Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development
Sustainable Development
2.1 Background
The importance and impact of the negative effects of the growth of industrial
activities at a global level have led to the development of the concept of “sustain-
able development”. It has rapidly become a long-term concern for buildings. There
exist several definitions of sustainable development. While not opposing and often
complementary, these definitions are vague in nature, especially when the analysis
focuses on the consequences they entail, both at individual and collective levels.
2.1.1 Definitions
The ecological approach stresses the fact that action has to preserve, improve
and enhance the environment and make it fit for life. Action must conserve
resources on the long term and favour regeneration rather than exhaustion. The
approach also includes the reduction of climate impacts caused by human actions.
The different features of the concept are:
• A relationship between the environmental, social and economic aspects;
• A transverse and systemic approach;
• Harmonization between short term and long term, based on the precautionary
principle;
• A motto of “think global, act local”;
• Solidarity between rich and poor countries, with an inter-generational
component;
• A new form of governance for strengthening democracy.
The question of the role of culture arises through the definition. Can we ignore
the approach to issues of the built environment? In its Opinion No. 2002–2007
of April 2002, the French CSD questioned the lack of reference to culture in the
work on sustainable development. In this text, the Committee puts man at the
centre of the device and reminds the specificity of the species in its relation to
culture. She emphasizes “the need to complete the approach to sustainable devel-
opment by integrating the cultural dimension as well as economic, social and eco-
logical dimensions.” The actions undertaken in the framework of a sustainable
development approach must necessarily integrate the cultural specificities of each
human group. Cultural diversity, as well as natural heritage must be protected and
enhanced in order to be transmitted to future generations.
• Make an interpretation;
• Analyse the impact: they may fall within human toxicity, noise, creating oxidant,
the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, acidification, eutrophication,
eco-toxicity, land use and loss of habitat, dispersion of species and organisms, the
usage of natural resources, soil erosion, salinization of soils, … (Curran 2006).
In brief, products or systems must be evaluated in their life cycle, which means
taking into account the phases of design, production, use and demolition. Only the
life cycle analysis of products used to compare different solutions in the context of
an assessment of environmental, economic and social impact.
2.1.3.1 Definitions
The criteria mentioned in the French standard NF P01-010 impacts the choice
of eco-materials are introduced implies that performance in the following terms
(Table 2.1):
Table 2.1 Eco-materials properties
Specifications Units Definition (Sacadura 1993)
Density – Ratio of the mass of material and the mass of same
volume of water at the temperature of 3,98 °C.
Thermal Conductivity W/m.K Heat flow in watts running through thick 1 m materials
on a surface of 1 m2 with a temperature of 1 °C or
K between the two sides
Thermal capacity Wh/m3*K Ability of the material stored heat. It measures the
amount of heat required to raise 1 °C, 1 m3 of
material.
Phase shift h Speed of the heat wave to pass through a material
Thermal effusivity J*K.m−2.s−1/2 Coefficient that characterizes the speed with which the
temperature of a material is heated
Thermal diffusivity m2/s Physical quantity which characterizes the ability
of a material in the penetration and the alleviation
of a thermal wave in a medium
Porosity – Ratio of the volumes of voids on the volume
of the materials
Hygroscopic % Ability to hold water and interact with the environment
Sound reduction dB Ability to absorb sound waves
The impact criteria mentioned in the previous paragraph, an eco-design will aggre-
gate other analysis such points:
• Land use;
• Surrounding cover;
• The winds;
• Sunlight causing overheating in summer and glare;
• Ambient light that will change the lighting and energy, and liveability;
30 2 Building and Sustainable Development
• The luminance of a light source is the ratio of the intensity of the source on a
surface in a direction of the projected area of the source;
• Colors and surface conditions;
• Noise;
• Air, its renewal, its speed and relative humidity;
• The energy sensors;
• Leakage and radiation.
Bernstein et al. (2006), Liébard and De Herde (2006), Déoux and Déoux (2004).
