Reflections on the Environmental Impact of 'Vegetarian' Buildings, and on the Reliability of Databases

Abstract:

This paper proposes some considerations stemming from the analysis of fourteen ecologically oriented buildings, that show different approaches to “vegetarian architecture” – a theoretical stance based on principles learnt from agriculture and nutrition. The research includes a systematic investigation of the constructional characteristics of each building, and the inventorisation of their components. The ‘cradle to gate’ embodied energy and ‘embodied carbon’ were then calculated, based on two open access databases, ICE and Ökobaudat. The comparison of the results allowed a discussion of the design solutions in terms of building form, as well as of efficient use of building materials and construction technologies. The interest in verifying whether such ‘vegetarian’ buildings have a lower environmental impact than conventional buildings led to note that at the present time there is still a lack of credible benchmarks. The sometimes disorienting discrepancy between the two databases and their change over time suggested a reflection on the databases’ assumptions and their reliability. It was also found that mainstream databases are ill-suited to calculate the impact of ‘vegetarian’ constructions, as they don’t cover organically grown, little processed building materials, which imply labour-intensive building technologies.

• Periodical: Construction Technologies and Architecture (Volume 1)
• Pages: 395-404
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/CTA.1.395
• Online since: January 2022
• Authors: Andrea Bocco*, Martina Bocci
• Keywords: Embodied Carbon, Embodied Energy, Environmental Impact of Buildings, Low-Tech

References

[1] Anand, C. K.; Amor B., 2017. Recent developments, future challenges and new research directions in LCA of buildings: A critical review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 408-416. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.058

[2] Berge, B., 2009. The Ecology of Building Materials, Architectural Press, London, 2nd ed.

[3] Birgisdóttir, H., et al., 2017. IEA EBC annex 57 evaluation of embodied energy and CO2eq for building construction,. Case Studies demonstrating Embodied Energy and Embodied Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Building, Energy and Buildings, 154, 72–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild. 2017.08.030.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.030

[4] Bjørn, A.; Hauschild, M.Z., 2015. Introducing carrying capacity-based normalisation in LCA: framework and development of references at midpoint level, International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 20, 1005–1018. https://doi-org.ezproxy.biblio.polito.it/10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2.

DOI: 10.1007/s11367-015-0899-2

[5] BMI - Deutsche Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, 2021. Ökobau data 2021. Deutsche Bundesministerium des Innern, für Bau und Heimat, Berlin [www.oekobaudat.de].

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-658-27029-2_12

[6] Bocco, A.; Gerace, M.; Pollini, S., 2019. The environmental impact of Sieben Linden Ecovillage, Abingdon: Routledge [https://www-taylorfrancis-com.ezproxy.biblio.polito.it/books/environmental-impact-sieben-linden-ecovillage-andrea-bocco-martina-gerace-susanna-pollini/e/10.4324/9780429032349].

DOI: 10.4324/9780429032349

[7] Bocco Guarneri, A., 2020. Vegetarian Architecture. Case Studies on Building and Nature. Jovis, Berlin.

[8] De Decker, K., 2018. Bedazzled by Energy Efficiency, Low-Tech Magazine, 9 January [https://www.lowtechmagazine. com/2018/01/bedazzled-by-energy-efficiency.html].

[9] Dixit, M.K., 2017. Life cycle embodied energy analysis of residential buildings: A review of literature to investigate embodied energy parameters, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 79, 390–413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.05.051

[10] Ghavami, K., et al. (eds.), 2014. Non-Conventional Materials and Technologies for Sustainable Engineering, Dürnten: Trans Tech Publications. ISBN: 978-3-03785-981-0.

[11] Habert, G., et al., 2020. Carbon budgets for buildings: harmonising temporal, spatial and sectoral dimensions. Buildings and Cities, 1(1), 429–452. http://doi.org/10.5334/bc.47.

DOI: 10.5334/bc.47

[12] Hammond, G.; Jones, C., 2011. Inventory of carbon & energy, University of Bath [https://www.carbonsolutions.com/Resources/ ICE%20V2.0%20-%20Jan%202011.xls].

[13] Harries, K.A.; Sharma, B. (eds.), 2016. Nonconventional and Vernacular Construction Materials, Woodhead Publishing, Sawston.

