribbean (ARPEL), IPIECA and UNEP in San Jose, Costa Rica – are presented inthis article. The purpose of these workshops was to increase the understanding of regionaldevelopment and climate change issues, and to identify opportunities for effective near- andlong-term action, particularly through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). Econom-ic, methodological and institutional barriers to private sector investment in CDM projects stillexist. Uncertainties about rules surrounding the CDM have progressed from hypothetical con-cerns to more practical ones related to institutional capacity to review and approve projectapplications in a timely and cost-effective manner.

ResuméL’article présente les principales conclusions de deux ateliers régionaux pour responsables dehaut niveau organisés en 2002 à Kuala Lumpur (Malaisie) par l’IPIECA (Association interna-tionale de l’industrie pétrolière pour la sauvegarde de l’environnement) et à San José (CostaRica) par l’ARPEL (Association régionale des compagnies pétrolières d’Amérique latine et desCaraïbes), l’IPIECA et le PNUE. Le propos de ces ateliers était de permettre une meilleure com-préhension des problèmes de développement régional et de changement climatique et de trou-ver des voies d’action efficaces à court et long termes, notamment à travers le mécanisme dedéveloppement propre. Il existe encore des barrières économiques, méthodologiques et insti-tutionnelles aux investissements du secteur privé dans les projets de développement propre. Lesincertitudes liées aux règles qui régissent ce mécanisme ont évolué : d’abord hypothétiques,elles sont devenues plus concrètes et concernent la capacité institutionnelle de vérifier etd’approuver en temps utile et de façon économiquement avantageuse les propositions de pro-jets.

ResumenEl artículo presenta los principales resultados de dos talleres regionales de alto nivel organiza-dos en 2002 por la Asociación Internacional de Conservación Medioambiental de la Industriadel Petróleo (IPIECA) en Kuala Lumpur, Malasia y por la Asociación Regional de Empresas dePetróleo y Gas Natural en Latinoamérica y el Caribe (ARPEL), IPIECA y PNUMA en San José,Costa Rica. El propósito de los talleres era lograr una mejor comprensión de cuestiones relati-vas al desarrollo regional y al cambio climático e identificar las oportunidades para tomarmedidas eficaces a próximo y largo plazo, en particular mediante el Mecanismo de Desarrol-lo Limpio (MDL). Todavía existen obstáculos económicos, metodológicos e institucionales paraque el sector privado invierta en proyectos de MDL. Las incertidumbres sobre la reglas rela-cionadas con el MDL han evolucionado de preocupaciones hipotéticas a preocupaciones másprácticas relacionadas con la capacidad de las instituciones de revisar y aprobar aplicacionesde proyectos de manera oportuna y eficaz en materia de costos.

Other topics


economic development similar to OECD coun-tries. This will lead to increasing energy con-sumption and emissions for some time to come.The UNFCCC has noted that emissions origi-nating in developing countries will grow to meettheir social and development needs.1 The WorldSummit on Sustainable Development (WSSD)made clear the importance of affordable energy,and its role in poverty alleviation. The Johannes-burg Plan of Implementation includes the urgentgoal of creating access to modern energy servicesfor 1.6 billion people who currently do not haveaccess to modern energy services.2

The Organsation for Economic Co-operationand Development (OECD)/ International Ener-gy Agency (IEA) World Energy Outlook projectsthat over the next 30 years global primary energydemand will grow by 1.7% per year, from 9200 to15,300 million tonnes of oil equivalent (Mtoe),and that this demand will be met primarily byincreased consumption of oil, natural gas andcoal. Energy from renewable resources is alsoexpected to grow, but will remain a small percent-age of the total energy mix (Figure 1).3 It is alsoprojected that many of the 1.4 billion people liv-

ing at or below the poverty line will remain with-out access to electricity, which is an essentialrequirement for social and economic develop-ment.3

Energy and development in Asia, LatinAmerica and the CaribbeanReflecting a rapid growth in demand for energy,the IEA has noted that fossil fuel consumption indeveloping countries is expected to surpass that ofdeveloped ones by 2030 (Figure2). Developingregions will account for 65% of the 45 millionbarrel/day increase in global oil demand between2000 and 2030, with Asian countries constitut-ing the largest share. In East Asia, excludingChina, growth in CO2 emissions is projected toincrease from 1.1 billion tonnes in 2000 to 2.8 bil-lion tonnes in 2030, whilst in Latin America emis-sions are projected to risefrom 0.9 to 2.1 billiontonnes over the sameperiod.3

In Kuala Lumpur itwas noted that over 500million people in South-ern Asia live on less thanUS$1 per day, and thatthe provision of afford-able and reliable energyto communities current-ly without access to elec-tricity will be a key requirement for regionaldevelopment.4 At both workshops it was empha-sized that climate change mitigation is not a near-term priority, with the provision of primaryeducation, medical facilities, regular employment,clean water supplies and proper sanitation havingpriority on national development agendas.Regional representatives also emphasized the needfor climate change strategies to be consideredwithin the context of these national sustainabledevelopment priorities.

CDM objectives, project type andpotentialThe CDM offers one pathway to encourage tech-nology transfer, promote sustainable developmentand reduce GHG emissions. The three aims of theCDM, as specified in Article 12 of the Kyoto Pro-

tocol, are:◆ to promote sustainable development in non-Annex 1 countries; ◆ to help achieve the ultimate objective of theConvention to stabilize atmospheric concentra-tions of GHGs; ◆ to assist Annex 1 parties in cost-effectively meet-ing their obligations under the Protocol.6

For non-Annex 1 developing countries, theCDM promises to create a reduced-emission infra-structure, support national sustainable develop-ment objectives, promote technology transfer,build local capacity and attract foreign investment.The need for CDM projects to meet developingcountry sustainable development objectives andencourage technology transfer was emphasized,with the generation of Certified Emission Reduc-tion credits (CERs) to meet Annex 1 party objec-

tives being of secondaryimportance. The projectcycle for a CDM project isshown in Figure 3.

Although the potentialfor CDM in Asia is consid-erable, project and institu-tional activity is moredeveloped in Latin America.The emission reduction po-tential in both Asia andLatin America is on theorder of hundreds of mil-

lions of tonnes of CO2, with large-scale CDM pro-jects (e.g. fuel switching from coal to oil and gas,CO2 capture and geologic sequestration, LNG forreplacing coal-fired power generation, and reduc-tion of flaring and venting) accounting for the bulkof this potential. Current activity, however, is onsmall-scale emission reduction projects, particu-larly renewable energy (hydro, solar, wind, biomassand geothermal) and energy efficiency projects. Adiverse range of candidate CDM projects were pre-sented in Kuala Lumpur and Costa Rica (Table 2).

In comparing the candidate CDM projects pre-sented and host countries’ project expectations,the following points were noted:7

◆ Most CDM projects are being developed in thelarger Asian and Latin American economies;◆ Project developers in Latin America emphasizedthe environmental and emission reductions bene-

Table 1Key messages

◆ The alleviation of poverty and the provision of cleanwater, health services, sanitation facilities, and primaryeducation are the key near-term priorities in the develop-ing world. Actions to mitigate the long-term risk of climatechange must be considered within this context.

◆ Energy demand and consumption over the next 30 yearsin Asia and Latin America is forecast to grow rapidly, withthis demand being met primarily by increased consumptionof fossil fuels, thus posing a fundamental challenge to meetdevelopmental goals whilst at the same time addressingincreased greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

◆ There is considerable emissions reduction potential forCDM projects in Asia and Latin America, but the currentfocus on small-scale energy efficiency improvement andrenewable energy schemes will not realize this potential.

◆ Individual nations still vary in their capacity to reviewCDM projects. Governments can play key roles in CDMproject development by ensuring that all national sustain-able development criteria are met, and by government-facilitated agreements between multilateral fundingagencies and the private sector.

◆ Added to concerns about the uncertainties and imprac-tical requirements around additionality and baselines forthe CDM are practical concerns about institutional capaci-ty to process project applications in a timely and cost-effective manner. It remains unclear what sort of CDMprojects will be awarded CERs.