The response to the program of the client, must be a consensus in the consid-
eration of various constraints so that the impact on the environment is as low as
possible and the indoor environment most habitable. This optimal response must
result from an equilibrium having a minimum overall cost.
Finally, as recommended by the 2nd target of the 2008 version of the HQE®,
Bruno Peuportier evokes the “sustainability” within the meaning of lifespan in his
general analysis of buildings (Peuportier 2001b). It presents rehabilitation of old
buildings obtaining a very satisfactory performance in terms of energy but does
not evaluate the gains in other criterion of sustainable development nor those
obtained by extending the lifespan. Lifespan of products, components built using
these products and building itself has an impact on the environment. None of the
other works that have been consulted involve the question of the lifespan of prod-
ucts or buildings and their influence in performance.
In this section, indicators and indices are defined in the sense of Boulanger (2004).
Thus, an indicator is an observable variable used to reflect the status of a non-
observable reality. For example, it may be the amount of greenhouse gas emitted
by the manufacture of a product, the unit being kg of CO2. An index refers to a
synthetic indicator constructed by aggregating so-called basic indicators.
The process of construction of indicators is identified by Lazarsfeld in 1958
according to the following scheme:
2.2 Indicators and Sustainable Development Data 31
Fig. 2.3 Diagram of
constituting an index
of environmental impact
(Oberg 2005)
In conclusion of this example, the calculation performed for UF, is well below 1.
These results present the cement as weakly exhaustible. Nevertheless, discussions
and oppositions may appear on the available resources to the extent that the rate of
extraction and resources are located.
On the establishment of an index globalising environmental impacts, work has
been completed. The logic is shown schematically in the figure below provided by
Oberg (2005), Osso (1996) (Fig. 2.3).
Then, the difficulty lies in choosing the relative impacts. On the basis of the
previous diagram, proposed constitution of indices were performed as illustrated
in the Table 2.3.
One can sense the difficulty of consensus in the rapid analysis of proposed dis-
tributions of impacts. For example, contradictions are evident in the proportions
of nitrogen compounds and sulphur dioxide in SIKA and EPS systems. Also,
only a few impacts such air and energy used are taken into account. For example,
impacts such as water emissions or resource depletion are omitted. Integration of
2.2 Indicators and Sustainable Development Data 33
all impacts, would require a consensus on these impact factors, their consequences
and the importance of their relative impact.
In summary, on environmental indicators, there is no consensus on the creation
of an index. The lack of consensus is not about impact indicators taken into account
but the relativity of impacts between themselves. The aggregation of indicators was
not successful and, in fact, the production of a consensus index is not performed.
Ecological context includes many factors. The high profile highlighting the risks of cli-
mate change and depletion of natural resources, is not new. The risk of global warm-
ing associated with the greenhouse effect had been identified by Arrhénus in 1896
(Dufresne et al. 2006). The fear of depletion of coal resources was raised by Jevons in
(1866). However, consumption and impacts resulting from rapid population growth,
have imposed awareness. So at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil that the
international community has truly become aware of the issue in terms of global warm-
ing, climate change, resource depletion, and destruction of flora and fauna.
Although vitiated by many uncertainties (Lorius 2003; Le Treut et al. 2008)
and sometimes even disputes (Enghoff and Svensmark 2008), a number of cli-
matic effects are accepted by the entire scientific community. In 1999, Michel
Petit listed, changes in temperature, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, the
influence of water vapour and rising sea level as certifiable phenomena.
At international level, the United Nations established in 1988, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose mission is to study the
issue of climate change. While in its first report in 1988, the IPCC still hesitated
to hold man responsible for global warming, the fourth report in 2007 leaves no
doubt on the issue.
For example, in France, the building sector is the largest consumer of energy
among all economic sectors, with the equivalent of 65.35 million tonnes of oil in
2009, or 43.88 % of the total final energy (Source: energy Statistics France, March
2005—Ministry of Ecology, Sustainable Development, Transport and Housing—
all metropolitan areas).
34 2 Building and Sustainable Development
Evaluate performance and simulate behaviours implies the use of data. On envi-
ronmental indices of products used in the building, some organizations have
undertaken the creation of databases. The most serious and known organisations
publish the specific protocols for the preparation of the databases. These databases
are listed and briefly analyzed in the Table 2.6.
Table 2.6 Database of sustainable development
Sectors Nature et specialities Qualities Défects
ECOINVENT All Database co-managed Tool inventory comprehensive The high cost of license
Switzerland by government agencies information lifecycle data
www.ecoinvent.org and professional global warming, acidification,
Environmental database primary energy, renewable,
of materials and systems non-renewable, eutrophication
for the building To facilitate environmental claims of
products, life cycle analysis, the
management lifecycle and design
for environmental
Very often used in assessment tools
KBOB Building Coordination conference Database which provides for the Do not provide information on
Switzerland www. construction services elements constituting the primary primary energy and GHG
bbl.admin.ch and building master public energy consumption and GHG
authority KBOB emissions of the solutions building
2.2 Indicators and Sustainable Development Data
Table 2.6 (continued)
Sectors Nature et specialities Qualities Défects
INIES Building Database co-managed by Based on the NF P01-010 standards The participation of the indus-
France www.inies.fr government agencies and established itself on the ISO 14040 trial producer leaves doubt
professional series for inventory evaluation in on the objectivity of the
Environmental and health life cycle and ISO 14020 for information
impacts environmental labelling
Provides data for global warming,
acidification, primary energy,
renewable, non-renewable,
eutrophication
Operation based on a specific protocol
between government agencies and
professionals under the control of
the Ministry
ICE- Building Process enrgy and GHG Compiles information internationally a Difficulty of control analysis
UK www.bath.ac. number of sources such as govern- and objectivity of the data
uk/mech-eng/sert/ ment agencies or private companies
embodied/ Conducted within the University of
Bath
IBO Building As a non-profit environmental Provides the primary data of global Data based on the declara-
impacts warming, acidification, energy, tion of manufacturers with
Autriche www.ibo.at renewable, non-renewable, eutroph- verification test
ication, ecological index
2 Building and Sustainable Development
2.2 Indicators and Sustainable Development Data 39
For ecological data, the necessity to provide values over the full life cycle as
defined in ISO 14040 is accepted by all databases. It is also important to have the
emission values for each phase of the life cycle.
2.2.3.1 Conclusion
Following the awareness of the impact of human activities on the environment and
more generally on sustainable development, the need for decision support tools
has ben revealed. This section summarizes the existing tools.
2.3.1.1 Standards
2.3.1.2 Benchmarks
There are numerous benchmarks in the building industry. Some of the major ones
are HQE, LEED, BREEAM, CASBEE…. Detailed analysis of the main bench-
marks is presented in Appendix 1. The summary of this analysis can show the
shallowness of taking into account the economic dimension, probably due to the
difficulty of its establishment. Furthermore, taking into account the lifespan is rare.
2.3 Tools for Ecological Performance 41
In France, the HQE certification has been analysed in detail (Hetzel 2009). The
objective of benchmarks is to set a common set of rules to guide designers and
builders. Eventually, this can result in a certification Benchmarks are also perfor-
mance evaluation and diagnostic tools. It is only recently, in its 2008 version that
the HQE Benchmark for environmental quality of buildings, encourages considera-
tion of adaptability on short, medium and long terms up until 100 years. For other
standards, when the latter is taken into account, it ranges from 30 to 90 years.
The performance assessment tools are those involved in the category of tools that
assist decision making. They are used at an advanced stage in design projects or at
the diagnostic stage for existing projects. They quantify phenomena and thus iden-
tify and compare the performance of solutions. As there are numerous assessment
tools, a comprehensive analysis was not possible. However, a detailed description
for the most popular tools has been provided in Appendix 2.
In 2002, a state-of-the-art survey by the HQE2R group mentioned the extreme
diversity of indicators using existing tools. The conclusion is that it is not feasible
to have a selection of indicators which is common to the whole European commu-
nity, and that a systematic adaption of the tools is therefore necessary.