[14] Hoxha, E., et al., 2017. Influence of construction material uncertainties on residential building LCA reliability. J. Clean. Prod. 144, 33-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.068.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.068

[15] Ibn-Mohammed, T., et al., 2013. Operational vs. embodied emissions in buildings—A review of current trends. Energy Build. 66, 232–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.07.026

[16] Jones, C.; Hammond, G., 2019. Inventory of carbon & energy. Circular Ecology and University of Bath [http://www.circularecology.com/embodied-energy-and-carbon-footprint-database.html].

[17] Lewandowska, A., et al., 2015. Between full LCA and energy certification methodology—a comparison of six methodological variants of buildings environmental assessment. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 20, 9–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-014-0805-3.

DOI: 10.1007/s11367-014-0805-3

[18] Martínez-Rocamora, A.; et al., 2016. LCA databases focused on construction materials: A review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 58, 565–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.243.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2015.12.243

[19] Moncaster, A.M.; Song, J.-Y., 2012. A comparative review of existing data and methodologies for calculating embodied energy and carbon of buildings. Int. J. Sustain. Build Technol. Urban Dev. 3 (1), 26-36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/2093761X.2012.673915.

DOI: 10.1080/2093761x.2012.673915

[20] Moncaster, A.M., et al., 2019. Widening understanding of low embodied impact buildings: Results and recommendations from 80 multi-national quantitative and qualitative case studies, Journal of Cleaner Production, 235, 378-393. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.233.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.06.233

[21] Nykjær-Brejnrod, K., et al., 2017. The absolute environmental performance of buildings, Buildings and environment, 119, 87–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.04.003.

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.04.003

[22] Optis, M.; Wild, P., 2010. Inadequate documentation in published life cycle energy reports on buildings. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 15, 644–651. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0203-4.

DOI: 10.1007/s11367-010-0203-4

[23] Pomponi, F.; Moncaster, A.M., 2016. Embodied carbon mitigation and reduction in the built environment – What does the evidence say? J. Environ. Manag. 181, 687-700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.08.036

[24] Ramesh, T., et al., 2010. Life cycle energy analysis of buildings: An overview. Energy Build. 42, 1592–1600. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2010.05.007

[25] Rasmussen, F.N,. et al., 2018. Analysing methodological choices in calculations of embodied energy and GHG emissions from buildings. Energy and Buildings, 158, 1487-1498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.013.

DOI: 10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.11.013

[26] Rinkinen, J.; Shove, E.; Torriti, J., (eds.), 2019. Energy Fables: Challenging Ideas in the Energy Sector, Routledge.

DOI: 10.4324/9780429397813

[27] Röck, M., et al., 2019. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – The hidden challenge for effective climate change mitigation. Applied Energy 114107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107.

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114107

[28] Röck, M., et al., 2020. Embodied GHG emissions of buildings – Critical reflection of benchmark comparison and in-depth analysis of drivers. IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 588 032048.

DOI: 10.1088/1755-1315/588/3/032048

[29] Säynäjoki, A.,et al., 2017. Can life-cycle assessment produce reliable policy guidelines in the building sector? Environ Res Lett;12. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee.

DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/aa54ee

[30] Schwartz, Y., et al., 2018. The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished and new buildings – A systematic review of case studies. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 81, 231-241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.061.

DOI: 10.1016/j.rser.2017.07.061

[31] Sertorio, L.; Renda, E., 2008. Cento watt per il prossimo miliardo di anni. Bollati Boringhieri, Torino.

[32] Shove, E., 2010. Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change, Environment and planning A, 42, 6, 1273-1285.

DOI: 10.1068/a42282

[33] Simonen, K., et al., 2017. Benchmarking the Embodied Carbon of Buildings. Technology|Architecture + Design, 1:2, 208-218. https://doi.org/10.1080/24751448.2017.1354623.

DOI: 10.1080/24751448.2017.1354623

[34] Takano, A., et al., 2014. Comparison of life cycle assessment databases: a case study on building assessment. Build. Environ. 79, 20–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025.

DOI: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025

[35] Vale, R.; Vale, B., 2009. Time to Eat the Dog? The Real Guide to Sustainable Living, Thames & Hudson, London.

[36] Vale, R.; Vale, B. (eds.), 2013. Living within a Fair Share Ecological Footprint, Routledge, Abingdon.

DOI: 10.4324/9780203126448

[37] Walker, P. et al. (eds.), 2009. 11th International Conference on Non-conventional Materials and Technologies. NOCMAT 2009. Conference proceedings, Bath: University of Bath.

[38] Woolley, T., 2006. Natural building. A guide to materials and techniques, The Crowood Press, Ramsbury.

[39] Woolley, T., 2013. Low Impact Building. Housing using renewable materials, Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester.