This section describes policies for sustainable building in Italy. The framework of policies for sustainable building which has been reviewed in Sections 8.1 and 8.2 is used to discuss Italian policies for sustainable building. In particular, the effectiveness of Italian policies is discussed below. Later, few suggestions for increasing the diffusion of green innovations in Italian buildings are reported.
Adjusting the priorities of policies to the peculiarities of each context is particularly important. For this, the recognition of barriers to the adoption of green innovations in real case studies is particularly useful. The Italian projects described in Chapters 6 and 7 have highlighted specific barriers to green innovations: low motivation of stakeholders, low request from clients, high transaction costs, difficulties in re-organising the building process and interaction between stakeholders.
As seen in Section 8.2, regulatory and control instruments have shown to be the most effective policies around the world. In Italy, these policies are widely used too and, in fact, national regulations are progressively requiring an increasing energy efficiency level of buildings under the pressure of European policies. The progressive reduction of the energy consumptions in buildings and the progressive increase in their sustainability levels show that European laws are frequently upgrading the requirements in terms of sustainability of buildings.
The requirements of new regulations were frequently cited during the interviews to stakeholders of the case studies considered in previous chapters.
All the stakeholders considered new laws about sustainability of buildings as highly stringent. Moreover, in several occasions, stakeholders were confused about the measures to take. In this sense, case studies showed that the performance-based laws which have been adopted in previous years should be supported by notes with practical solutions and examples of sustainable building.
The case studies showed that a low interest within the local government for the sustainability of the buildings existed. In Italy, the distance between national regulations and local regulations should surely be reduced in future policies. This could happen by imposing the local governments to adopt sustainability plans and regulations for green innovations and sustainable buildings in the local communities.
Another aspect related to local regulations and actions is the absence of policies of control for sustainability measures that are effectively adopted in the building and for post occupancy evaluations. This situation should be removed too, as a frequent activity of control over the actions taken in building sites could largely favour the adoption of green innovations in buildings and, hence the transition to sustainability of the building sector.
Moreover, requests for energy post-construction assessments are increasing worldwide after the limits of energy simulation and preconstruction modelling have been shown.
Economic- and market-based instruments are actually absent in the building sector in Italy. The recent financial crisis has made more critical the access to subsidies for green innovations for sustainable buildings. Moreover, the disperse consumption which characterises the building sector has prevented the diffusion of Kyoto mechanisms. In fact, as already seen at European level, Clean Development Mechanism or White/Green certificates are not suited for application in the building sector in Europe where the consumption are dispersed and fragmented in many buildings which lack of a common management (SBCI, 2007). The lack of economic and market instruments have been highly criticised during interviews, especially by general contractors who declared their difficulties for the over costs of sustainable innovations.
In Section 8.2, the high public cost of subsidies has been criticised.
Considering the international and national crises of recent years, other instruments have hence been considered to help the diffusion of green innovation and the transition towards sustainability of the Italian building sector.
Fiscal instruments are diffused in the Italian building sector. Since 2009, a vast program of fiscal instruments allows homeowners to compensate 55% of the cost of green technologies from annual taxes. This policy has been designed for owners that want to retrofit their houses. The result of this policy has been significant as it allowed substituting 2.5% of heat boilers with high-energy- efficient boilers in 2010 (ANCE, 2011). Between 2007 and 2009, more than 590.000 requalification projects for existing buildings have applied to fiscal incentives (ANCE, 2011), with a total investment of 8 M€. These data show the success of policies of fiscal instruments in Italy. However, looking in detail at the incentives that have been granted, 94% of actions have been taken by single- person owners of single houses. This shows that there is a request for fiscal instruments, which help promote interventions in multi-family buildings.
Moreover, as the construction of new buildings still represents a significant part of the investment in the building sector, a specific fiscal policy should be created to help the general contractors in the adoption of sustainable innovations in new buildings. During the interviews reported in Chapters 6 and 7, fiscal measures emerged that reduce the tax for the general contractor according to the sustainability of the construction; these measures could surely represent an incentive for sustainable buildings.
The last category of policies which has to be considered for “greening”
the Italian building sector is that of information and voluntary actions. Public leadership programs are still rare in Europe. An impulse to disseminate a culture of green innovations for sustainable buildings has been due to the sustainability assessment systems. Unfortunately, the low diffusion of sustainability labels in case studies and more in general in many European countries Italy represents a limited driver to the diffusion of green innovations. In fact, it prevents wider recognition of the advantages of sustainable buildings. A difficulty in recognising the experience and qualifications of actors has also emerged in the case studies.
This could be solved by incentivising specific programs which signal actors and actions of the increasing “green building economy”.
Finally, an increase in communication about sustainable building and more incentives for the diffusion of assessments, labels and certifications related to sustainability are necessary.
Chapter 9
Conclusions
The general framework of this book has been the management of green innovations in sustainable buildings. This book belongs, and hopes to contribute, to the worldwide discussion about sustainable building innovation. In order to respond to the increasing request for sustainable development, international policies as well as national actions are assigning significant importance to the
“greenness” of buildings. R&D in the manufacturing sector is offering new products for facilitating the sustainability of the building sector. However, the large-scale sustainability of buildings will still require significant strides by all parties involved.
An important goal of this book has been to investigate the differences in the stakeholders’ interactions in traditional and sustainable building processes. The interest and the influence of the different stakeholders of the building sector for the adoption of green technologies have been discussed.
Before answering the previous research questions, the book has clarified the recent interpretations of the concept of sustainable building, in order to avoid misunderstandings about the terminology.
The book has shown that an innovation or a building can be considered efficient or green for its environmental impacts. However, the “sustainable”
attribute requires taking into account economic and social impacts as well. This means that sustainability is more difficult than “greenness” to reach.
By examining the evolution of the concept of sustainable development in the last years, this book has shown that many factors compose the definition of what is sustainable in the building sector. In particular, the dependence of the concept of sustainability on time, scale, domain and social constraints has been discussed.
In order to better clarify the current definition of sustainability in the building sector, sustainability assessment systems for buildings have been reviewed. Differences and similarities among systems have been shown. The energy-saving innovations are considered priorities for sustainable building;
in fact, insulating materials and renewable energy technologies are particularly evaluated. Moreover, water efficiency technologies or green materials have been increasingly considered.
Later, the book described which green innovations have been adopted in a large sample of sustainable buildings in the U.S. The analysis of assessments of buildings has enabled the discussion on current practices of sustainable building. The study has shown that energy-saving innovations are still adopted relatively rarely in the building sector. Reversely, other technologies such as water efficiency innovations are diffuse. This shows differences in managing
different green innovations in buildings, and opens other questions related to the difficulties and differences in their management. Differences among innovations have been reviewed by considering their classification in incremental, modular, architectural, and radical innovations.
Difficulties of the building sector in adopting green innovations have been studied both by reviewing existing literature and by case studies investigations.
In particular, the book has shown that:
• Modular innovations are more easily adopted in buildings because they do not modify the way in which the technologies are assembled and integrated.
• Green innovations which are architectural innovations generally require a high level of knowledge and organisational changes in the interactions between stakeholders involved in their adoption.
• Green innovations which imply an architectural integration in the existing technologies of the building imply prohibitively high transaction costs which cause rare adoption.
Previous results show that different green innovations require different strategies for the adoption. In particular, the difficulties in the management of architectural (or radical) innovations in a sustainable building represent considerable barriers to the adoption of green innovations. The book has tried to make alive the complexities and difficulties in managing green innovations by interviewing stakeholders in many case studies. The description of building processes has helped to show the main difficulties that are encountered when adopting green innovations in buildings.
Stakeholders of construction processes have expressed their influence for the adoption of green innovations. Stakeholders’ influence has been measured after having evaluated their interest and power for the adoption of green technologies. The case studies showed some predictable results, as the high interest for green innovations from users, and the low interest of the general contractor. Surprisingly, among the barriers to green innovations that case studies have revealed, the lack of knowledge and experience about green innovations have been higher ranked than their cost. Moreover, other findings of the interviews were particularly surprising, for example:
• the design team showed low interest in the sustainability of the building.
Design teams generally agreed with the general contractors preferences, and they allowed accepting traditional, no risky and cheap technologies.
• the local government was poorly motivated towards green innovations and sustainable buildings. Although local government had high power to push the adoption, its interest was only focussed on national regulations and local laws, and it rarely considered the sustainability of the buildings.
The interviews showed that a main barrier for green innovations is represented by the late expression of interest during the construction process for the adoption of green technologies. The investigation of the influence of several stakeholders for sustainable innovations has shown the delay between the time in which design and building choices are made, and the time in which the interest for green technologies emerges. In particular, the investigation has showed the minimal influence for the adoption of green innovations of highly motivated but powerless stakeholders, as owners and users of the houses. This suggests that new organisational structures for building processes have to be encouraged. More occasions in which stakeholders can share their preferences and express their doubts are necessary. Organisational aspects among firms involved in the adoption of green innovations have a prime role in moving to sustainable buildings. How inter-firm relationships are changing as the building sector moves to sustainability has been discussed extensively. Organisational aspects in traditional and sustainable buildings have been compared, finding that green innovations for sustainable buildings are associated to:
• a high level of integration between the general contractor and its suppliers;
• a high level of integration between the general contractor and the design team;
• involving firms with a specialisation in sustainable building;
• not necessarily involving firms with certifications for sustainable building.
Inter-firm relationships of comakership between the general contractor and suppliers, and between the general contractor and the design team have shown to favour the adoption of green innovations in buildings. In fact, green innovations require high level of knowledge for the adoption and integration especially when they are architectural innovations. Architectural innovations modify the way in which technologies are assembled in the building and hence, they require actors with higher know-how on sustainability, as previous experiences or specific qualifications.
The importance and effectiveness of policies for sustainable buildings have also been considered. According to the insight of the case studies, new policies have been suggested to promote green innovations in buildings:
• regulatory and control instruments have shown to be the most effective policies, but they should continue to be upgraded frequently;
• performance-based laws should be supported by regulations and notes with practical examples of green innovations in buildings;
• the gap between national and local regulations has to be reduced, increasing the motivations of local governments towards green innovations in buildings;
• controls of the actions taken during the construction activities are necessary;
• post-occupancy evaluation of the performance of buildings is particularly important as a decoupling between predictions and final performances is often recorded.
• fiscal instruments are diffused and effective in the retrofitting of Italian buildings. However, specific fiscal policies should be created to help general contractors during the adoption of sustainable innovations in new buildings.
• occasions for communication and discussion between actors (for example, the general contractor and the users) about the adoption of green innovations should be incentivised.
The book has suggested that to facilitate the management of green innovations in buildings, it is necessary to take into account that sustainability is a complex socio-technical process. In the building sector, stakeholders take part in on-going processes of organising which influence the way they enact and manage (green) innovations.
In order to deal with sustainability issues, it is important to consider how the socio-technical networks of the building sector organise themselves. Interactions among stakeholders and actors of the building processes have to change, and the time, power, motivations and influences of different stakeholders have to be re-considered.
It can be concluded that there is a need to go beyond the prevalent normative and rationalistic technological view of green innovations. This can occur by promoting a perspective that considers green innovations that integrate techno- economic and social-organisational aspects.
Appendix
Questionnaire for the Interview about Building Practices
Answering the following questionnaire, please refer to the way that best reflects your views and indicate the way your firm is behaving. The survey contains questions regarding green innovations. In this interview, you will assess green innovations, i.e. processes or products new to the commonly assumed in your practice or activity which have a particularly high performance for sustainability.
General info: context of the analysis
The interviewed is asked to answer general questions about his activities Core competencies (Chapter 7)
Competences are investigated through firm activities and its portfolio
• Which are your firm’s core activities?
• How much do you incorporate innovations in your projects?
• Could you give reasons for this?
• How much do you invest for Green Innovations?
Sustainability rating and sustainability qualification (Chapters 3 and 7)
• Do you have an internal environmental training?
• Do you have an Environmental Management System?
• Do you have employees with sustainability qualification degrees?
• Have you ever been involved in buildings that were constructed with sustainability in mind?
Reasons and barriers for green innovations (Chapter 6)
Score the following reasons for your projects in relation to green innovations:
a) Government regulation b) Reduce environmental impact c) Awards for the Building d) Higher ROI on resale e) Higher rents f) Subsidies g) Firm image
h) Benefit from publicity
i) Expanding business with green client
Score the following barriers to projects with green innovations:
a) Increased components costs b) More complex constructions c) Position price of green buildings d) Documentation
e) Difficulty in quantifying benefits f) Lack of awareness about benefits g) Awareness of sustainability problems h) Short-term budget horizon
i) Design fee
j) Lead time in construction k) Proximity to resources l) Unsuitable site
m) Communication and language n) Perceived risks
Following questions are related to a specific medium size and residential project in which you have been involved in recent years
Stakeholders’ motivation (Chapter 6)
• Reasons for selection of the project
• Decision about the typology of the building
• How have you decided the quality of the building?
• How have you analysed customer request requirements?
Innovation introduction (Chapter 5)
• How much do you consider your project “innovative”? (on scale from 1 to 5)
• Firms that believe to have an innovative project (score 3-5) are asked to describe their innovations.
Green introduction (Chapter 5)
• How much do you consider your project “green”? (on scale from 1 to 5)
• Firms which claim to be innovative (results 3-5) are asked to describe their selections.
Which green innovations have you adopted for to the following categories?
Description of the
innovations Evaluation of
Innovations Modular or Architectural
Water Efficiency
Energy Production
Envelope Material Resources
Indoor Environmental Quality
others Innovations
Integration level of construction firm with suppliers (Chapter 7)
Please, fill empty spaces in the figure indicating the main suppliers for general contractor – suppliers network.
Supplier1 Supplier2 Supplier3 Supplier4 Supplier5 Supplier6 Duration of involvement in the project /
over duration of the overall project Phase of first involvement along the duration of the project Parameters used for supplier’s selection:
(5=Very Much, 1=Not at all) a)Price reduction on average b)Previous experiences c)Time reduction d)Contractual reliability e)Management reliability f)Integration in the project
a)b) c)d) e)f)
a)b) d)c) e)f)
a)b) c)d) e)f)
a)b) d)c) e)f)
a)b) c)d) e)f)
a)b) d)c) e)f) Power of the supplier
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences of product
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences of process
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences about green product integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences about green process
Core competencies of design team (Chapter 7)
• Specialisation
• Innovative projects in last 3 years
• Green Innovative projects in last 3 years
Design & general contractor firm relationship (Chapter 7)
The dyadic relationship between general contractor and design team is investigated.
• What percentage of your activity is performed jointly with design team
• What percentage of design team activity is jointed with you
• Have you selected one or more design firms?
• Duration of involvement in the project
• Phase of first involvement along the duration of the project
• Have you recourse to environmental or energy engineering?
• Rate the following parameters for suppliers’ selection
Very Much =5 Somewhat Undecided Not really Not at all = 1 Price reduction over average
Previous experiences
Time reduction
Contractual reliability
Management reliability
Integration in the project
Power of the supplier
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences of product
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences of process
integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences about green product integrating suppliers’ knowledge and competences about green process