In 2006, following careful analysis of existing tools, Ness B concluded that
all the evaluation tools focus on the environment (Ness 2006). There are no tools
addressing the social and economic aspect other than those dealing with costs.
Indicators are not integrated and evaluations are conducted on local or national
scales. Moreover, their analysis reveals an extreme simplification when taking into
account the lifetimes of products or buildings evaluated. Furthermore, lifetimes
considered are relatively short since the longest is 80 years, and none of these
tools actually assess the impact of lifetime. Another observation emphasizes the
scarce use of economic indicators.
Concerning the state of the art in tools that evaluate performance in terms of
sustainable development, Haapio carefully describes their conditions (Haapio and
Viitaniemi 2008). In summary, the researcher points out that the comparison of the
tools is difficult or impossible. Tools mainly concern ecological evaluation. The
overall assessment of the performance in terms of sustainable development seems
unattainable.
Concerning tools assisting decision making for property management, only
ASCOTT and APOGEE—PERIGEE models deal with overall costs and the eco-
nomic aspect in detail. The decision-assisting tool BEES and repository BREEAM
briefly evoke discounting. It seems that for the latter, no development is introduced
as regards the causes and consequences of the choice of rate, which leaves the
users to their own expertise. Other tools include no economic module.
The analysis of these tools suggests two conclusions. First, no integrated
assessment tool exists. Evaluations are essentially ecological and except for the
42 2 Building and Sustainable Development
issue of costs, no tool addresses the social and economic aspects. Second, evalu-
ations are conducted on national or local levels. At the building level, the assess-
ment tools deal with thermal and environmental aspects.
2.3.3 The Models
In 2001, Voglander proposed the Eco-cost Value Ratio (EVR). This is a model
which aims at the optimization of the design on the basis of efficiency (Vogtländer
et al. 2001). The assessment of environmental costs and the fight against these
costs as part of a response to a specific need provide, according to the author,
the most effective approach in terms of sustainable development. This is an
approach linking economic and environmental impacts. It has the distinction of
introducing the concept of full costs by taking into account the costs of exter-
nalities. This workable model in all sectors therefore proposes to establish a ratio
EVR = Ecocosts/Value. The Ecocost is the sum of the costs of toxic emissions,
energy consumption resources, depreciation of equipment and human labor. Its
value is that of the goods produced. This is a model of efficiency, with the object
of taking into account and reducing environmental impacts. Lifeitme is indirectly
integrated through the value of the goods.
Zhang has developed an evaluation model of the environmental performance of
buildings, BEPAS (Zhang 2005). After listing and weighing the overall environ-
mental impact of a building, the model makes an aggregate of its relative impact
and supplies a final score. Again, the lifetime for the evaluation is fixed a priori—
in this case 50 years.
Alwaer furthers the study of taking multiple criteria into account by looking at
the distribution of key indices in an approach to evaluate the performance of sus-
tainable development (Alwaer and Clements-Croome 2010). There is no reference
to the inclusion of lifetime in the choice of appropriate indicators.
N. Banaitiene presents a multicriteria evaluation method in the complete life
cycle of the building (Banaitiene et al. 2008). The method at no time refers to the
potential impact the life of the building—neither to the selection criteria, nor to the
consequences of the latter.
References
Alwaer H, Clements-Croome DJ (2010) Key performance indicators (KPIs) and priority setting
in using the multiattribute approach for assessing sustainable intelligent buildings. Build
Environ 45(4):799–807
Banaitiene N, Banaitis A, Kaklauskas A, Zavadskas EK (2008) Evaluating the life cycle of a
building: a multivariant and multiple criteria approach. Omega 36(3):429–441
Bernstein D, Champetier JP, Hamayon L, Traisnel JP, Vidal T (2006) Traité de construction dura-
ble : Principes et Détails de construction. Le Moniteur Editions, 15 Déc 2006
References 43