discussion, Kemp (2010) stated that the “sustainable” attribute is not related to technology and cannot be used as a label for an object. In fact, an object cannot be evaluated independently from the ideation and production processes, the way and intensity of its use and the dismantling policies.
Consequently, it is always a risk to label something as sustainable. Finally, the evolution of the concept has shown that sustainability is better used as an evaluation perspective in a long-term path than as a fixed and rigid status. This discussion about the new meanings of sustainability will now be applied to the building sector, in order to understand the role and meaning of sustainable
contributed to increase the awareness among the actors of the building sector about criteria and objectives of sustainability, and they have become a framework of reference to assess and measure the sustainability of buildings. According to these systems a building is sustainable if it is built in an ecologically-oriented way which reduces its impact on the environment. However, many limits have recently been revealed in these systems (Berardi, 2011; Conte & Monno, 2012);
the evaluation is limited to the physical boundaries of the building, and it is mainly (or only) interpreted from the environmental perspective. Consequently, sustainability assessment methods have been accused of reducing the sustainability of building to the functioning of individual environmental criteria reflecting an idea of building as a consumer of resources (Conte & Monno, 2012).
Chapter 3 is dedicated to reviewing and comparing these systems.
Hill and Bowen (1997) suggested the principles of sustainable construction, which have been largely considered in sustainability assessment systems.
However, a shared definition of a sustainable building is still lacking. Lowe (2007) discussed the requirements for a sustainable building in the context of climate change and stressed the importance of GHG emission by limiting the energy requirements of buildings. In principle, a sustainable building has often been considered as a healthy built environment, based on ecological principles and resource efficiency (Kibert, 2012). By breaking down this definition, a sustainable building has been defined as a building with high efficiency in the use of energy, water and materials, and reduced impacts on the health and the environment through better siting, design, construction, operation, maintenance and removal throughout its life cycle (Cassidy, 2003).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that sustainable building is the practice of creating structures by using processes that are environmentally responsible, resource efficient and impact minimising in their life cycle from siting to deconstruction (EPA, 2008). Table 2.2 reports a list of the impacts that, according to the EPA, sustainable buildings should minimise (obviously, given the role of this agency, mainly environmental impacts are considered).
Table 2.2 Environmental resources and impacts minimised in a sustainable building, re-adapted from EPA (2008).
Resource
Consumption Environmental Impact → Ultimate Effects
• Energy
• Water
• Materials
• Site
• Biodiversity
• Waste
• Air pollution
• Water pollution & Storm-water run off
• Indoor pollution
• Heat islands
→ • Harm to Human Health
• Environment Degradation
• Loss of Resources
A sustainable building can be a new construction or the retrofit of an existing building. It has to be fully designed to answer its main functions: to provide space, to guarantee good indoor climate, to provide safety and security, to allow the use of goods and tools, to control the relationship with its surroundings, to take advantage of the site without damaging it, and to bring meaning (CIB, 2010). Consequently, a building contributes to sustainable development when designed and operated to match the appropriate fitness for use with minimum environmental impact, and when it is also able to encourage improvements in economic, social and cultural aspects of every stakeholder who is involved in the building process at every level.
The concept of sustainable building emerged before that of sustainable development, when in the middle of the last century, several communities, driven by the ambition of an ecological world, advocated for green buildings.
At the same time, the energy crisis which followed the embargo by OPEC led to the promotion of regulations to limit the energy consumption of buildings. As a result, energy consumption became a unit of measure for the sustainability of a building: green buildings were then required to be disconnected from the service grids and make use of natural materials. Still now, the Green Building Strategy of the EPA states that a “green building is also known as a sustainable or high-performance building” (EPA, 2008). In fact, especially in the U.S., these terms are used interchangeably.
A comparison between common sustainability assessment systems for buildings has shown that the greatest weight among the sustainability assessment criteria is generally assigned to energy performance (Berardi, 2011).
This is probably a consequence of the fact that the energy consumption of a building allows an easy perception of its characteristics, also given the economic implications of the consumption.
The large use of environmentally-related criteria for the sustainability of a building generates the necessity of clarifying the differences between the concepts of green and sustainable buildings. Table 2.3 compares the major issues of green buildings and sustainable ones, readapting information in UNEP (2003). In summary, the main differences consist of the economic and social dimensions of the sustainability, which only apply to sustainable buildings.
Sustainable buildings enlarge the boundaries and increase the requirements of green ones because they aim at satisfying all dimensions of sustainability. In this book, the implications of economic and social impacts related to the building are considered, and, hence, the focus is on sustainable building.
The evolution of the concept of sustainability, described in Section 2.1, implies a new consideration of the attribute of sustainability in the built environment.
In particular, a shift to a “cradle-to-cradle” approach in the evaluation of the sustainability of a building is nowadays unavoidable (McDonough & Braungart, 2002). Until a few years ago, the sustainability evaluation of buildings looked at
a time-limited life of building materials, and partially considered their impacts on a long-term perspective. However, given that 70% of all the materials ever extracted are in the built environment (Kibert, 2007), it is obvious that a sustainable building has to integrally manage the materials and resources it requires in the longest perspective.
Reed (2007) has described the necessity to consider and design building materials as biological nutrients which provide nourishment after use and circulate through the world’s systems in closed-loop cycles of production, recovery and re-manufacture. To promote sustainability in the built environment, Reed (2007) proposes shifting from green design towards a state of regeneration.
He describes green design as continual improvement in design. He looks at the present concept of sustainable design as the point where the planet could be maintained over time in a neutral stage. The necessity for an in-depth approach to building design in which humans restart being an integral part of nature (re- conciliatory design) and co-evolve in a systemic whole with nature (regenerative design) represents the last frontier of sustainable building design.
A regenerative design approach allows the integration of physical, functional, and spiritual attributes in an integrative perspective (du Plessis & Cole, 2011).
Obviously, a regenerative approach in the built environment is a long way from the fragmentation indicated in current practices for sustainable buildings based on the simple and disconnected adoption of green technologies. For this, systemic thinking and a reconciled partnership with nature have to replace the technocratic approach which still characterises the sustainability in the built
Table 2.3. Major issues in green and sustainable buildings, re-adapted from UNEP (2003).
Major Issues of the Building Performance Green
Building Sustainable Building Consumption of non-renewable resources
Water consumption Materials consumption Land use
Impacts on site ecology Urban and planning issues Greenhouse gas emissions Atmospheric emissions Solid waste & liquid effluents
Indoor well-being: air quality, lighting, acoustics Longevity, adaptability, flexibility
Operations and maintenance Facilities management
Social issues (access, education, inclusion) Economic considerations
Cultural perception and inspiration
x x x x x (x)
x x x (x)
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
environment. This concept of a sustainable building exceeds the environmental perspective and looks at the building as live system with dynamic flows with the nature (Reed, 2007). This means that the building cannot be considered as a simple consumer of resources of the planet. Consequently, a sustainable