◆ Investment in CDM projects will be dwarfed by theoverall investment in energy, especially in Asia, through tothe end of the Kyoto Protocol’s first commitment period in2012.

◆ Over the next decade the petroleum industry will makeinvestments leading to development, the transfer of tech-nology, and emission reductions or avoidance that will gofar beyond what may receive credits under the Kyoto Pro-tocol.

◆ Emission reduction targets and timetables specified bythe Kyoto Protocol are for the first commitment periodfrom 2008 to 2012. It remains unclear what internationalframework may evolve after that and what future obliga-tions might be undertaken by developing countries.

◆ The development and deployment of technologies thatresult in significant emission reductions need to be a keypart of any future strategy, but it remains unclear whatkind of international framework will ensure that thisoccurs.

Ultimately, congruencebetween mitigationprojects and sustainabledevelopment goals is notonly a sovereign right butalso a national priorityFranz Tattenbach, UNDECOR, Costa Rica5”

“

Figure 1Trends in world primary energy demand, 1971-2030

Source: based on data from World Energy Outlook 2002 (OECD/IEA)

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0

1971 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

oilcoalgas

nuclearhydrootherrenewables

Other topics

fits of CDM, whilst in Asia the emphasis was onthe need for sustainable development and pover-ty eradication;◆ Forestry and natural resource based projectswere being developed by host countries in LatinAmerica and the Caribbean region, but did notrank highly with national authorities in Asia;◆ More CDM projects are currently being devel-oped in Latin America and the Caribbean regionthan in Asia.

CDM institutional considerationsIt was noted that national and internationalprocesses to review and approve CDM projectshave developed rapidly over the last months, butthat much work remains to be done. The estab-lishment of Designated National Authorities(DNAs), responsible for reviewing, recommend-ing and submitting projects for approval to theCDM Executive Board, advanced the furthest inLatin America with eleven of the fourteen devel-

oping country DNAs registered with the UNFC-CC secretariat (June 2003).8 However, in bothLatin America and Asia many countries have yetto establish DNAs, and many have an urgent needto develop local capacity and expertise. The twoworkshops clearly illustrated a diversity of nation-al approaches to establishing DNAs, in partreflecting different national priorities and cir-cumstances.

Project potential and businessperspectivesThe fledgling CDM market is dominated by pro-jects in Latin America. Future CDM investmentin both regions is expected to come from a varietyof sources, including Annex B governments,multinational corporations, international finan-cial institutions (e.g. World Bank Prototype Car-bon Fund, PCF), development agencies (e.g.UNDP), and local and national companies. Fur-ther clarity on procedural and project relatedCDM issues will be required before significantlevels of investment, trading in CERs or technol-ogy transfer occur. It was also noted that the antic-ipated level of investment through CDM wouldbe several orders of magnitude lower than that inthe energy sector over the same period.7

It was emphasized that if the CDM is to attractprivate sector investment, clarity is needed on awide variety of issues (Table 3). It was also recog-nized that projects must be based on sound eco-nomics, as the generation of CERs will in mostcases affect economic returns only at the margins.The need to “learn by doing”, building knowledgeand confidence through actually developing pro-jects, was emphasized by many participants.

Oil and gas industry considerationsLarge-scale CDM projects have substantial emis-sion reduction and technology transfer potentialbut are currently receiving little attention at theinternational negotiating level, resulting in a lackof focus at national levels. The oil and gas indus-try is particularly well suited to deploy large-scaleprojects with significant emissions reductionpotential (Table 4). However, it was also noted

that these types of projects currently face technicalchallenges (e.g. defining baselines and determin-ing additionality) and that their political accept-ability remains uncertain (e.g. eligibility, approvalprocess).

Looking forward…Many participants reflected that short-term inter-national mechanisms, such as the CDM, cannotalone address the long-term challenges and risksassociated with global climate change. Measuresincluded under the Kyoto Protocol are only like-ly to have a marginal affect on climate change.Given that the emission reduction targets andtimetables set by the Protocol only apply to devel-oped countries for the first commitment periodup to 2012,6 it remains unclear what kind ofinternational framework may evolve after that toaddress the deep cuts in global emissions that maybe needed to meet the UNFCCC stabilizationgoal. Some attendees emphasized that the devel-opment and deployment of efficient commercialtechnologies that lead to significant emissionreductions need to be a key part of future climatechange strategies, but it remains unclear whatkind of international framework would ensurethat this occurs.

ConclusionsThe alleviation of poverty and the provision ofclean water, health services, sanitation facilitiesand primary education are key priorities in thedeveloping world. With 1.6 billion people world-wide lacking access to modern energy services, theprovision of affordable energy is a key require-ment for economic and social development inAsia and Latin America. Actions to mitigate andadapt to the long-term risk of climate changemust be considered within this context. Reflect-ing increasing development in Asia and LatinAmerica, energy demand is forecast to growrapidly over the period of 2000 to 2030. Projec-

Table 3CDM issues requiring further

clarification7

◆ clear guidance on project eligibility criteria

◆ acceptable methodologies for calculating emission baselines

◆ criteria for determining whether projects meet additionality criteria

◆ time frame for processing and approving projects

◆ project information requirements

◆ level of transaction costs

◆ future price of Certified Emission Reductions (CERs)

Table 4Examples of large-scale CDM oil

and gas projects7

◆ energy efficiency improvements

◆ utilization of associated gas previously flared

◆ large-scale fuel switching projects (e.g. from coal to oiland natural gas)

◆ capture of vented methane

◆ carbon dioxide capture and storage

Table 2

Examples of candidate CDM projects presented at workshops

Asia 4

◆ wind power, small-scale hydro and biomass in India

◆ geothermal and gas venting elimination in Indonesia

◆ anaerobic digestion and municipal waste management inthe Philippines

◆ bio-diesel and oil palm in Malaysia

◆ biomass energy and anaerobic digestion in Thailand

◆ clean coal technologies in China

Latin America and the Caribbean 5

◆ reforestation and geological sequestration in Argentina

◆ gas flaring abatement and co-generation in Mexico

◆ utilization of associated gas previously flared, fugitive gasemissions and energy efficiency in Brazil

◆ waste treatment, landfill gas and cement production inCosta Rica

◆ river run-off hydro power project in Chile

◆ wind farm project in Colombia

◆ carbon sinks and fugitive gas emissions in Venezuela

Source: based on data from World Energy Outlook 2002 (OECD/IEA)

Figure 2Energy-related CO2 emissions by region, 1971-2030

1971 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

worldOECDeconomies in transitiondeveloping countries

40,000

35,000

30,000

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000

5000

0

mill

ion

tonn

es o

f CO

2


Other topics


tions show that this demand will be met primari-ly by increased consumption of fossil fuels. Thisposes a challenge to meet developmental goalswhilst at the same time addressing increasedGHG emissions.

The global deployment of economically viableexisting technologies that result in low GHGemissions and the development of improved tech-nologies are key elements to address this chal-lenge. The CDM provides one pathway toencourage technology transfer, promote sustain-able development and reduce GHG emissions.There is considerable emissions reduction poten-tial for CDM projects in Asia and Latin America.The current focus, however, is on small-scale ener-gy efficiency improvement and renewable energyschemes. In order to realize the potential of theCDM, large-scale projects will be required. This isparticularly true for oil and gas projects. Capacityfor governments and companies in both regionsto address the development of CDM projects hasincreased, but individual nations still vary in theircapacity to review CDM projects. Several coun-tries in both Asia and Latin America have estab-lished, or are planning the establishment of,Designated National Authorities (DNAs) neededto approve projects in the host countries.

There currently remain economic, method-ological and institutional barriers to private sectorinvestment in CDM projects. Uncertainties aboutthe rules surrounding the CDM have progressedfrom the more hypothetical concerns about addi-tionality and baselines, to more practical concernsabout institutional capacity to review and approveproject applications in a timely and cost-effectivemanner. While concerns and detailed issues aboutadditionality and baselines remain, the develop-ment of more projects and the series of interna-tional negotiations and clarification of proposedrules and processes have led to an improvedunderstanding of the CDM since the first of ourworkshops cited here. No CDM projects, howev-er, have yet (as of June 2003) been approved bythe international Executive Board of the CDM,and it is unclear what sort of CDM projects willbe awarded CERs.

Future CDM investment in both regions isexpected to come from a variety of sources,including Annex B governments, multinationalcorporations, international financial institutions(e.g. the World Bank PCF), development agen-cies (e.g. UNDP), and local and national compa-nies. Investment in CDM projects will, however,be dwarfed by the overall investment in energy,especially in Asia, through to the end of the KyotoProtocol’s first commitment period in 2012. Overthe next decade, the petroleum industry will makeinvestments leading to development and thetransfer of technology, and emission reductions oravoidance that will go far beyond that which mayreceive credits under the Kyoto Protocol.

Emission reduction targets and timetables spec-ified by the Kyoto Protocol are for the first com-mitment period from 2008 to 2012. It remainsunclear what international framework may evolveafter that and what future obligations might beundertaken by developing countries. It is clear

Figure 3CDM project cycle

1. Project design and formulation

2. National approval

Operational entity A

EB/register

Operational entity B

Investorcompany

Projectparticipant

3. Validation and registration

4. Projects financing

5. Monitoring

6. Verification and certification

7. Issuing of CERs

Project designdocument

Monotoring report

Verification report/Certification report

Request for CERs

Source: UNEP

Developing countries and the poorest people who live in them are the most vulnerable to climate change. Yet it is also they who are most in need of sustainable energyservices to meet their livelihoods, growth and development needs. Arun Kashyap, UNDP ”“

that the development and deployment of tech-nologies that result in significant emission reduc-tions need to be a key part of any future strategy,but the framework within which this can occurremains uncertain.

AcknowledgementsIPIECA would like to thank the workshop hosts,Petronas in Kuala Lumpur and RECOPE in SanJose. We would also in particular like to recognizethe effort of the following ARPEL members fortheir work in organizing the workshop in San Jose:Alvaro Coto (RECOPE), Arturo Gonzalo Aizpiri(RepsolYPF), Javier Bocanegra (PEMEX), Sal-vador Gómez Avila (PEMEX), Jon Roed (Statoil),Ramona Harbajan-Sankar (Petrotrin) and MiguelMoyano (ARPEL Executive Secretariat). Ourthanks also go to UNEP for their support of theSan Jose workshop. We would like to thank all theworkshop participants for their valuable input andsupport, which ensured the success of the work-shops. IPIECA would also like to thank the IEAfor allowing us to reproduce data presented in theirWorld Energy Outlook 2002. Our thanks go toFranz Tattenbach (Fundecor) and Dr ArunKashyap (UNDP) for allowing us to print quotestaken from them.

Notes1. UNFCCC (1994) Convention on ClimateChange.2. WSSD (2002) Johannesburg Plan of Imple-mentation.3. OECD/IEA (2002) World Energy Outlook2002.4. IPIECA (2002) Development and ClimateChange: Issues and Approaches in Asia.5. ARPEL, IPIECA, UNEP (2003) A PracticalApproach to Identifying Emission Reduction Oppor-tunities: Examples under the Kyoto Mechanisms inLatin America and the Caribbean.6. UNFCCC (1997) The Kyoto Protocol.7. IPIECA (2003) Energy, Development and Cli-mate Change: Considerations in Asia and LatinAmerica.8. UNFCCC (2003) CDM website (http://cdm.unfccc.int/)

This article was produced by the following IPIECACCWG Task Force members: Abdulmuhsen Al-Sunaid, Frede Cappelen, Foo Say Moo, HaroonKheshgi, Arthur Lee, David Mansell-Moullin,Wishart Robson, John Shinn, Tim Stileman andRichard Sykes.

◆

005-098 LCA

Documents

Transcript of 005-098 LCA